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

1

<html>

2

<HEAD>

3

4

<TITLE>I.8 Does revolutionary Spain show that libertarian socialism can work in practice?</TITLE>

5

</HEAD>

6

<BODY>

7

8

<h1>I.8 Does revolutionary Spain show that libertarian socialism can work in practice?</h1>

9

10

Yes. As Murray Bookchin puts it, "[i]n Spain, millions of people took

11

large segments of the economy into their own hands, collectivised them,

12

administered them, even abolished money and lived by communistic

13

principles of work and distribution -- all of this in the midst of a

14

terrible civil war, yet without producing the chaos or even the serious

15

dislocations that were and still are predicted by authoritarian

16

'radicals.' Indeed, in many collectivised areas, the efficiency with

17

which an enterprise worked by far exceeded that of a comparable one in

18

nationalised or private sectors. This 'green shoot' of revolutionary

19

reality has more meaning for us than the most persuasive theoretical

20

arguments to the contrary. On this score it is not the anarchists who are

21

the 'unrealistic day-dreamers,' but their opponents who have turned their

22

backs to the facts or have shamelessly concealed them." ["Introductory

23

Essay," in The Anarchist Collectives, Sam Dolgoff (ed.), p. xxxix]

24

25

Sam Dolgoff's book is by far the best English source on the Spanish

26

collectives and deserves to be quoted at length (as we do below). He

27

quotes French Anarchist Gaston Leval comments that in those areas

28

which defeated the fascist uprising on the 19th of July 1936 a

29

profound social revolution took place based, mostly, on anarchist

30

ideas:

31

32

"In Spain, during almost three years, despite a civil war that took

33

a million lives, despite the opposition of the political parties . . .

34

this idea of libertarian communism was put into effect. Very quickly

35

more than 60% of the land was very quickly collectively cultivated by

36

the peasants themselves, without landlords, without bosses, and without

37

instituting capitalist competition to spur production. In almost all the

38

industries, factories, mills, workshops, transportation services, public

39

services, and utilities, the rank and file workers, their revolutionary

40

committees, and their syndicates reorganised and administered production,

41

distribution, and public services without capitalists, high-salaried

42

managers, or the authority of the state.

43

44

"Even more: the various agrarian and industrial collectives immediately

45

instituted economic equality in accordance with the essential principle

46

of communism, 'From each according to his ability and to each according

47

to his needs.' They co-ordinated their efforts through free association

48

in whole regions, created new wealth, increased production (especially

49

in agriculture), built more schools, and bettered public services. They

50

instituted not bourgeois formal democracy but genuine grass roots

51

functional libertarian democracy, where each individual participated

52

directly in the revolutionary reorganisation of social life. They

53

replaced the war between men, 'survival of the fittest,' by the

54

universal practice of mutual aid, and replaced rivalry by the principle

55

of solidarity . . .

56

57

"This experience, in which about eight million people directly or

58

indirectly participated, opened a new way of life to those who

59

sought an alternative to anti-social capitalism on the one hand,

60

and totalitarian state bogus socialism on the other." [Op. Cit.,

61

pp. 6-7]

62

</blockquote>

63

Thus about eight million people directly or indirectly participated in

64

the libertarian based new economy during the short time it was able to

65

survive the military assaults of the fascists and the attacks and

66

sabotage of the Communists. This in itself suggests that libertarian

67

socialist ideas are of a practical nature.

68

69

Lest the reader think that Dolgoff and Bookchin are exaggerating the

70

accomplishments and ignoring the failures of the Spanish collectives,

71

in the following subsections we will present specific details and answer

72

some objections often raised by misinformed critics. We will try to present

73

an objective analysis of the revolution, its many successes, its strong

74

points and weak points, the mistakes made and possible lessons to be

75

drawn from the experience, both from the successes and the mistakes.

76

77

This libertarian influenced revolution has (generally) been ignored

78

by historians, or its existence mentioned in passing. Some so-called

79

historians and "objective investigators" have slandered it and lied

80

about (when not ignoring) the role anarchists played in it. Communist

81

histories are particularly unreliable (to use a polite word for their

82

activities) but it seems that almost every political perspective

83

has done this (including liberal, right-wing libertarian, Stalinist,

84

Trotskyist, Marxist, and so on). Indeed, the myths generated by

85

Marxists of various shades are quite extensive (see the appendix

86

on <a href="append32.html">"Marxists and Spanish Anarchism"</a>

87

for a reply to some of the

88

more common ones).

89

90

Thus any attempt to investigate what actually occurred in Spain and

91

the anarchists' role in it is subject to a great deal of difficulty.

92

Moreover, the positive role that Anarchists played in the revolution

93

and the positive results of our ideas when applied in practice are

94

also downplayed, if not ignored. Indeed, the misrepresentations of

95

the Spanish Anarchist movement are downright amazing (see Jerome R.

96

Mintz's wonderful book The Anarchists of Casa Viejas for a

97

refutation of the historians claims, a refutation based on oral

98

history, as well as J. Romero Maura's, "The Spanish case",

99

contained in Anarchism Today, edited by J. Joll and D. Apter.

100

Both are essential reading to understand the distortions of

101

historians about the Spanish anarchist movement).

102

103

All we can do here is present a summary of the social revolution

104

that took place and attempt to explode a few of the myths that

105

have been created around the work of the C.N.T. and F.A.I. during

106

those years.

107

108

In addition, we must stress that this section of the FAQ can

109

be nothing but an introduction to the Spanish Revolution. We

110

concentrate on the economic and political aspects of the

111

revolution as we cannot cover the social transformations

112

that occurred. All across non-fascist Spain traditional social

113

relationships between men and women, adults and children,

114

individual and individual were transformed, revolutionised,

115

in a libertarian way. C.N.T. militant Abel Paz gives a good

116

indication of this when he wrote:

117

118

"Industry is in the hands of the workers and all the production

119

centres conspicuously fly the red and black flags as well as

120

inscriptions announcing that they have really become collectives.

121

The revolution seems to be universal. Changes are also evident

122

in social relations. The former barriers which used to separate

123

men and woman arbitrarily have been destroyed. In the cafes and

124

other public places there is a mingling of the sexes which would

125

have been completely unimaginable before. The revolution has

126

introduced a fraternal character to social relations which has

127

deepened with practice and show clearly that the old world is

128

dead." [Durruti: The People Armed, p. 243]

129

</blockquote>

130

The social transformation empowered individuals and these, in

131

turn, transformed society. Anarchist militant Enriqueta Rovira

132

presents a vivid picture of the self-liberation the revolution

133

generated:

134

135

"The atmosphere then [during the revolution], the feelings were

136

very special. It was beautiful. A feeling of -- how shall I say

137

it -- of power, not in the sense of domination, but in the

138

sense of things being under our control, of under anyone's.

139

Of possibility. We had everything. We had Barcelona: It

140

was ours. You'd walk out in the streets, and they were ours

141

different. Full of possibility. A feeling that we could,

142

together, really do something. That we could make things

143

different." [quoted by Martha A. Ackelsberg and Myrna

144

Margulies Breithart, "Terrains of Protest: Striking City

145

Women", pp. 151-176, Our Generation, vol. 19, No. 1,

146

pp. 164-5]

147

</blockquote>

148

Moreover, the transformation of society that occurred during the

149

revolution extended to all areas of life and work. For example,

150

the revolution saw "the creation of a health workers' union,

151

a true experiment in socialised medicine. They provided medical

152

assistance and opened hospitals and clinics." [Juan Gomez Casas,

153

Anarchist Organisation: The History of the FAI, p. 192] We

154

discuss this example in some detail in

155

<a href="secI5.html#seci512">section I.5.12</a> and so

156

will not do so here. Therefore, we must stress that this section

157

of the FAQ is just an introduction to what happened and does

158

not (indeed, cannot) discuss all aspects of the revolution.

159

We just present an overview, bringing out the libertarian

160

aspects of the revolution, the ways workers' self-management

161

was organised, how the collectives organised and what they did.

162

163

Needless to say, many mistakes were made during the revolution.

164

We point out and discuss some of them in what follows. Moreover,

165

much of what happened did not correspond exactly with what

166

many people consider as the essential steps in a communist

167

(libertarian or otherwise) revolution. Economically, for

168

example, few collectives reached beyond a mutualist or

169

collectivist state. Politically, the fear of a fascist

170

victory made many anarchists accept collaboration with the

171

state as a lessor evil. However, to dismiss the Spanish

172

Revolution because it did not meet the ideas laid out by

173

a handful of revolutionaries would be sectarian and elitist

174

nonsense. No working class revolution is pure, no mass

175

struggle is without its contradictions, no attempt to

176

change society will be perfect. "It is only those who do

177

nothing who make no mistakes," as Kropotkin so correctly

178

pointed out. [Kropotkin's Revolutionary Pamphlets,

179

p. 143] The question is whether the revolution creates

180

a system of institutions which will allow those involved

181

to discuss the problems they face and correct the decisions

182

they make. In this, the Spanish Revolution clearly

183

succeeded, creating organisations based on the initiative,

184

autonomy and power of working class people.

185

186

For more information about the social revolution, Sam Dolgoff's The

187

Anarchist Collectives is an excellent starting place. Gaston Leval's

188

Collectives in the Spanish Revolution is another essential text.

189

Jose Pierat's Anarchists in the Spanish Revolution and Vernon

190

Richards' Lessons of the Spanish Revolution are excellent critical

191

anarchist works on the revolution and the role of the anarchists.

192

Robert Alexander's The Anarchists in the Spanish Civil War is a

193

good general overview of the anarchist's role in the revolution

194

and civil war, as is Burnett Bolloten's The Spanish Civil War.

195

Noam Chomsky's excellent essay "Objectivity and Liberal Scholarship"

196

indicates how liberal books on the Spanish Civil War can be

197

misleading, unfair and essentially ideological in nature (this

198

classic essay can be found in The Chomsky Reader and American

199

Power and the New Mandarins). George Orwell's Homage to Catalonia

200

cannot be bettered as an introduction to the subject (Orwell was

201

in the POUM militia at the Aragon Front and was in Barcelona during

202

the May Days of 1937).

203

204

<a name="seci81"><h2>I.8.1 Wasn't the Spanish Revolution primarily a rural phenomenon and therefore inapplicable as a model for modern industrialised societies?</h2>

205

206

Quite the reverse. More urban workers took part in the revolution

207

than in the countryside. So while it is true that collectivisation

208

was extensive in rural areas, the revolution also made its mark in

209

urban areas and in industry.

210

211

In total, the "regions most affected" by collectivisation

212

"were Catalonia and Aragon, were about 70 per cent of the

213

workforce was involved. The total for the whole of Republican

214

territory was nearly 800,000 on the land and a little more

215

than a million in industry. In Barcelona workers' committees

216

took over all the services, the oil monopoly, the shipping

217

companies, heavy engineering firms such as Volcano, the

218

Ford motor company, chemical companies, the textile

219

industry and a host of smaller enterprises. . . Services

220

such as water, gas and electricity were working under

221

new management within hours of the storming of the

222

Atarazanas barracks . . .a conversion of appropriate

223

factories to war production meant that metallurgical

224

concerns had started to produce armed cars by 22 July

225

. . . The industrial workers of Catalonia were the most

226

skilled in Spain . . . One of the most impressive

227

feats of those early days was the resurrection of

228

the public transport system at a time when the streets

229

were still littered and barricaded." Five days after

230

the fighting had stopped, 700 tramcars rather than

231

the usual 600, all painted in the colours of the

232

CNT-FAI were operating in Barcelona." [Antony Beevor,

233

The Spanish Civil War, pp. 91-2]

234

235

About 75% of Spanish industry was concentrated in Catalonia,

236

the stronghold of the anarchist labour movement, and widespread

237

collectivisation of factories took place there. However,

238

collectivisation was not limited to Catalonia and took place

239

all across urban as well as rural Republican Spain. As Sam Dolgoff

240

rightly observes, "[t]his refutes decisively the allegation that

241

anarchist organisational principles are not applicable to industrial

242

areas, and if at all, only in primitive agrarian societies or in

243

isolated experimental communities." [The Anarchist Collectives,

244

pp. 7-8]

245

246

There had been a long tradition of peasant collectivism in the Iberian

247

Peninsula, as there was among the Berbers and in the ancient Russian

248

mir. The historians Costa and Reparaz maintain that a great many

249

Iberian collectives can be traced to "a form of rural libertarian-communism

250

[which] existed in the Iberian Peninsula before the Roman invasion. Not

251

even five centuries of oppression by Catholic kings, the State and the

252

Church have been able to eradicate the spontaneous tendency to establish

253

libertarian communistic communities." [cited, Op. Cit., p. 20] So it

254

is not surprising that there were collectives in the countryside.

255

256

According to Augustin Souchy, "[i]t is no simple matter to collectivise

257

and place on firm foundations an industry employing almost a quarter of a

258

million textile workers in scores of factories scattered in numerous

259

cities. But the Barcelona syndicalist textile union accomplished this

260

feat in a short time. It was a tremendously significant experiment. The

261

dictatorship of the bosses was toppled, and wages, working conditions and

262

production were determined by the workers and their elected delegates.

263

All functionaries had to carry out the instructions of the membership and

264

report back directly to the men on the job and union meetings. The

265

collectivisation of the textile industry shatters once and for all the

266

legend that the workers are incapable of administrating a great and

267

complex corporation" [cited, Op. Cit., p. 94].

268

269

Moreover, Spain in the 1930s was not a "backward, peasant country,"

270

as is sometimes supposed. Between 1910 and 1930, the industrial

271

working class more than doubled to over 2,500,000. This represented

272

just over 26% of the working population (compared to 16% twenty

273

years previously). In 1930, 45 per cent of the working population

274

were engaged in agriculture. [Ronald Fraser, The Blood of Spain,

275

p. 38] In Catalonia alone, 200,000 workers were employed in the

276

textile industry and 70,000 in metal-working and machinery

277

manufacturing. This was very different than the situation in

278

Russia at the end of World War I, where the urban working class

279

made up only 10% of the population.

280

281

Capitalist social relations had also penetrated agriculture much

282

more thoroughly than in "backward, underdeveloped" countries by

283

the 1930s. In Russia at the end of World War I, for example,

284

agriculture mostly consisted of small farms on which peasant

285

families worked mainly for their own subsistence, bartering or

286

selling their surplus. In Spain, however, agriculture was

287

oriented to the world market and by the 1930s approximately

288

90% of farm land was in the hands of the bourgeoisie. [Fraser,

289

Op. Cit., p. 37] Spanish agribusiness also employed large

290

numbers of labourers who did not own enough land to support

291

themselves. The revolutionary labour movement in the Spanish

292

countryside in the 1930s was precisely based on this large

293

population of rural wage-earners (the socialist UGT land

294

workers union had 451,000 members in 1933, 40% of its total

295

membership, for example).

296

297

Therefore the Spanish Revolution cannot be dismissed as a product

298

a of pre-industrial society. The urban collectivisations occurred

299

predominately in the most heavily industrialised part of Spain

300

and indicate that anarchist ideas are applicable to modern

301

societies (indeed, the CNT organised most of the unionised

302

urban working class). By 1936 agriculture itself was

303

predominately capitalist (with 2% of the population owning

304

67% of the land). The revolution in Spain was the work (mostly)

305

of rural and urban wage labourers (joined with poor peasants)

306

fighting a well developed capitalist system.

307

308

Therefore, the anarchist revolution in Spain has many lessons

309

for revolutionaries in developed capitalist countries and cannot

310

be dismissed as a product of industrial backwardness.

311

312

<a name="seci82"><h2>I.8.2 How were the anarchists able to obtain mass popular support in Spain?</h2>

313

314

Anarchism was introduced in Spain in 1868 by Giuseppi Fanelli, an

315

associate of Michael Bakunin, and found fertile soil among both the

316

workers and the peasants of Spain.

317

318

The peasants supported anarchism because of the rural tradition of

319

Iberian collectivism mentioned in the

320

<a href="secI8.html#seci81">last section</a>. The urban workers

321

supported it because its ideas of direct action, solidarity and free

322

federation of unions corresponded to their needs in their struggle

323

against capitalism and the state.

324

325

In addition, many Spanish workers were well aware of the dangers of

326

centralisation and the republican tradition in Spain was very much

327

influenced by federalist ideas (coming, in part, from Proudhon's work).

328

The movement later spread back and forth between countryside and cities

329

as union organisers and anarchist militants visited villages and as

330

peasants came to industrial cities like Barcelona, looking for work.

331

332

Therefore, from the start anarchism in Spain was associated with the

333

labour movement (as Bakunin desired) and so anarchists had a practical

334

area to apply their ideas and spread the anarchist message. By applying

335

their principles in everyday life, the anarchists in Spain ensured that

336

anarchist ideas became commonplace and accepted in a large section of

337

the population.

338

339

This acceptance of anarchism cannot be separated from the structure

340

and tactics of the C.N.T. and its fore-runners. The practice of direct

341

action and solidarity encouraged workers to rely on themselves to

342

identify and solve their own problems. The decentralised structure

343

of the anarchist unions had an educational effect of their members.

344

By discussing issues, struggles, tactics, ideals and politics in

345

their union assemblies, the members of the union educated themselves

346

and, by the process of self-management in the struggle, prepared

347

themselves for a free society. The very organisational structure of

348

the C.N.T. ensured the dominance of anarchist ideas and the political

349

evolution of the union membership. As one C.N.T. militant from Casas

350

Viejas put it, new members "asked for too much, because they lacked

351

education. They thought they could reach the sky without a ladder . . .

352

they were beginning to learn . . . There was good faith but lack

353

of education. For that reason we would submit ideas to the assembly,

354

and the bad ideas would be thrown out." [quoted by J. Mintz, The

355

Anarchists of Casas Viejas, p. 27]

356

357

It was by working in the union meetings that anarchists influenced

358

their fellow workers. The idea that the anarchists, through the

359

F.A.I, controlled the C.N.T is a myth. Not all anarchists in the

360

C.N.T were members of the F.A.I, for example. Almost all F.A.I

361

members were also rank-and-file members of the C.N.T. who took part

362

in union meetings as equals. Anarchists were not members of the FAI

363

indicate this. Jose Borras Casacarosa notes that "[o]ne has to

364

recognise that the F.A.I. did not intervene in the C.N.T. from

365

above or in an authoritarian manner as did other political

366

parties in the unions. It did so from the base through militants

367

. . . the decisions which determined the course taken by the

368

C.N.T. were taken under constant pressure from these militants."

369

Jose Campos notes that F.A.I. militants "tended to reject control

370

of confederal committees and only accepted them on specific

371

occassions . . . if someone proposed a motion in assembly, the

372

other F.A.I. members would support it, usually successfully.

373

It was the individual standing of the faista in open assembly."

374

[quoted by Stuart Christie, We, the Anarchists, p. 62]

375

376

This explains the success of anarchism in the CNT. Anarchist

377

ideas, principles and tactics, submitted to the union assemblies,

378

proved to be good ideas and were not thrown out. The structure of

379

the organisation, in other words, decisively influenced the content

380

of the decisions reached as ideas, tactics, union policy and so

381

on were discussed by the membership and those which best applied

382

to the members lives were accepted and implemented. The C.N.T

383

assemblies showed the validity of Bakunin's arguments for

384

self-managed unions as a means of ensuring workers' control of

385

their own destinies and organisations. As he put it, the union

386

"sections could defend their rights and their autonomy [against

387

union bureaucracy] in only one way: the workers called general

388

membership meetings . . . In these great meetings of the sections,

389

the items on the agenda were amply discussed and the most progressive

390

opinion prevailed." [Bakunin on Anarchism, p. 247] The C.N.T

391

was built on such "popular assemblies," with the same radicalising

392

effect. It showed, in practice, that bosses (capitalist as well as

393

union ones) were not needed -- workers can manage their own affairs

394

directly. As a school for anarchism it could not be bettered as it

395

showed that anarchist principles were not utopian. The C.N.T, by

396

being based on workers' self-management of the class struggle,

397

prepared its members for workers' self-management of the revolution

398

and the new society.

399

400

The Spanish Revolution also shows the importance of anarchist

401

education and media. In a country with a very high illiteracy

402

rate, huge quantities of literature on social revolution were

403

disseminated and read out loud at meetings by those who could

404

read to those who could not. Anarchist ideas were widely

405

discussed. "There were tens of thousands of books, pamphlets

406

and tracts, vast and daring cultural and popular educational

407

experiments (the Ferrer schools) that reached into almost

408

every village and hamlet throughout Spain." [The Anarchist

409

Collectives, p. 27] The discussion of political, economic and

410

social ideas was continuous, and "the centro [local union hall]

411

became the gathering place to discuss social issues and to

412

dream and plan for the future. Those who aspired to learn to

413

read and write would sit around . . . studying." [Jerome R. Mintz,

414

The Anarchists of Casas Viejas, p. 160] One anarchist militant

415

described it as follows:

416

417

"With what joy the orators were received whenever a meeting

418

was held . . . We spoke that night about everything: of the

419

ruling inequality of the regime and of how one had a right

420

to a life without selfishness, hatred, without wars and

421

suffering. We were called on another occasion and a crowd

422

gathered larger than the first time. That's how the pueblo

423

started to evolve, fighting the present regime to win

424

something by which they could sustain themselves, and

425

dreaming of the day when it would be possible to create

426

that society some depict in books, others by word of mouth.

427

Avid for learning, they read everything, debated, discussed,

428

and chatted about the different modes of perfect social

429

existence." [Perez Cordon, quoted by Jerome R. Mintz,

430

Op. Cit., p. 158]

431

</blockquote>

432

Newspapers and periodicals were extremely important. By 1919, more than

433

50 towns in Andalusia had their own libertarian newspapers. By 1934 the

434

C.N.T. (the anarcho-syndicalist labour union) had a membership of around

435

one million and the anarchist press covered all of Spain. In Barcelona

436

the C.N.T. published a daily, Solidaridad Obrera (Worker Solidarity),

437

with a circulation of 30,000. The FAI's magazine Tierra y Libertad

438

(Land and Liberty) had a circulation of 20,000. In Gijon there was

439

Vida Obrera (Working Life), in Seville El Productor

440

(The Producer),

441

and in Saragossa Accion y Cultura (Action and Culture), each with a

442

large circulation. There were many more.

443

444

As well as leading struggles, organising unions, and producing books,

445

papers and periodicals, the anarchists also organised libertarian schools,

446

cultural centres, co-operatives, anarchist groups (the F.A.I), youth groups

447

(the Libertarian Youth) and women's organisations (the Free Women movement).

448

They applied their ideas in all walks of life and so ensured that ordinary

449

people saw that anarchism was practical and relevant to them.

450

451

This was the great strength of the Spanish Anarchist movement. It was a

452

movement "that, in addition to possessing a revolutionary ideology [sic],

453

was also capable of mobilising action around objectives firmly rooted in

454

the life and conditions of the working class . . . It was this ability

455

periodically to identify and express widely felt needs and feelings that,

456

together with its presence at community level, formed the basis of the

457

strength of radical anarchism, and enabled it to build a mass base of

458

support." [Nick Rider, "The practice of direct action: the Barcelona

459

rent strike of 1931", p. 99, from For Anarchism, pp. 79-105]

460

461

Historian Temma Kaplan stressed this in her work on the Andalusian

462

anarchists. She argued that the anarchists were "rooted in" social

463

life and created "a movement firmly based in working-class

464

culture." They "formed trade unions, affinity groups such as

465

housewives' sections, and broad cultural associations such

466

as workers' circles, where the anarchist press was read and

467

discussed." Their "great strength . . . lay in the merger of

468

communal and militant trade union traditions. In towns where

469

the vast majority of worked in agriculture, agricultural

470

workers' unions came to be identified with the community as a

471

whole . . . anarchism . . . show[ed] that the demands of

472

agricultural workers and proletarians could be combined with

473

community support to create an insurrectionary situation . . .

474

It would be a mistake . . . to argue that 'village anarchism'

475

in Andalusia was distinct from militant unionism, or that

476

the movement was a surrogate religion." [Anarchists of Andalusia:

477

1868-1903, p. 211, p. 207, pp. 204-5]

478

479

The Spanish anarchists, before and after the C.N.T was formed, fought

480

in and out of the factory for economic, social and political issues.

481

This refusal of the anarchists to ignore any aspect of life ensured

482

that they found many willing to hear their message, a message based

483

around the ideas of individual liberty. Such a message could do nothing

484

but radicalise workers for "the demands of the C.N.T went much further

485

than those of any social democrat: with its emphasis on true equality,

486

autogestion [self-management] and working class dignity,

487

anarchosyndicalism made demands the capitalist system could not

488

possibly grant to the workers." [J. Romero Maura, "The Spanish case",

489

p. 79, from Anarchism Today, edited by J. Joll and D. Apter]

490

491

Strikes, due to the lack of strike funds, depended on mutual aid

492

to be won, which fostered a strong sense of solidarity and class

493

consciousness in the CNT membership. Strikes did not just involve

494

workers. For example, workers in Jerez responded to bosses importing

495

workers from Malaga "with a weapon of their own -- a boycott of

496

those using strikebreakers. The most notable boycotts were against

497

landowners near Jerez who also had commercial establishments in

498

the city. The workers and their wives refused to buy there, and

499

the women stationed themselves nearby to discourage other shoppers."

500

[Jerome R. Mintz, Op. Cit., p. 102]

501

502

The structure and tactics of the C.N.T encouraged the politicisation,

503

initiative and organisational skills of its members. It was a federal,

504

decentralised body, based on direct discussion and decision making from

505

the bottom up. "The C.N.T tradition was to discuss and examine everything",

506

as one militant put it. In addition, the C.N.T created a viable and

507

practical example of an alternative method by which society could be

508

organised. A method which was based on the ability of ordinary people to

509

direct society themselves and which showed in practice that special ruling

510

authorities are undesirable and unnecessary.

511

512

The very structure of the C.N.T and the practical experience it provided

513

its members in self-management produced a revolutionary working class

514

the likes of which the world has rarely seen. As Jose Peirats points

515

out, "above the union level, the C.N.T was an eminently political

516

organisation . . ., a social and revolutionary organisation for agitation

517

and insurrection." [Anarchists in the Spanish Revolution, p. 239]

518

519

The C.N.T. was organised in such a way as to encourage solidarity and

520

class consciousness. Its organisation was based on the sindicato unico

521

(one union) which united all workers of the same workplace in the

522

same union. Instead of organising by trade, and so dividing the workers

523

into numerous different unions, the C.N.T united all workers in a

524

workplace into the same organisation, all trades, skilled and unskilled,

525

where in a single organisation and so solidarity was increased and

526

encouraged as well as increasing their fighting power by eliminating

527

divisions within the workforce. All the unions in an area were linked

528

together into a local federation, the local federations into a regional

529

federation and so on. As J. Romero Maura argues, the "territorial

530

basis of organisation linkage brought all the workers from one area

531

together and fomented working-class solidarity over and above

532

corporate [industry or trade] solidarity." ["The Spanish case",

533

p. 75, from Anarchism Today, edited by J. Joll and D. Apter]

534

535

Thus the structure of the C.N.T. encouraged class solidarity and

536

consciousness. In addition, being based on direct action and

537

self-management, the union ensured that working people became

538

accustomed to managing their own struggles and acting for themselves,

539

directly. This prepared them to manage their own personal and

540

collective interests in a free society (as seen by the success

541

of the self-managed collectives created in the revolution). Thus

542

the process of self-managed struggle and direct action prepared

543

people for the necessities of the social revolution and the an

544

anarchist society -- it built, as Bakunin argued, the seeds of the

545

future in the present.

546

547

In other words, "the route to radicalisation . . . came from

548

direct involvement in struggle and in the design of alternative

549

social institutions." Every strike and action empowered those

550

involved and created a viable alternative to the existing

551

system. For example, while the strikes and food protests in

552

Barcelona at the end of the First World War "did not topple

553

the government, patterns of organisation established then

554

provided models for the anarchist movement for years to

555

follow." [Martha A. Ackelsberg and Myrna Margulies Breithart,

556

"Terrains of Protest: Striking City Women", pp. 151-176,

557

Our Generation, vol. 19, No. 1, p. 164] The same could

558

be said of every strike, which confirmed Bakunin's and

559

Kropotkin's stress on the strike as not only creating class

560

consciousness and confidence but also the structures necessary

561

to not only fight capitalism, but to replace it.

562

563

It was the revolutionary nature of the C.N.T. that created a militant

564

membership who were willing and able to use direct action to defend

565

their liberty. Unlike the Marxist led German workers, organised in

566

a centralised fashion and trained in the obedience required by

567

hierarchy, who did nothing to stop Hitler, the Spanish working

568

class (like their comrades in anarchist unions in Italy) took to

569

the streets to stop fascism.

570

571

The revolution in Spain did not "just happen"; it was the result of

572

nearly seventy years of persistent anarchist agitation and revolutionary

573

struggle, including a long series of peasant uprisings, insurrections,

574

industrial strikes, protests, sabotage and other forms of direct action

575

that prepared the peasants and workers organise popular resistance to the

576

attempted fascist coup in July 1937 and to take control of the economy when

577

they had defeated it in the streets.

578

579

<a name="seci83"><h2>I.8.3 How were Spanish industrial collectives organised?</h2>

580

581

Marta A. Ackelsberg gives us an excellent short summary of how

582

the industrial collectives where organised:

583

584

"In most collectivised industries, general assemblies of workers

585

decided policy, while elected committees managed affairs on a

586

day-to-day basis." [Free Women of Spain, p. 73]

587

</blockquote>

588

The collectives were based on workers' democratic self-management

589

of their workplaces, using productive assets that were under the

590

custodianship of the entire working community and administered

591

through federations of workers' associations. Augustin Souchy

592

writes:

593

594

"The collectives organised during the Spanish Civil War were workers'

595

economic associations without private property. The fact that collective

596

plants were managed by those who worked in them did not mean that these

597

establishments became their private property. The collective had no right to

598

sell or rent all or any part of the collectivised factory or workshop, The rightful custodian was the C.N.T., the National Confederation of Workers

599

Associations. But not even the C.N.T. had the right to do as it pleased.

600

Everything had to be decided and ratified by the workers themselves through

601

conferences and congresses." [cited in The Anarchist Collectives, p. 67]

602

</blockquote>

603

According to Souchy, in Catalonia "every factory elected its administrative

604

committee composed of its most capable workers. Depending on the size of

605

the factory, the function of these committees included inner plant

606

organisation, statistics, finance, correspondence, and relations with

607

other factories and with the community. . . . Several months after

608

collectivisation the textile industry of Barcelona was in far better shape

609

than under capitalist management. Here was yet another example to show

610

that grass roots socialism from below does not destroy initiative. Greed

611

is not the only motivation in human relations." [Op. Cit., p 95]

612

613

Thus the individual collective was based on a mass assembly of those

614

who worked there. This assembly nominated administrative staff who

615

were mandated to implement the decisions of the assembly and who

616

had to report back to, and were accountable to, that assembly. For

617

example, in Castellon de la Plana "[e]very month the technical and

618

administrative council presented the general assembly of the

619

Syndicate with a report which was examined and discussed if

620

necessary, and finally introduced when this majority thought it

621

of use. Thus all the activities were known and controlled by all

622

the workers. We find here a practical example of libertarian

623

democracy." [Collectives in the Spanish Revolution, p. 303]

624

625

So, in general, the industrial collectives were organised from

626

the bottom-up, with policy in the hands of workers' assemblies

627

who elected the administration required, including workplace

628

committees and managers. However, power rested the at base

629

of the collective, with "all important decisions [being]

630

taken by the general assemblies of the workers, . . .

631

[which] were widely attended and regularly held. . . if

632

an administrator did something which the general assembly

633

had not authorised, he was likely to be deposed at the

634

next meeting." An example of this process can be seen

635

from the Casa Rivieria company. After the defeat of the

636

army coup "a control committe (Comite de Control) was

637

named by the Barcelona Metal Workers' Union to take

638

over temporary control of the enterprises. . . A few

639

weeks after July 19th, there was the first general

640

assembly of the firm's workers . . . It elected an

641

enterprise committee (Comite de Empresa) to take control

642

of the firm on a more permanent basis. . . . Each

643

of the four sections of the firm -- the three factories

644

and the office staff -- held their own general assemblies

645

at least once a week. There they discussed matters ranging

646

from the most important affairs to the most trivial."

647

[Robert Alexander, The Anarchists in the Spanish Civil War,

648

vol. 1, p. 469 and p. 532]

649

650

A plenum of syndicates met in December of 1936 and formulated norms for

651

socialisation in which the inefficiency of the capitalist industrial

652

system was analysed. The report of the plenum stated:

653

654

"The major defect of most small manufacturing shops is fragmentation

655

and lack of technical/commercial preparation. This prevents their

656

modernisation and consolidation into better and more efficient units

657

of production, with better facilities and co-ordination. . . . For us,

658

socialisation must correct these deficiencies and systems of organisation

659

in every industry. . . . To socialise an industry, we must consolidate

660

the different units of each branch of industry in accordance with a

661

general and organic plan which will avoid competition and other

662

difficulties impeding the good and efficient organisation of

663

production and distribution. . ." [cited by Souchy, The Anarchist

664

Collectives, p. 83]

665

</blockquote>

666

As Souchy points out, this document is very important in the evolution of

667

collectivisation, because it indicates a realisation that "workers must

668

take into account that partial collectivisation will in time degenerate

669

into a kind of bourgeois co-operativism," [Op. Cit., p. 83] as discussed

670

earlier. Thus many collectives did not

671

compete with each other for profits, as surpluses were pooled and

672

distributed on a wider basis than the individual collective -- in most

673

cases industry-wide.

674

675

We have already noted some examples of the improvements in efficiency

676

realised by collectivisation during the Spanish Revolution (

677

<a href="secI4.html#seci410">section I.4.10</a>).

678

Another example was the baking industry. Souchy reports that, "[a]s in the

679

rest of Spain, Barcelona's bread and cakes were baked mostly at night in

680

hundreds of small bakeries. Most of them were in damp, gloomy cellars

681

infested with roaches and rodents. All these bakeries were shut down.

682

More and better bread and cake were baked in new bakeries equipped with

683

new modern ovens and other equipment." [Op. Cit., p. 82]

684

685

Therefore, the collectives in Spain were marked by workplace democracy

686

and a desire to co-operate within and across industries. This attempt

687

at libertarian socialism, like all experiments, had its drawbacks as

688

well as successes and these will be discussed in the

689

<a href="secI8.html#seci84">next section</a> as

690

well as some of the conclusions drawn from the experience.

691

692

<a name="seci84"><h2>I.8.4 How were the Spanish industrial collectives co-ordinated?</h2>

693

694

The methods of co-operation tried by the collectives varied considerably.

695

Initially, there were very few attempts to co-ordinate economic activities

696

beyond the workplace. This is hardly surprising, given that the overwhelming

697

need was to restart production, convert a civilian economy to a wartime one

698

and to ensure that the civilian population and militias were supplied with

699

necessary goods. This, unsurprisingly enough, lead to a situation of anarchist

700

mutualism developing, with many collectives selling the product of their own

701

labour on the market (in other words, a form of simple commodity production).

702

703

This lead to some economic problems as there existed no framework of

704

institutions between collectives to ensure efficient co-ordination of

705

activity and so lead to pointless competition between collectives (which

706

lead to even more problems). As there were initially no confederations of

707

collectives nor mutual/communal banks this lead to the inequalities that

708

initially existed between collectives (due to the fact that the collectives

709

took over rich and poor capitalist firms) and it made the many ad hoc

710

attempts at mutual aid between collectives difficult and temporary.

711

712

Therefore, the collectives were (initially) a form of "self-management

713

straddling capitalism and socialism, which we maintain would not have

714

occurred had the Revolution been able to extend itself fully under the

715

direction of our syndicates." [Gaston Leval, Collectives in the Spanish

716

Revolution, pp. 227-8] As economic and political development are closely

717

related, the fact that the C.N.T. did not carry out the political aspect

718

of the revolution meant that the revolution in the economy was doomed to

719

failure. As Leval stresses, in "the industrial collectives, especially in

720

the large towns, matters proceeded differently as a consequence of

721

contradictory factors and of opposition created by the co-existence

722

of social currents emanating from different social classes." [Op. Cit.,

723

p. 227]

724

725

Given that the C.N.T. program of libertarian communism recognised that a

726

fully co-operative society must be based upon production for use, C.N.T.

727

militants fought against this system of mutualism and for inter-workplace

728

co-ordination. They managed to convince their fellow workers of the

729

difficulties of mutualism by free debate and discussion within their

730

unions and collectives.

731

732

Therefore, the degree of socialisation varied over time (as would be

733

expected). Initially, after the initial defeat of Franco's forces,

734

there was little formal co-ordination and organisation. The most

735

important thing was to get production started again. However, the

736

needs of co-ordination soon became obvious (as predicted in anarchist

737

theory and the programme of the CNT). Gaston Leval gives the example

738

of Hospitalet del Llobregat with regards to this process:

739

740

"Local industries went through stages almost universally adopted in

741

that revolution . . . [I]n the first instance, comites nominated

742

by the workers employed in them [were organised]. Production and

743

sales continued in each one. But very soon it was clear that this

744

situation gave rise to competition between the factories. . .

745

creating rivalries which were incompatible with the socialist and

746

libertarian outlook. So the CNT launched the watchword: 'All

747

industries must be ramified in the Syndicates, completely socialised,

748

and the regime of solidarity which we have always advocated be

749

established once and for all.

750

751

"The idea won support immediately" [Op. Cit., pp. 291-2]

752

</blockquote>

753

Another example was the woodworkers' union which a massive debate on

754

socialisation and decided to do so (the shopworkers' union had a similar

755

debate, but the majority of workers rejected socialisation). According

756

to Ronald Fraser a "union delegate would go round the small shops,

757

point out to the workers that the conditions were unhealthy and

758

dangerous, that the revolution was changing all this, and secure

759

their agreement to close down and move to the union-built Double-X

760

and the 33 EU." [Ronald Fraser, Blood of Spain, p. 222]

761

762

This process went on in many different unions and collectives and,

763

unsurprisingly, the forms of co-ordination agreed to lead to different

764

forms of organisation in different areas and industries, as would be

765

expected in a free society. However, the two most important forms can

766

be termed syndicalisation and confederationalism (we will ignore the

767

forms created by the collectivisation decree as these were not created

768

by the workers themselves).

769

770

"Syndicalisation" (our term) meant that the C.N.T.'s industrial union ran

771

the whole industry. This solution was tried by the woodworkers' union after

772

extensive debate. One section of the union, "dominated by the F.A.I. [the

773

anarchist federation], maintained that anarchist self-management meant that

774

the workers should set up and operate autonomous centres of production so as

775

to avoid the threat of bureaucratisation." [Ronald Fraser, Blood of Spain,

776

p. 222] However, those in favour of syndicalisation won the day and

777

production was organised in the hands of the union, with administration

778

posts and delegate meetings elected by the rank and file.

779

780

However, the "major failure . . . (and which supported the original anarchist

781

objection) was that the union became like a large firm . . . [and its]

782

structure grew increasingly rigid." According to one militant, "From the

783

outside it began to look like an American or German trust" and the workers

784

found it difficult to secure any changes and "felt they weren't particularly

785

involved in decision making."

786

787

In the end, the major difference between the union-run industry and a

788

capitalist firm organisationally appeared to be that workers could vote for

789

(and recall) the industry management at relatively regular General Assembly

790

meetings. While a vast improvement on capitalism, it is hardly the best

791

example of participatory self-management in action although the economic

792

problems caused by the Civil War and Stalinist led counter-revolution

793

obviously would have had an effect on the internal structure of any

794

industry and so we cannot say that the form of organisation created was

795

totally responsible for any marginalisation that took place.

796

797

The other important form of co-operation was what we will term

798

"confederalisation." This form of co-operation was practised by the

799

Badalona textile industry (and had been defeated in the woodworkers'

800

union). It was based upon each workplace being run by its elected

801

management, sold its own production, got its own orders and received

802

the proceeds. However, everything each mill did was reported to the

803

union which charted progress and kept statistics. If the union felt

804

that a particular factory was not acting in the best interests of

805

the industry as a whole, it was informed and asked to change course.

806

According to one militant, the union "acted more as a socialist

807

control of collectivised industry than as a direct hierarchised

808

executive" [Op. Cit., p. 229]

809

810

This system ensured that the "dangers of the big 'union trust'

811

as of the atomised collective were avoided" [Fraser, Op. Cit.,

812

p. 229] as well as maximising decentralisation of power. Unlike

813

the syndicalisation experiment in the woodworkers' industry, this

814

scheme was based on horizontal links between workplaces (via the

815

C.N.T. union) and allowed a maximum of self-management and

816

mutual aid. The ideas of an anarchist economy sketched in

817

<a href="secI3.html">section I.3</a>

818

reflects in many ways the actual experiments in

819

self-management which occurred during the Spanish Revolution.

820

821

Therefore, the industrial collectives co-ordinated their activity

822

in many ways, with varying degrees of direct democracy and success.

823

As would be expected, mistakes were made and different solutions

824

found. When reading this section of the FAQ its important to remember

825

that an anarchist society can hardly be produced "overnight" and so

826

it is hardly surprising that the workers of the C.N.T. faced numerous

827

problems and had to develop their self-management experiment as

828

objective conditions allowed them to.

829

830

Unfortunately, thanks to fascist aggression and Communist Party

831

back-stabbing, the experiment did not last long enough to fully

832

answer all the questions we have about the viability of the

833

solutions they tried. Given the time, however, we are sure they

834

would have solved the problems they faced.

835

836

<a name="seci85"><h2>I.8.5 How were the Spanish agricultural co-operatives organised and co-ordinated?</h2>

837

838

Jose Peirats describes collectivisation among the peasantry as follows:

839

840

"The expropriated lands were turned over to the peasant syndicates, and it

841

was these syndicates that organised the first collectives. Generally the

842

holdings of small property owners were respected, always on the condition

843

that only they or their families would work the land, without employing

844

wage labour. In areas like Catalonia, where the tradition of petty peasant

845

ownership prevailed, the land holdings were scattered. There were no

846

great estates. Many of these peasants, together with the C.N.T., organised

847

collectives, pooling their land, animals, tools, chickens, grain,

848

fertiliser, and even their harvested crops.

849

850

"Privately owned farms located in the midst of collectives interfered with

851

efficient cultivation by splitting up the collectives into disconnected

852

parcels. To induce owners to move, they were given more or even better

853

land located on the perimeter of the collective.

854

855

"The collectivist who had nothing to contribute to the collective was

856

admitted with the same rights and the same duties as the others. In some

857

collectives, those joining had to contribute their money (Girondella in

858

Catalonia, Lagunarrotta in Aragon, and Cervera del Maestra in Valencia)."

859

[cited The Anarchist Collectives, p. 112]

860

</blockquote>

861

Peirats also notes that in conducting their internal affairs, all the

862

collectives scrupulously and zealously observed democratic procedures.

863

For example, "Hospitalet de Llobregat held regular general membership

864

meetings every three months to review production and attend to new

865

business. The administrative council, and all other committees, submitted

866

full reports on all matters. The meeting approved, disapproved, made

867

corrections, issued instructions, etc." [Ibid., p. 119]

868

869

Dolgoff observes that "supreme power was vested in, and actually

870

exercised by, the membership in general assemblies, and all power derived

871

from, and flowed back to, the grass roots organisations of the people"

872

and quotes Gaston Leval:

873

874

"Regular general membership meetings were convoked weekly, bi-weekly,

875

or monthly. . . and these meetings were completely free of the tensions

876

and recriminations which inevitably emerge when the power of decisions

877

is vested in a few individuals -- even if democratically elected. The

878

Assemblies were open for everyone to participate in the proceedings.

879

Democracy embraced all social life. In most cases, even the 'individualists'

880

who were not members of the collective could participate in the discussions,

881

and they were listened to by the collectivists." [Op. Cit., p 119f]

882

</blockquote>

883

It was in these face-to-face assemblies that decisions upon the distribution

884

of resources were decided both within and without the collective. Here, when

885

considering the importance of mutual aid, appeals were made to an

886

individual's sense of empathy. As one activist remembers:

887

888

"There were, of course, those who didn't want to share and who said that

889

each collective should take care of itself. But they were usually convinced

890

in the assemblies. We would try to speak to them in terms they understood.

891

We'd ask, 'Did you think it was fair when the cacique [local boss] let people

892

starve if there wasn't enough work?' and they said, 'Of course not.' They

893

would eventually come around. Don't forget, there were three hundred

894

thousand collectivists [in Aragon], but only ten thousand of us had been

895

members of the C.N.T.. We had a lot of educating to do." [Felix Carrasquer,

896

quoted by Martha A. Ackelsberg in Free Women of Spain, p. 79]

897

</blockquote>

898

In addition, regional federations of collectives were formed in many

899

areas of Spain (for example, in Aragon and the Levant). The federations

900

were created at congresses to which the collectives in an area sent

901

delegates. These congresses agreed a series of general rules about how

902

the federation would operate and what commitments the affiliated collectives

903

would have to each other. The congress elected an administration council,

904

which took responsibility for implementing agreed policy.

905

906

These federations had many tasks. They ensured the distribution of surplus

907

produce to the front line and to the cities, cutting out middlemen and

908

ensuring the end of exploitation. They also arranged for exchanges between

909

collectives to take place. In addition, the federations allowed the

910

individual collectives to pool resources together in order to improve the

911

infrastructure of the area (building roads, canals, hospitals and so on)

912

and invest in means of production which no one collective could afford.

913

914

In this way individual collectives pooled their resources, increased

915

and improved the means of production they had access to as well as

916

improving the social infrastructure of their regions. All this, combined

917

with an increase of consumption at the point of production and the

918

feeding of militia men and women fighting the fascists at the front.

919

920

Rural collectivisations allowed the potential creative energy that

921

existed among the rural workers and peasants to be unleashed, an energy

922

that had been wasted under private property. The popular assemblies allowed

923

community problems and improvements to be identified and solved directly,

924

drawing upon the ideas and experiences of everyone and enriched by

925

discussion and debate. This enabled rural Spain to be transformed from

926

one marked by poverty and fear, into one of hope and experimentation (see

927

the

928

<a href="secI8.html#seci86">next section</a>

929

for a few examples of this experimentation).

930

931

Therefore self-management in collectives combined with co-operation in rural

932

federations allowed an improvement in quality of rural life. From a

933

purely economic viewpoint, production increased and as Benjamin Martin

934

summarises, "[t]hough it is impossible to generalise about the rural

935

land take-overs, there is little doubt that the quality of life for most

936

peasants who participated in co-operatives and collectives notably improved."

937

[The Agony of Modernisation, p. 394]

938

939

More importantly, however, this improvement in the quality of life included

940

an increase in freedom as well as in consumption. To requote the member

941

of the Beceite collective in Aragon we cited in

942

<a href="secA5.html#seca56">section A.5.6</a>, "it was

943

marvellous. . . to live in a collective, a free society where one could

944

say what one thought, where if the village committee seemed unsatisfactory

945

one could say. The committee took no big decisions without calling the

946

whole village together in a general assembly. All this was wonderful."

947

[Ronald Fraser, Blood of Spain, p. 288]

948

949

<a name="seci86"><h2>I.8.6 What did the agricultural collectives accomplish?</h2>

950

951

Here are a few examples cited by Jose Peirats:

952

953

"In Montblanc the collective dug up the old useless vines and

954

planted new vineyards. The land, improved by modern cultivation

955

with tractors, yielded much bigger and better crops. . . . Many

956

Aragon collectives built new roads and repaired old ones, installed

957

modern flour mills, and processed agricultural and animal waste

958

into useful industrial products. Many of these improvements were

959

first initiated by the collectives. Some villages, like Calanda,

960

built parks and baths. Almost all collectives established libraries,

961

schools, and cultural centres." [cited The Anarchist Collectives,

962

p. 116]

963

</blockquote>

964

Gaston Leval points out that "the Peasant Federation of Levant . . .

965

produced more than half of the total orange crop in Spain: almost four

966

million kilos (1 kilo equals about 2 and one-fourth pounds). It then

967

transported and sold through its own commercial organisation (no

968

middlemen) more than 70% of the crop. (The Federations's commercial

969

organisation included its own warehouses, trucks, and boats. Early in

970

1938 the export section established its own agencies in France:

971

Marseilles, Perpignan, bordeaux, Cherbourg, and Paris.) Out of a total

972

of 47,000 hectares in all Spain devoted to rice production, the

973

collective in the Province of Valencia cultivated 30,000 hectares."

974

[cited in Ibid., p. 124]

975

976

To quote Peirats again:

977

978

"Preoccupation with cultural and pedagogical innovations was an event

979

without precedent in rural Spain. The Amposta collectivists organised

980

classes for semi-literates, kindergartens, and even a school of arts

981

and professions. The Seros schools were free to all neighbours,

982

collectivists or not. Grau installed a school named after its most

983

illustrious citizen, Joaquin Costa. The Calanda collective (pop.

984

only 4,500) schooled 1,233 children. The best students were sent to the

985

Lyceum in Caspe, with all expenses paid by the collective. The Alcoriza

986

(pop. 4,000) school was attended by 600 children. Many of the schools

987

were installed in abandoned convents. In Granadella (pop. 2,000), classes

988

were conducted in the abandoned barracks of the Civil Guards. Graus

989

organised a print library and a school of arts and professions, attended

990

by 60 pupils. The same building housed a school of fine arts and high

991

grade museum. In some villages a cinema was installed for the first

992

time. The Penalba cinema was installed in a church. Viladecana built an

993

experimental agricultural laboratory.

994

995

"The collectives voluntarily contributed enormous stocks of provisions and

996

other supplies to the fighting troops. Utiel sent 1,490 litres of oil and

997

300 bushels of potatoes to the Madrid front (in addition to huge stocks of

998

beans, rice, buckwheat, etc.). Porales de Tujana sent great quantities of

999

bread, oil, flour, and potatoes to the front, and eggs, meat, and milk to

1000

the military hospital.

1001

1002

"The efforts of the collectives take on added significance when we take

1003

into account that their youngest and most vigorous workers were fighting

1004

in the trenches. 200 members of the little collective of Vilaboi were at

1005

the front; from Viledecans, 60; Amposta, 300; and Calande, 500." [Ibid.,

1006

pp. 116-120]

1007

</blockquote>

1008

Peirats sums up the accomplishments of the agricultural collectives as

1009

follows:

1010

1011

"In distribution the collectives' co-operatives eliminated middlemen,

1012

small merchants, wholesalers, and profiteers, thus greatly reducing

1013

consumer prices. The collectives eliminated most of the parasitic

1014

elements from rural life, and would have wiped them out altogether

1015

if they were not protected by corrupt officials and by the political

1016

parties. Non-collectivised areas benefited indirectly from the

1017

lower prices as well as from free services often rendered by the

1018

collectives (laundries, cinemas, schools, barber and beauty parlours,

1019

etc.)." [Ibid., p114]

1020

</blockquote>

1021

Leval emphasises the following achievements (among others):

1022

1023

"In the agrarian collectives solidarity was practised to the greatest

1024

degree. Not only was every person assured of the necessities, but the

1025

district federations increasingly adopted the principle of mutual aid

1026

on an inter-collective scale. For this purpose they created common

1027

reserves to help out villages less favoured by nature. In Castile

1028

special institutions for this purpose were created. In industry this

1029

practice seems to have begun in Hospitalet, on the Catalan railways,

1030

and was applied later in Alcoy. Had the political compromise not

1031

impeded open socialisation, the practices of mutual aid would have

1032

been much more generalised. . . A conquest of enormous importance

1033

was the right of women to livelihood, regardless of occupation or

1034

function. In about half of the agrarian collectives, the women

1035

received the same wages as men; in the rest the women received

1036

less, apparently on the principle that they rarely live alone. . .

1037

In all the agrarian collectives of Aragon, Catalonia, Levant, Castile,

1038

Andalusia, and Estremadura, the workers formed groups to divide the

1039

labour or the land; usually they were assigned to definite areas.

1040

Delegates elected by the work groups met with the collective's

1041

delegate for agriculture to plan out the work. This typical

1042

organisation arose quite spontaneously, by local initiative. . .

1043

In addition . . . the collective as a whole met in weekly, bi-weekly

1044

or monthly assembly . . . The assembly reviewed the activities of

1045

the councillors it named, and discussed special cases and unforeseen

1046

problems. All inhabitants -- men and women, producers and non-producers

1047

the most significant advances were: the rapidly increased use of

1048

machinery and irrigation; greater diversification; and forestation.

1049

In stock raising: the selection and multiplication of breeds; the

1050

adaptation of breeds to local conditions; and large-scale

1051

construction of collective stock barns." [Ibid., pp. 166-167]

1052

</blockquote>

1053

Martha A. Ackelsberg sums up the experience well:

1054

1055

"The achievements of these collectives were extensive. In many

1056

areas they maintained, if not increased, agricultural production

1057

[not forgetting that many young men were at the front line],

1058

often introducing new patterns of cultivation and fertilisation. . .

1059

collectivists built chicken coups, barns, and other facilities

1060

for the care and feeding of the community's animals. Federations

1061

of collectives co-ordinated the construction of roads, schools,

1062

bridges, canals and dams. Some of these remain to this day as

1063

lasting contributions of the collectives to the infrastructure

1064

of rural Spain." [The Free Women of Spain, p. 79]

1065

</blockquote>

1066

She also points to inter-collective solidarity, noting that the

1067

"collectivists also arranged for the transfer of surplus produce

1068

from wealthier collectives to those experiencing shortages." [Ibid.]

1069

1070

Therefore, as well as significant economic achievements, the

1071

collectives ensured social and political ones too. Solidarity

1072

was practised and previously marginalised people took direct

1073

and full management of the affairs of their communities,

1074

transforming them to meet their own needs and desires.

1075

1076

<a name="seci87"><h2>I.8.7 I've heard that the rural collectives were created by force. Is this true?</h2>

1077

1078

No, it is not. The myth that the rural collectives were created by

1079

"terror," organised and carried out by the anarchist militia, was

1080

started by the Stalinists of the Spanish Communist Party. More

1081

recently, some right-wing Libertarians have warmed up and repeated

1082

these Stalinist fabrications. Anarchists have been disproving these

1083

allegations since 1936 and it is worthwhile to do so again here.

1084

1085

As Vernon Richards notes, "[h]owever discredited Stalinism may appear

1086

to be today the fact remains that the Stalinist lies and interpretation

1087

of the Spanish Civil War still prevail, presumably because it suits the

1088

political prejudices of those historians who are currently interpreting

1089

it." [Introduction to Gaston Leval's Collectives in the Spanish

1090

Revolution, p. 11] Here we shall present evidence to refute claims

1091

that the rural collectives were created by force.

1092

1093

Firstly, we should point out that rural collectives were created in many

1094

different areas of Spain, such as the Levant (900 collectives), Castile (300)

1095

and Estremadera (30), where the anarchist militia did not exist. In Catalonia,

1096

for example, the C.N.T. militia passed through many villages on its way to

1097

Aragon and only around 40 collectives were created unlike the 450 in Aragon.

1098

In other words, the rural collectivisation process occurred independently of

1099

the existence of anarchist troops, with the majority of the 1,700 rural

1100

collectives created in areas without a predominance of anarchist troops.

1101

1102

One historian, Ronald Fraser, seems to imply that the Aragon Collectives were

1103

imposed upon the Aragon population. As he puts it the "collectivisation,

1104

carried out under the general cover, if not necessarily the direct agency,

1105

of C.N.T. militia columns, represented a revolutionary minority's attempt to

1106

control not only production but consumption for egalitarian purposes and

1107

the needs of the war." [Blood of Spain, p. 370] Notice that he does not

1108

suggest that the anarchist militia actually imposed the collectives, a

1109

claim for which there is little or no evidence. Moreover, Fraser presents

1110

a somewhat contradictory narrative to the facts he presents. On the one

1111

hand, he talks of a policy of "obligatory" collectivistion imposed on

1112

the peasants by the C.N.T., while on the other hand he presents extensive

1113

evidence that the collectives did not have a 100% membership rate. How

1114

can collectivisation be obligatory if people remain outside the collectives?

1115

Similarly, he talks of how some C.N.T. militia leaders justified forced

1116

collectivisation in terms of the war effort while acknowledging the

1117

official C.N.T. policy of opposing forced collectivisation, an opposition

1118

expressed in practice as only around 5% of the collectives were total

1119

(and expressed in his own book as collectivists interviewed continually

1120

note that people remained outside their collectives!).

1121

1122

Thus Fraser's attempts to paint the Aragon collectives as a form of "war

1123

communism" imposed upon the population by the C.N.T. and obligatory for

1124

all fails to co-incidence with the evidence he presents.

1125

1126

Earlier he states that "[t]here was no need to dragoon them [the peasants]

1127

at pistol point [into collectives]: the coercive climate, in which 'fascists'

1128

were being shot, was sufficient. 'Spontaneous' and 'forced' collectives

1129

existed, as did willing and unwilling collectivists within them." [Op. Cit.,

1130

p.349] Therefore, his suggestion that the Aragon collectives were imposed

1131

upon the rural population is based upon the insight that there was a "coercive

1132

climate" in Aragon at the time. Of course a civil war against fascism would

1133

produce a "coercive climate," particularly at the front line, and so the

1134

C.N.T. can hardly be blamed for that. In addition, in a life and death

1135

struggle against fascism, in which the fascists were systematically

1136

murdering vast numbers of anarchists, socialists and republicans in the

1137

areas under their control, it is hardly surprising that some anarchist troops

1138

took the law into their own hands and murdered some of those who supported

1139

and would help the fascists. Given what was going on in fascist Spain, and

1140

the experience of fascism in Germany and Italy, the C.N.T. militia knew

1141

exactly what would happen to them and their friends and family if they lost.

1142

1143

The question does arise, however, of whether the climate was made so coercive

1144

by the war and the nearness of the anarchist militia that individual choice

1145

was impossible.

1146

1147

The facts speak for themselves -- rural collectivisation in Aragon embraced

1148

more than 70% of the population in the area saved from fascism. Around

1149

30% of the population felt safe enough not to join a collective, a

1150

sizeable percentage.

1151

1152

If the collectives had been created by anarchist terror or force, we would

1153

expect a figure of 100% membership in the collectives. This was not the case,

1154

indicating the basically voluntary nature of the experiment (we should point

1155

out that other figures suggest a lower number of collectivists which makes

1156

the forced collectivisation argument even less likely). Historian Antony

1157

Beevor (while noting that there "had undoubtedly been pressure, and

1158

no doubt force was used on some occasions in the fervour after the

1159

rising") just stated the obvious when he wrote that "the very fact that

1160

every village was a mixture of collectivists and individualists shows

1161

that peasants had not been forced into communal farming at the point

1162

of a gun." [The Spanish Civil War, p. 206] In addition, if the

1163

C.N.T. militia had forced peasants into collectives we would expect the

1164

membership of the collectives to peak almost overnight, not grow slowly

1165

over time. However, this is what happened:

1166

1167

"At the regional congress of collectives, held at Caspe in mid-February 1937,

1168

nearly 80 000 collectivists were represented from 'almost all the villages

1169

of the region.' This, however, was but a beginning. By the end of April

1170

the number of collectivists had risen to 140 000; by the end of the first

1171

week of May to 180 000; and by the end of June to 300 000." [Graham Kelsey,

1172

"Anarchism in Aragon," pp. 60-82, Spain in Conflict 1931-1939,

1173

Martin Blinkhorn (ed.), p. 61]

1174

</blockquote>

1175

If the collectives had been created by force, then their membership would

1176

have been 300 000 in February, 1937, not increasing steadily to reach that

1177

number four months later. Neither can it be claimed that the increase was

1178

due to new villages being collectivised, as almost all villages had sent

1179

delegates in February. This indicates that many peasants joined the

1180

collectives because of the advantages associated with common labour, the

1181

increased resources it placed at their hands and the fact that the surplus

1182

wealth which had in the previous system been monopolised by the few was

1183

used instead to raise the standard of living of the entire community.

1184

1185

The voluntary nature of the collectives is again emphasised by the number of

1186

collectives which allowed smallholders to remain outside. According to evidence

1187

Fraser presents (on page 366), an F.A.I. schoolteacher is quoted as saying that

1188

the forcing of smallholders into the collective "wasn't a widespread problem,

1189

because there weren't more than twenty or so villages where collectivisation

1190

was total and no one was allowed to remain outside..." Instead of forcing

1191

the minority in a village to agree with the wishes of the majority, the

1192

vast majority (95%) of Aragon collectives stuck to their libertarian

1193

principles and allowed those who did not wish to join to remain outside.

1194

1195

So, only around 20 were "total" collectives (out of 450) and around 30% of the

1196

population felt safe enough not to join. In other words, in the vast majority

1197

of collectives those joining could see that those who did not were safe.

1198

These figures should not be discounted, as they give an indication of the

1199

basically spontaneous and voluntary nature of the movement. As was the

1200

composition of the new municipal councils created after July 19th.

1201

As Graham Kesley notes, "[w]hat is immediately noticeable from the results

1202

is that although the region has often been branded as one controlled by

1203

anarchists to the total exclusion of all other forces, the C.N.T. was far

1204

from enjoying the degree of absolute domination often implied and inferred."

1205

[Anarchosyndicalism, Libertarian Communism and the State, p. 198]

1206

1207

In his account of the rural revolution, Burnett Bolloten notes that

1208

it "embraced more than 70 percent of the population" in liberated

1209

Aragon and that "many of the 450 collectives of the region were

1210

largely voluntary" although "it must be emphasised that this

1211

singular development was in some measure due to the presence of

1212

militiamen from the neighbouring region of Catalonia, the immense

1213

majority of whom were members of the C.N.T. and F.A.I." [The

1214

Spanish Civil War, p. 74]

1215

1216

As Gaston Leval points out, "it is true that the presence of these forces

1217

. . . favoured indirectly these constructive achievements by preventing

1218

active resistance by the supporters of the bourgeois republic and of

1219

fascism." [Collectives in the Spanish Revolution, p. 90]

1220

1221

In other words, the presence of the militia changed the balance of

1222

class forces in Aragon by destroying the capitalist state (i.e. the local

1223

bosses - caciques - could not get state aid to protect their property)

1224

and many landless workers took over the land. The presence of the militia

1225

ensured that land could be taken over by destroying the capitalist "monopoly

1226

of force" that existed before the revolution (the power of which will be

1227

highlighted below) and so the C.N.T. militia allowed the possibility of

1228

experimentation by the Aragonese population.

1229

1230

This class war in the countryside is reflected by Bolloten's statement that

1231

"[if] the individual farmer viewed with dismay the swift and widespread

1232

collectivisation of agriculture, the farm workers of the Anarchosyndicalist

1233

C.N.T. and the Socialist UGT saw it as the commencement of a new era."

1234

[The Spanish Civil War, p. 63] Both were mass organisations and

1235

supported collectivisation.

1236

1237

Therefore, anarchist militia allowed the rural working class to abolish the

1238

artificial scarcity of land created by private property (and enforced by the

1239

state). The rural bosses obviously viewed with horror the possibility that

1240

they could not exploit day workers' labour. As Bolloten points out "the

1241

collective system of agriculture threaten[ed] to drain the rural labour

1242

market of wage workers." [Op. Cit., p. 62] Little wonder the richer peasants

1243

and landowners hated the collectives.

1244

1245

Bolloten also quotes a report on the district of Valderrobes which indicates

1246

popular support for the collectives:

1247

1248

"Collectivisation was nevertheless opposed by opponents on the right and

1249

adversaries on the left. If the eternally idle who have been expropriated

1250

had been asked what they thought of collectivisation, some would have

1251

replied that it was robbery and others a dictatorship. But, for the

1252

elderly, the day workers, the tenant farmers and small proprietors who

1253

had always been under the thumb of the big landowners and heartless

1254

usurers, it appeared as salvation" [Op. Cit., p. 71]

1255

</blockquote>

1256

However, most historians ignore the differences in class that existed in

1257

the countryside. They ignore it and explain the rise in collectives in

1258

Aragon (and ignore those elsewhere) as the result of the C.N.T. militia.

1259

Fraser, for example, states that "[v]ery rapidly collectives . . . began

1260

to spring up. It did not happen on instructions from the C.N.T. leadership --

1261

no more than had the [industrial] collectives in Barcelona. Here, as there,

1262

the initiative came from C.N.T. militants; here, as there, the 'climate'

1263

for social revolution in the rearguard was created by C.N.T. armed strength:

1264

the anarcho-syndicalists' domination of the streets of Barcelona was

1265

re-enacted in Aragon as the C.N.T. militia columns, manned mainly by

1266

Catalan anarcho-syndicalist workers, poured in. Where a nucleus of

1267

anarcho-syndicalists existed in a village, it seized the moment to carry

1268

out the long-awaited revolution and collectivised spontaneously. Where

1269

there was none, villagers could find themselves under considerable pressure

1270

from the militias to collectivise. . ." [Op. Cit., p. 347]

1271

1272

In other words, he implies that the revolution was mostly imported into Aragon

1273

from Catalonia. However, the majority of C.N.T. column leaders were opposed to

1274

the setting up of the Council of Aragon (a confederation for the collectives)

1275

[Fraser, Op. Cit., p. 350]. Hardly an example of Catalan C.N.T. imposed

1276

social revolution. The evidence we have suggests that the Aragon C.N.T. was

1277

a widespread and popular organisation, suggesting that the idea that the

1278

collectives were imported into Aragon by the Catalan C.N.T. is simply false.

1279

1280

Fraser states that in "some [of the Aragonese villages] there was a

1281

flourishing C.N.T., in others the UGT was strongest, and in only too many

1282

there was no unionisation at all." [Blood of Spain, p. 348] The question

1283

arises of how extensive was that strength. The evidence we have suggests

1284

that it was extensive, strong and growing, so indicating that rural Aragon

1285

was not without a C.N.T. base, a base that makes the suggestion of imposed

1286

collectives a false one.

1287

1288

Murray Bookchin summarises the strength of the C.N.T. in rural Aragon as

1289

follows:

1290

1291

"The authentic peasant base of the C.N.T. [by the 1930s] now lay in Aragon

1292

. . .[C.N.T. growth in Zaragoza] provided a springboard for a highly

1293

effective libertarian agitation in lower Aragon, particularly among

1294

the impoverished labourers and debt-ridden peasantry of the dry steppes

1295

region." [The Spanish Anarchists, p. 203]

1296

</blockquote>

1297

Graham Kelsey, in his social history of the C.N.T. in Aragon between 1930

1298

and 1937, provides the necessary evidence to more than back Bookchin's

1299

claim of C.N.T. growth. Kesley points out that as well as the "spread of

1300

libertarian groups and the increasing consciousness among C.N.T. members

1301

of libertarian theories . . .contribu[ting] to the growth of the

1302

anarchosyndicalist movement in Aragon" the existence of "agrarian unrest"

1303

also played an important role in that growth [Anarchosyndicalism, Libertarian

1304

Communism and the State, pp. 80-81]. This all lead to the "revitalisation

1305

of the C.N.T. network in Aragon" [p. 82] and so by 1936, the C.N.T. had built

1306

upon the "foundations laid in 1933. . . [and] had finally succeeded in

1307

translating the very great strength of the urban trade-union organisation

1308

in Zaragoza into a regional network of considerable extent." [Op. Cit.,

1309

p. 134]

1310

1311

Kelsey and other historians note the long history of anarchism in Aragon,

1312

dating back to the late 1860s. However, before the 1910s there had been

1313

little gains in rural Aragon by the C.N.T. due to the power of local bosses

1314

(called caciques):

1315

1316

"Local landowners and small industrialists, the caciques of provincial

1317

Aragon, made every effort to enforce the closure of these first rural

1318

anarchosyndicalist cells [created after 1915]. By the time of the first

1319

rural congress of the Aragonese C.N.T. confederation in the summer of 1923,

1320

much of the progress achieved through the organisation's considerable

1321

propaganda efforts had been countered by repression elsewhere."

1322

[Graham Kelsey, "Anarchism in Aragon," p. 62]

1323

</blockquote>

1324

A C.N.T. activist indicates the power of these bosses and how difficult

1325

it was to be a union member in Aragon:

1326

1327

"Repression is not the same in the large cities as it is in the villages

1328

where everyone knows everybody else and where the Civil Guards are

1329

immediately notified of a comrade's slightest movement. Neither friends

1330

nor relatives are spared. All those who do not serve the state's repressive

1331

forces unconditionally are pursued, persecuted and on occasions beaten

1332

up." [cited by Kelsey, Op. Cit., p. 74]

1333

</blockquote>

1334

However, while there were some successes in organising rural unions,

1335

even in 1931 "propaganda campaigns which led to the establishment of scores

1336

of village trade-union cells, were followed by a counter-offensive from

1337

village caciques which forced them to close." [Ibid. p. 67] But even in

1338

the face of this repression the C.N.T. grew and "from the end of 1932. . .

1339

[there was] a successful expansion of the anarchosyndicalist movement into

1340

several parts of the region where previously it had never penetrated."

1341

[Kesley, Anarchosyndicalism, Libertarian Communism and the State, p. 185]

1342

1343

This growth was built upon in 1936, with increased rural activism which had

1344

slowly eroded the power of the caciques (which in part explains their support

1345

for the fascist coup). After the election of the Popular Front, years of

1346

anarchist propaganda and organisation paid off with a massive increase

1347

in rural membership in the C.N.T.:

1348

1349

"The dramatic growth in rural anarcho-syndicalist support in the six

1350

weeks since the general election was emphasised in the [Aragon C.N.T.'s

1351

April] congress's agenda. . . the congress directed its attention

1352

to rural problems . . . [and agreed a programme which was] exactly

1353

what was to happen four months later in liberated Aragon." [Kesley,

1354

"Anarchism in Aragon", p. 76]

1355

</blockquote>

1356

In the aftermath of a regional congress, held in Zaragoza at the start

1357

of April, a series of intensive propaganda campaigns was organised

1358

through each of the provinces of the regional confederation. Many

1359

meetings were held in villages which had never before heard anarcho-

1360

syndicalist propaganda. This was very successful and by the beginning

1361

of June, 1936, the number of Aragon unions had topped 400, compared to

1362

only 278 one month earlier (an increase of over 40% in 4 weeks). [Ibid.,

1363

pp. 75-76]

1364

1365

This increase in union membership reflects increased social struggle

1366

by the Aragonese working population and their attempts to improve their

1367

standard of living, which was very low for most of the population. A

1368

journalist from the conservative-Catholic Heraldo de Aragon visited

1369

lower Aragon in the summer of 1935 and noted "[t]he hunger in many homes,

1370

where the men are not working, is beginning to encourage the youth to

1371

subscribe to misleading teachings." [cited by Kesley, Ibid., p. 74]

1372

1373

Little wonder, then, the growth in C.N.T. membership and social struggle

1374

Kesley indicates:

1375

1376

"Evidence of a different kind was also available that militant trade

1377

unionism in Aragon was on the increase. In the five months between

1378

mid-February and mid-July 1936 the province of Zaragoza experienced

1379

over seventy strikes, more than had previously been recorded in any

1380

entire year, and things were clearly no different in the other two

1381

provinces . . . the great majority of these strikes were occurring in

1382

provincial towns and villages. Strikes racked the provinces and in at

1383

least three instances were actually transformed into general strikes."

1384

[Ibid., p. 76]

1385

</blockquote>

1386

Therefore, in the spring and summer of 1936, we see a massive growth in

1387

C.N.T. membership which reflects growing militant struggle by the urban

1388

and rural population of Aragon. Years of C.N.T. propaganda and organising

1389

had ensured this growth in C.N.T. influence, a growth which is also

1390

reflected in the creation of collectives in liberated Aragon during the

1391

revolution. Therefore, the construction of a collectivised society was

1392

founded directly upon the emergence, during the five years of the Second

1393

Republic, of a mass trade-union movement infused by libertarian, anarchist

1394

principles. These collectives were constructed in accordance with the

1395

programme agreed at the Aragon C.N.T. conference of April 1936 which

1396

reflected the wishes of the rural membership of the unions within Aragon

1397

(and due to the rapid growth of the C.N.T. afterwards obviously reflected

1398

popular feelings in the area).

1399

1400

In the words of Graham Kesley, "libertarian dominance in post-insurrection

1401

Aragon itself reflected the predominance that anarchists had secured before

1402

the war; by the summer of 1936 the C.N.T. had succeeded in establishing

1403

throughout Aragon a mass trade-union movement of strictly libertarian

1404

orientation, upon which widespread and well-supported network the extensive

1405

collective experiment was to be founded." [Ibid., p. 61]

1406

1407

Additional evidence that supports a high level of C.N.T. support in

1408

rural Aragon can be provided by the fact that it was Aragon that was the

1409

centre of the December 1933 insurrection organised by the C.N.T. As Bookchin

1410

notes, "only Aragon rose on any significant scale, particularly Saragossa

1411

. . . many of the villages declared libertarian communism and perhaps the

1412

heaviest fighting took place between the vineyard workers in Rioja and the

1413

authorities" [M. Bookchin, Op. Cit., p. 238]

1414

1415

It is unlikely for the C.N.T. to organise an insurrection in an area within

1416

which it had little support or influence. According to Kesley's in-depth

1417

social history of Aragon, "it was precisely those areas which had most

1418

important in December 1933 . . . which were now [in 1936], in seeking to

1419

create a new pattern of economic and social organisation, to form the basis

1420

of libertarian Aragon." [G. Kesley, Anarchosyndicalism, Libertarian Communism

1421

and the State, p. 161] After the revolt, thousands of workers were jailed,

1422

with the authorities having to re-open closed prisons and turn at least

1423

one disused monastery into a jail due to the numbers arrested.

1424

1425

Therefore, it can be seen that the majority of collectives in Aragon

1426

were the product of C.N.T. (and UGT) influenced workers taking the opportunity

1427

to create a new form of social life, a form marked by its voluntary and

1428

directly democratic nature. For from being unknown in rural Aragon, the

1429

C.N.T. was well established and growing at a fast rate - "Spreading out from

1430

its urban base... the C.N.T., first in 1933 and then more extensively in 1936,

1431

succeeded in converting an essentially urban organisation into a truly

1432

regional confederation." [Ibid., p. 184]

1433

1434

Therefore the evidence suggests that historians like Fraser are wrong to

1435

imply that the Aragon collectives were created by the C.N.T. militia and

1436

enforced upon a unwilling population. The Aragon collectives were the natural

1437

result of years of anarchist activity within rural Aragon and directly

1438

related to the massive growth in the C.N.T. between 1930 and 1936. Thus

1439

Kesley is correct to state that:

1440

1441

"Libertarian communism and agrarian collectivisation were not economic

1442

terms or social principles enforced upon a hostile population by special

1443

teams of urban anarchosyndicalists . . ." [G. Kesley, Op. Cit., p. 161]

1444

</blockquote>

1445

This is not to suggest that there were no examples of people joining

1446

collectives involuntarily because of the "coercive climate" of the front

1447

line. And, of course, there were villages which did not have a C.N.T. union

1448

within them before the war and so created a collective because of the

1449

existence of the C.N.T. militia. But these can be considered as exceptions

1450

to the rule.

1451

1452

Moreover, the way the C.N.T. handled such a situation is noteworthy. Fraser

1453

indicates such a situation in the village of Alloza. In the autumn of

1454

1936, representatives of the C.N.T. district committee had come to suggest

1455

that the villagers collectivise (we would like to stress here that the

1456

C.N.T. militia which had passed through the village had made no attempt

1457

to create a collective there).

1458

1459

A village assembly was called and the C.N.T. explained their ideas and

1460

suggested how to organise the collective. However, who would join and how

1461

the villagers would organise the collective was left totally up to them (the

1462

C.N.T. representatives "stressed that no one was to be maltreated"). Within

1463

the collective, self-management was the rule.

1464

1465

According to one member, "[o]nce the work groups were established on a

1466

friendly basis and worked their own lands, everyone got on well enough,"

1467

he recalled. "There was no need for coercion, no need for discipline and

1468

punishment. . . A collective wasn't a bad idea at all." [Op. Cit., p. 360]

1469

This collective, like the vast majority, was voluntary and democratic -

1470

"I couldn't oblige him to join; we weren't living under a dictatorship."

1471

[Op. Cit., p. 362] In other words, no force was used to create the

1472

collective and the collective was organised by local people directly.

1473

1474

Of course, as with any public good (to use economic jargon), all members of

1475

the community had to pay for the war effort and feed the militia. As Kesely

1476

notes, "[t]he military insurrection had come at a critical moment in the

1477

agricultural calendar. Throughout lower Aragon there were fields of grain

1478

ready for harvesting. . . At the assembly in Albalate de Cinca the opening

1479

clause of the agreed programme had required everyone in the district,

1480

independent farmers and collectivists alike, to contribute equally to

1481

the war effort, thereby emphasising one of the most important considerations

1482

in the period immediately following the rebellion."

1483

1484

In addition, the collectives controlled the price of crops in order to ensure

1485

that speculation and inflation were controlled. However, these policies

1486

as with the equal duties of individualists and collectivists in the war

1487

effort were enforced upon the collectives by the war.

1488

1489

Lastly, in support of the popular nature of the rural collectives, we

1490

will indicate the effects of the suppression of the collectives in August

1491

1937 by the Communists, namely the collapse of the rural economy. This

1492

sheds considerable light on the question of popular attitudes to the

1493

collectives.

1494

1495

In October, the Communist-controlled Regional Delegation of Agrarian

1496

Reform acknowledged that "in the majority of villages agricultural

1497

work was paralysed causing great harm to our agrarian economy."

1498

This is confirmed by Jose Silva, a Communist Party member and general

1499

secretary of the Institute of Agrarian Reform, who commented that

1500

after Lister had attacked Aragon, "labour in the fields was

1501

suspended almost entirely, and a quarter of the land had not

1502

been prepared at the time for sowing." At a meeting of the

1503

agrarian commission of the Aragonese Communist Party (October 9th,

1504

1937), Jose Silva emphasised "the little incentive to work of

1505

the entire peasant population" and that the situation brought

1506

about by the dissolution of the collectives was "grave and

1507

critical." [quoted by Bolloten, Op. Cit., p. 530]

1508

1509

Jose Peirats explains the reasons for this economic collapse as a result

1510

of popular boycott:

1511

1512

"When it came time to prepare for the next harvest, smallholders could

1513

not by themselves work the property on which they had been installed

1514

[by the communists]. Dispossessed peasants, intransigent collectivists,

1515

refused to work in a system of private property, and were even less

1516

willing to rent out their labour." [Anarchists in the Spanish

1517

Revolution, p. 258]

1518

</blockquote>

1519

If the collectives were unpopular, created by anarchist force, then why did

1520

the economy collapse after the suppression? If Lister had overturned a

1521

totalitarian anarchist regime, why did the peasants not reap the benefit of

1522

their toil? Could it be because the collectives were essentially a

1523

spontaneous Aragonese development and supported by most of the population

1524

there? This analysis is backed up by Yaacov Oved's statement (from a paper

1525

submitted to the XII Congress of Sociology, Madrid, July 1990):

1526

1527

"Those who were responsible for this policy [of "freeing" the Aragon

1528

Collectivists], were convinced that the farmers would greet it joyfully

1529

because they had been coerced into joining the collectives. But they were

1530

proven wrong. Except for the rich estate owners who were glad to get their

1531

land back, most of the members of the agricultural collectives objected and

1532

lacking all motivation they were reluctant to resume the same effort of in the

1533

agricultural work. This phenomenon was so widespread that the authorities and

1534

the communist minister of agriculture were forced to retreat from their

1535

hostile policy." [Yaacov Oved, Communismo Libertario and Communalism in

1536

the Spanish Collectivisations (1936-1939)]

1537

</blockquote>

1538

Even in the face of Communist repression, most of the collectives kept going.

1539

This, if nothing else, proves that the collectives were popular institutions.

1540

As Yaacov Oved argues in relation to the breaking up of the collectives:

1541

1542

"Through the widespread reluctance of collectivists to co-operate with the

1543

new policy it became evident that most members had voluntarily joined the

1544

collectives and as soon as the policy was changed a new wave of collectives

1545

was established. However, the wheel could not be turned back. An atmosphere

1546

of distrust prevailed between the collectives and the authorities and

1547

every initiative was curtailed" [Op. Cit.]

1548

</blockquote>

1549

Jose Peirats sums up the situation after the communist attack on the

1550

collectives and the legalisation of the collectives as follows:

1551

1552

"It is very possible that this second phase of collectivisation better

1553

reflects the sincere convictions of the members. They had undergone a

1554

sever test and those who had withstood it were proven collectivists. Yet

1555

it would be facile to label as anti-collectivists those who abandoned

1556

the collectives in this second phase. Fear, official coercion and

1557

insecurity weighed heavily in the decisions of much of the Aragonese

1558

peasantry." [Op. Cit., p. 258]

1559

</blockquote>

1560

While the collectives had existed, there was a 20% increase in production

1561

(and this is compared to the pre-war harvest which had been "a good crop."

1562

[Fraser, p. 370]); after the destruction of the collectives, the economy

1563

collapsed. Hardly the result that would be expected if the collectives were

1564

forced upon an unwilling peasantry. The forced collectivisation by Stalin

1565

in Russia resulted in a famine. Only the victory of fascism made it possible

1566

to restore the so-called "natural order" of capitalist property in the

1567

Spanish countryside. The same land-owners who welcomed the Communist

1568

repression of the collectives also, we are sure, welcomed the fascists

1569

who ensured a lasting victory of property over liberty.

1570

1571

So, overall, the evidence suggests that the Aragon collectives, like

1572

their counterparts in the Levante, Catalonia and so on, were popular

1573

organisations, created by and for the rural population and, essentially,

1574

an expression of a spontaneous and popular social revolution. Claims that

1575

the anarchist militia created them by force of arms are false. While acts

1576

of violence did occur and some acts of coercion did take place

1577

(against C.N.T. policy, we may add) these are the exceptions to the rule.

1578

Bolloten's summary best fits the facts:

1579

1580

"But in spite of the cleavages between doctrine and practice that plagued

1581

the Spanish Anarchists whenever they collided with the realities of power,

1582

it cannot be overemphasised that notwithstanding the many instances of

1583

coercion and violence, the revolution of July 1936 distinguished itself

1584

from all others by the generally spontaneous and far-reaching character of

1585

its collectivist movement and by its promise of moral and spiritual

1586

renewal. Nothing like this spontaneous movement had ever occurred before."

1587

[Op. Cit., p. 78]

1588

</blockquote>

1589

<a name="seci88"><h2>I.8.8 But did the Spanish collectives innovate?</h2>

1590

1591

Yes. In contradiction to the old capitalist claim that no one will

1592

innovate unless private property exists, the workers and peasants exhibited

1593

much more incentive and creativity under libertarian socialism than they

1594

had under the private enterprise system. This is apparent from Gaston

1595

Leval's description of the results of collectivisation in Cargagente:

1596

1597

"Carcagente is situated in the southern part of the province of Valencia.

1598

The climate of the region is particularly suited for the cultivation of

1599

oranges. . . . All of the socialised land, without exception, is cultivated

1600

with infinite care. The orchards are thoroughly weeded. To assure that

1601

the trees will get all the nourishment needed, the peasants are

1602

incessantly cleaning the soil. 'Before,' they told me with pride, 'all

1603

this belonged to the rich and was worked by miserably paid labourers. The

1604

land was neglected and the owners had to buy immense quantities of

1605

chemical fertilisers, although they could have gotten much better yields

1606

by cleaning the soil. . . .' With pride, they showed me trees that had

1607

been grafted to produce better fruit.

1608

1609

"In many places I observed plants growing in the shade of the orange

1610

trees. 'What is this?,' I asked. I learned that the Levant peasants

1611

(famous for their ingenuity) have abundantly planted potatoes among the

1612

orange groves. The peasants demonstrate more intelligence than all the

1613

bureaucrats in the Ministry of Agriculture combined. They do more than

1614

just plant potatoes. Throughout the whole region of the Levant, wherever

1615

the soil is suitable, they grow crops. They take advantage of the four

1616

month [fallow period] in the rice fields. Had the Minister of Agriculture

1617

followed the example of these peasants throughout the Republican zone, the

1618

bread shortage problem would have been overcome in a few months." [cited in

1619

Dolgoff, Anarchist Collectives, p. 153]

1620

</blockquote>

1621

This is just one from a multitude of examples presented in the accounts

1622

of both the industrial and rural collectives (for more see

1623

<a href="secC2.html#secc23">section C.2.3</a>

1624

in which we present more examples to refute that charge that "workers'

1625

control would stifle innovation" and

1626

<a href="secI8.html#seci86">I.8.6</a>). The available evidence proves

1627

that the membership of the collectives showed a keen awareness of the

1628

importance of investment and innovation in order to increase production

1629

and to make work both lighter and more interesting and that the

1630

collectives allowed that awareness to be expressed freely. The Spanish

1631

collectives indicate that, given the chance, everyone will take an interest

1632

in their own affairs and express a desire to use their minds to improve

1633

their surroundings. In fact, capitalism distorts what innovation exists

1634

under hierarchy by channelling it purely in how to save money and maximise

1635

investor profit, ignoring other, more important, issues.

1636

1637

As Gaston Leval argues, self-management encouraged innovation:

1638

1639

"The theoreticians and partisans of the liberal economy affirm that

1640

competition stimulates initiative and, consequently, the creative spirit

1641

and invention without which it remains dormant. Numerous observations made

1642

by the writer in the Collectives, factories and socialised workshops permit

1643

him to take quite the opposite view. For in a Collective, in a grouping

1644

where each individual is stimulated by the wish to be of service to his

1645

fellow beings research, the desire for technical perfection and so on

1646

are also stimulated. But they also have as a consequence that other

1647

individuals join those who were first to get together. Furthermore, when,

1648

in present society, an individualist inventor discovers something, it is

1649

used only by the capitalist or the individual employing him, whereas in

1650

the case of an inventor living in a community not only is his discovery

1651

taken up and developed by others, but is immediately applied for the

1652

common good. I am convinced that this superiority would very soon manifest

1653

itself in a socialised society." [Collectives in the Spanish Revolution,

1654

p. 247]

1655

</blockquote>

1656

Therefore the actual experiences of self-management in Spain supports the

1657

points made in

1658

<a href="secI4.html#seci411">section I.4.11</a>.

1659

Freed from hierarchy, individuals will

1660

creatively interact with the world to improve their circumstances. This

1661

is not due to "market forces" but because the human mind is an active

1662

agent and unless crushed by authority it can no more stop thinking and

1663

acting than the Earth stop revolving round the Sun. In addition, the

1664

Collectives indicate that self-management allows ideas to be enriched

1665

by discussion, as Bakunin argued:

1666

1667

"The greatest intelligence would not be equal to a comprehension of the

1668

whole. Thence results... the necessity of the division and association

1669

of labour. I receive and I give - such is human life. Each directs and

1670

is directed in his turn. Therefore there is no fixed and constant

1671

authority, but a continual exchange of mutual, temporary, and, above all,

1672

voluntary authority and subordination" [God and the State, p. 33]

1673

</blockquote>

1674

The experience of self-management proved Bakunin's point that society is

1675

more intelligent than even the most intelligent individual simply because

1676

of the wealth of viewpoints, experience and thoughts contained there.

1677

Capitalism impoverishes individuals and society by its artificial boundaries

1678

and authority structures.

1679

1680

<a name="seci89"><h2>I.8.9 Why, if it was so good, did it not survive?</h2>

1681

1682

Just because something is good does not mean that it will survive.

1683

1684

For example, the Warsaw Ghetto uprising against the Nazis failed but that

1685

does not mean that the uprising was a bad cause or that the Nazi regime

1686

was correct, far from it. Similarly, while the experiments in workers'

1687

self-management and communal living undertaken across Republican Spain

1688

is one of the most important social experiments in a free society ever

1689

undertaken, this cannot change the fact that Franco's forces and the

1690

Communists had access to more and better weapons.

1691

1692

Faced with the aggression and terrorism of Franco, and behind him the

1693

military might of Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, the treachery of the

1694

Communists, and the aloofness of the Western bourgeois "republics" (whose

1695

policy of "non-intervention" was strangely ignored when their citizens

1696

aided Franco) it is amazing the revolution lasted as long as it did.

1697

1698

This does not excuse the actions of the anarchists themselves. As is well

1699

known, the C.N.T. co-operated with the other anti-fascist parties and trade

1700

unions on the Republican side (see

1701

<a href="secI8.html#seci810">next section</a>). This co-operation lead to

1702

the C.N.T. joining the anti-fascist government and "anarchists" becoming

1703

ministers of state. This co-operation, more than anything, helped ensure

1704

the defeat of the revolution. While much of the blame can be places at

1705

the door of the would-be "leaders," who like most leaders started to

1706

think themselves irreplaceable and spokespersons for the organisations

1707

there were members of, it must be stated that the rank-and-file of the

1708

movement did little to stop them. Most of the militant anarchists were

1709

at the front-line (and so excluded from union and collective meetings)

1710

and so could not influence their fellow workers (it is no surprise that

1711

the "Friends of Durruti" group were mostly ex-militia men). However, it

1712

seems that the mirage of anti-fascist unity proved too much for the

1713

majority of C.N.T. members (see

1714

<a href="secI8.html#seci812">section I.8.12</a>).

1715

1716

Some anarchists still maintain that the Spanish anarchist movement

1717

had no choice and that collaboration (while having unfortunate

1718

eeffects) was the only choice available. This view was defended

1719

by Sam Dolgoff and finds some support in the writings of Gaston

1720

Leval, August Souchy and many other anarchists. However, most

1721

anarchists today oppose collaboration and think it was a terrible

1722

mistake (at the time, this position was held by the majority of

1723

non-Spanish anarchists plus a large minority of the Spanish

1724

movement, becoming a majority as the implications of

1725

collaboration became clear). This viewpoint finds its best

1726

expression in Vernon Richard's Lessons of the Spanish Revolution

1727

and, in part, in such works as Anarchists in the Spanish

1728

Revolution by Jose Peirats and Anarchist Organisation: The

1729

History of the F.A.I by Juan Gomaz Casas as well as in a host

1730

of pamphlets and articles written by anarchists ever since.

1731

1732

So, regardless of how good a social system is, objective facts will

1733

overcome that experiment. Saturnino Carod (a leader of a C.N.T. Militia

1734

column at the Aragon Front) sums up the successes of the revolution

1735

as well as its objective limitations:

1736

1737

"Always expecting to be stabbed in the back, always knowing that

1738

if we created problems, only the enemy across the lines would

1739

stand to gain. It was a tragedy for the anarcho-syndicalist

1740

movement; but it was a tragedy for something greater -- the

1741

Spanish people. For it can never be forgotten that it was the

1742

working class and peasantry which, by demonstrating their

1743

ability to run industry and agriculture collectively, allowed

1744

the republic to continue the struggle for thirty-two months.

1745

It was they who created a war industry, who kept agricultural

1746

production increasing, who formed militias and later joined

1747

the army. Without their creative endeavour, the republic

1748

could not have fought the war . . ." [quoted by Fraser,

1749

Blood of Spain, p. 394]

1750

</blockquote>

1751

<a name="seci810"><h2>I.8.10 Why did the C.N.T. collaborate with the state?</h2>

1752

1753

As is well know, in September 1936 the C.N.T joined the

1754

Catalan government, followed by the central government

1755

in November. This followed on from the decision made on

1756

July the 21st to not speak of Libertarian Communism

1757

until after Franco had been defeated. In other words,

1758

to collaborate with other anti-fascist parties and

1759

unions in a common front against fascism.

1760

1761

This, initially, involved the C.N.T agreeing to join a

1762

"Central Committee of Anti-Fascist Militias" proposed

1763

by the leader of the Catalan government, Louis Companys.

1764

This committee was made up of representatives of various

1765

anti-fascist parties and groups. From this it was only

1766

a matter of time until the C.N.T joined an official

1767

government as no other means of co-ordinating activities

1768

existed (see <a href="secI8.html#seci813">section I.8.13</a>).

1769

1770

The question must arise, why did the C.N.T decide to

1771

collaborate with the state, forsaking its principles and,

1772

in its own way, contribute to the counter-revolution and

1773

the loosing of the war. This is an important question.

1774

Indeed, it is one Marxists always throw up in arguments

1775

with anarchists or in anti-anarchist diatribes. Does the

1776

failure of the C.N.T to implement anarchism after

1777

July 19th mean that anarchist politics are flawed? Or,

1778

rather, does the experience of the C.N.T and F.A.I

1779

during the Spanish revolution indicate a failure of

1780

anarchists rather than of anarchism, a mistake

1781

made under difficult objective circumstances and one

1782

which anarchists have learnt from? Needless to say,

1783

anarchists argue that the latter answer is the

1784

correct one. In other words, as Vernon Richards

1785

argues, "the basis of [his] criticism is not that

1786

anarchist ideas were proved to be unworkable by the

1787

Spanish experience, but that the Spanish anarchists

1788

and syndicalists failed to put their theories to the

1789

test, adopting instead the tactics of the enemy."

1790

[Lessons of the Spanish Revolution, p. 14] The

1791

writers of this FAQ agree.

1792

1793

So, why did the CNT collaborate with the state

1794

during the Spanish Civil War? Simply put, rather than

1795

being the fault of anarchist theory (as Marxists like

1796

to claim), its roots can be discovered in the situation

1797

facing the Catalan anarchists on July 20th. The objective

1798

conditions facing the leading militants of the CNT and

1799

FAI influenced the decisions they took, decisions which

1800

they later justified by mis-using anarchist theory.

1801

1802

What was the situation facing the Catalan anarchists

1803

on July 20th? Simply put, it was an unknown situation.

1804

Jose Peirats quotes from the report made by the C.N.T

1805

to the International Workers Association as follows:

1806

1807

"Levante was defenceless and uncertain . . . We were

1808

in a minority in Madrid. The situation in Andalusia

1809

was unknown . . . There was no information from the

1810

North, and we assumed the rest of Spain was in the

1811

hands of the fascists. The enemy was in Aragon, at

1812

the gates of Catalonia. The nervousness of foreign

1813

consular officials led to the presence of a great

1814

number of war ships around our ports." [quoted in

1815

Anarchists in the Spanish Revolution, p. 180]

1816

</blockquote>

1817

He also notes that:

1818

1819

"According to the report, the CNT was in absolute

1820

control of Catalonia in July 19, 1936, but its

1821

strength was less in Levante and still less in

1822

central Spain where the central government and the

1823

traditional parties were dominant. In the north of

1824

Spain the situation was confused. The CNT could have

1825

mounted an insurrection on its own 'with probable

1826

success' but such a takeover would have led to a

1827

struggle on three fronts: against the fascists,

1828

the government and foreign capitalism. In view of

1829

the difficulty of such an undertaking, collaboration

1830

with other antifascist groups was the only alternative."

1831

[Op. Cit., p. 179]

1832

</blockquote>

1833

In the words of the CNT report itself:

1834

1835

"The CNT showed a conscientious scrupulousness in the

1836

face of a difficult alternative: to destroy completely

1837

the State in Catalonia, to declare war against the Rebels

1838

[i.e. the fascists], the government, foreign capitalism,

1839

and thus assuming complete control of Catalan society;

1840

or collaborating in the responsibilities of government

1841

with the other antifascist fractions." [quoted by Robert

1842

Alexander, The Anarchists in the Spanish Civil War,

1843

vol. 2, p. 1156]

1844

</blockquote>

1845

Moreover, as Gaston Leval later argued, given that the

1846

"general preoccupation [of the majority of the population

1847

was] to defeat the fascists . . . the anarchists would,

1848

if they came out against the state, provoke the antagonism

1849

. . . of the majority of the people, who would accuse them

1850

of collaborating with Franco." Implementing an anarchist

1851

revolution would, in all likelihood, also "result . . .

1852

[in] the instant closing of the frontier and the blockade

1853

by sea by both fascists and the democratic countries. The

1854

supply of arms would be completely cut off, and the

1855

anarchists would rightly be held responsible for the

1856

disastrous consequences." [quoted in The Anarchist

1857

Collectives, p. 52 and p. 53]

1858

1859

While the supporters of Lenin and Trotsky will constantly

1860

point out the objective circumstances in which their

1861

heroes made their decisions during the Russian Revolution,

1862

they rarely mention those facing the anarchists in Spain on

1863

the 20th of July, 1936. It seems hypocritical to point to the

1864

Russian Civil War as the explanation of all of Bolshevism's

1865

crimes against the working class (indeed, humanity) while

1866

remaining silent on the forces facing the C.N.T-F.A.I at

1867

the start of the Spanish Civil War. The fact that if the

1868

CNT had decided to implement libertarian communism in

1869

Catalonia they would have to face the fascists (commanding

1870

the bulk of the Spanish army), the Republican government

1871

(commanding the rest) plus those sections in Catalonia

1872

which supported it is rarely mentioned. Moreover, when

1873

the decision to collaborate was made it was immediately

1874

after the defeat of the army uprising in Barcelona -- the

1875

situation in the rest of the country was uncertain and

1876

when the social revolution was in its early days.

1877

1878

Stuart Christie indicates the dilemma facing the

1879

leadership of the CNT at the time:

1880

1881

"The higher committees of the CNT-FAI-FIJL in Catalonia

1882

saw themselves caught on the horns of a dilemma: social

1883

revolution, fascism or bourgeois democracy. Either they

1884

committed themselves to the solutions offered by social

1885

revolution, regardless of the difficulties involved in

1886

fighting both fascism and international capitalism, or,

1887

through fear of fascism (or of the people), they

1888

sacrificed their anarchist principles and revolutionary

1889

objectives to bolster, to become, part of the bourgeois

1890

state . . . Faced with an imperfect state of affairs

1891

and preferring defeat to a possibly Pyrrhic victory,

1892

the Catalan anarchist leadership renounced anarchism

1893

in the name of expediency and removed the social

1894

transformation of Spain from their agenda.

1895

1896

"But what the CNT-FAI leaders failed to grasp was

1897

that the decision whether or not to implement

1898

Libertarian Communism, was not theirs to make.

1899

Anarchism was not something which could be transformed

1900

from theory into practice by organisational decree

1901

. . . [the] spontaneous defensive movement of 19

1902

July had developed a political direct of its own."

1903

[We, the Anarchists!, p. 99]

1904

</blockquote>

1905

Given that the pro-fascist army still controlled a third

1906

or more of Spain (including Aragon) and that the CNT was

1907

not the dominant force in the centre and north of Spain,

1908

it was decided that a war on three fronts would only aid

1909

Franco. Moreover, it was a distinct possibility that by

1910

introducing libertarian communism in Catalonia, Aragon

1911

and elsewhere, the workers' militias and self-managed

1912

industries would have been starved of weapons, resources

1913

and credit. That isolation was a real problem can be seen

1914

from De Santillan's later comments on why the CNT joined

1915

the government:

1916

1917

"The Militias Committee guaranteed the supremacy of the

1918

people in arms . . . but we were told and it was

1919

repeated to us endlessly that as long as we persisted

1920

in retaining it, that is, as long as we persisted in

1921

propping up the power of the people, weapons would

1922

not come to Catalonia, now would we be granted the

1923

foreign currency to obtain them from abroad, nor

1924

would we be supplied with the raw materials for our

1925

industry. And since losing the war meant losing

1926

everything and returning to a state like that

1927

prevailed in the Spain of Ferdinand VII, and in

1928

the conviction that the drive given by us and our

1929

people could not vanish completely from the new

1930

economic life, we quit the Militias Committee to

1931

join the Generalidad government." [quoted by

1932

Stuart Christie, Op. Cit., p. 109]

1933

</blockquote>

1934

It was decided to collaborate and reject the basic ideas

1935

of anarchism until the war was over. A terrible mistake,

1936

but one which can be understood given the circumstances

1937

in which it was made. This is not, we stress, to justify

1938

the decision but rather to explain it and place it in

1939

context. Ultimately, the experience of the Civil War

1940

saw a blockade of Republic by both "democratic" and

1941

fascist governments, the starving of the militias and

1942

self-managed collectives of resources and credit as well

1943

as a war on two fronts when the State felt strong enough

1944

to try and crush the CNT and the semi-revolution its members

1945

had started. Unfortunately, the anarchist movement did not

1946

have a crystal-ball with which to see the future. Ultimately,

1947

even faced with the danger of fascism, the liberals, the

1948

right-wing socialists and communists preferred to undermine

1949

the anti-fascist struggle by attacking the CNT. In this,

1950

history proved Durruti totally correct:

1951

1952

"For us it is a matter of crushing Fascism once and for all. Yes,

1953

and in spite of the Government.

1954

1955

"No government in the world fights Fascism to the death. When the

1956

bourgeoisie sees power slipping from its grasp, it has recourse to

1957

Fascism to maintain itself. The liberal government of Spain could

1958

have rendered the fascist elements powerless long ago. Instead it

1959

compromised and dallied. Even now at this moment, there are men in

1960

this Government who want to go easy on the rebels. You can never tell,

1961

you know-- he laughed -- the present Government might yet need these

1962

rebellious forces to crush the workers' movement . . .

1963

1964

"We know what we want. To us it means nothing that there is a Soviet

1965

Union somewhere in the world, for the sake of whose peace and

1966

tranquillity the workers of Germany and China were sacrificed to

1967

Fascist barbarians by Stalin. We want revolution here in Spain, right

1968

now, not maybe after the next European war. We are giving Hitler and

1969

Mussolini far more worry to-day with our revolution than the whole

1970

Red Army of Russia. We are setting an example to the German and

1971

Italian working class on how to deal with fascism.

1972

1973

"I do not expect any help for a libertarian revolution from any

1974

Government in the world. Maybe the conflicting interests of the

1975

various imperialisms might have some influence in our struggle.

1976

That is quite possible . . . But we expect no help, not even from

1977

our own Government, in the last analysis."

1978

1979

"You will be sitting on a pile of ruins if you are victorious,"

1980

said [the journalist] van Paasen.

1981

1982

Durruti answered: "We have always lived in slums and holes in the

1983

wall. We will know how to accommodate ourselves for a time. For,

1984

you must not forget, we can also build. It is we the workers who

1985

built these palaces and cities here in Spain and in America and

1986

everywhere. We, the workers, can build others to take their place.

1987

And better ones! We are not in the least afraid of ruins. We are

1988

going to inherit the earth; there is not the slightest doubt about

1989

that. The bourgeoisie might blast and ruin its own world before it

1990

leaves the stage of history. We carry a new world here, in our

1991

hearts. That world is growing this minute." [quoted by Vernon

1992

Richards, Lessons of the Spanish Revolution, pp. 193-4f]

1993

</blockquote>

1994

Isolation, the uneven support for a libertarian revolution

1995

across Spain and the dangers of fascism were real problems,

1996

but they do not excuse the libertarian movement for its

1997

mistakes. As we discuss in sections

1998

<a href="secI8.html#seci811">I.8.11</a> and

1999

<a href="secI8.html#seci813">I.8.13</a>, the

2000

biggest of these mistakes was forgetting basic anarchist

2001

ideas and an anarchist approach to the problems facing

2002

the Spanish people. If these ideas had been applied in

2003

Spain, the outcome of the Civil War and Revolution would

2004

have been different.

2005

2006

In summary, while the decision to collaborate is one

2007

that can be understood (due to the circumstances under which

2008

it was made), it cannot be justified in terms of anarchist

2009

theory. Indeed, as we argue in the

2010

<a href="secI8.html#seci811">next section</a>, attempts

2011

by the CNT leadership to justify the decision in terms of

2012

anarchist principles are not convincing and cannot be done

2013

without making a mockery of anarchism.

2014

2015

<a name="seci811"><h2>I.8.11 Was the decision to collaborate a product of anarchist theory, so showing anarchism is flawed?

b'</h2>'

2016

2017

As we indicated in the

2018

<a href="secI8.html#seci810">last section</a>, the decision to

2019

collaborate with the state was made by the CNT due to

2020

the fear of isolation. The possibility that by declaring

2021

libertarian communism, the CNT would have had to fight

2022

the Republican government and foreign interventions

2023

as well as the military coup influenced the decision

2024

reached by the militants of Catalan anarchism. They

2025

argued that such a situation would only aid Franco.

2026

2027

Rather than being the product of anarchist ideology,

2028

the decision was made in light of the immediate danger

2029

of fascism and the situation in other parts of the

2030

country. The fact is that the circumstances in which the

2031

decision to collaborate was made are rarely mentioned

2032

by Marxists, who prefer to quote CNT militant Garcia

2033

Oliver's comment from over a year later:

2034

2035

"The CNT and the FAI decided on collaboration and democracy,

2036

renouncing revolutionary totalitarianism which would lead to

2037

the strangulation of the revolution by the anarchist and

2038

Confederal dictatorship. We had to choose, between Libertarian

2039

Communism, which meant anarchist dictatorship, and democracy,

2040

which meant collaboration." [quoted by Vernon Richards,

2041

Lessons of the Spanish Revolution, p. 34]

2042

</blockquote>

2043

It is this quote, and quotes like it, which is ritualistically

2044

trotted out by Marxists when attacking anarchist ideas. They

2045

argue that they expose the bankruptcy of anarchist theory. So

2046

convinced of this, they rarely bother discussing the problems

2047

facing the CNT after the defeat of the military coup we discussed

2048

in the

2049

<a href="secI8.html#seci810">last section</a>

2050

nor do they compare these quotes to the

2051

anarchist theory they claim inspired them. There are good

2052

reasons for this. Firstly, if they presented the objective

2053

circumstances the CNT found itself it then their readers

2054

may see that the decision, while wrong, is understandable

2055

and had nothing to do with anarchist theory. Secondly, by

2056

comparing these quotes to anarchist theory they would

2057

soon see how at odds they are with it. Indeed, they invoke

2058

anarchism to justify conclusions the exact opposite of

2059

that theory.

2060

2061

So what can be made of Garcia Oliver's argument?

2062

2063

As Abel Paz notes, "[i]t is clear that the explanations

2064

given . . . were designed for their political effect, hiding

2065

the atmosphere in which these decisions were taken. These

2066

declarations were made a year later when the CNT were

2067

already far removed from their original positions It is also

2068

the period when they had become involved in the policy of

2069

collaboration which lead taking part in the Central

2070

Government. But in a certain way they shed light on the

2071

unknown factors which weighted so heavily on these who

2072

took part in the historic Plenum." [Durruti: The People

2073

Armed, p. 215]

2074

2075

For example, when the decision was made, the revolution

2076

had not started yet. The street fighting had just ended

2077

and the Plenum decided "not to speak about Libertarian

2078

Communism as long as part of Spain was in the hands of

2079

the fascists." [Mariano R. Vesquez, quoted by Paz, Op.

2080

Cit., p.214] The revolution took place from below in

2081

the days following the decision, independently of the

2082

wishes of the Plenum. In the words of Abel Paz:

2083

2084

"When the workers reached their workplaces . . . they

2085

found them deserted . . . The major centres of production

2086

had been abandoned by their owners . . . The CNT and

2087

its leaders had certainly not foreseen this situation;

2088

if they had, they had, they would have given appropriate

2089

guidance to the workers when they called off the General

2090

Strike and ordered a return to work. What happened next

2091

was the result of the workers' spontaneous decision to

2092

take matters into their own hands.

2093

2094

"Finding the factories deserted, and no instructions

2095

from their unions, they resolved to operate the

2096

machines themselves." [The Spanish Civil War,

2097

pp. 54-5]

2098

</blockquote>

2099

The rank and file of the CNT, on their own initiative,

2100

took advantage of the collapse of state power to transform

2101

the economy and social life of Catalonia. Paz stresses

2102

that "no orders were given for expropriation or

2103

colectivisation -- which proved that the union, which

2104

represented the will of the their members until July 18th,

2105

had now been overtaken by events" and the "union leaders

2106

of the CNT committees were confronted with a revolution

2107

that they had not foreseen . . . the workers and peasants

2108

had bypassed their leaders and taken collective action."

2109

[Op. Cit., p. 40 and p. 56]

2110

2111

As the revolution had not yet begun and the CNT Plenum had

2112

decided not to call for its start, it is difficult to see

2113

how "libertarian communism" (i.e. the revolution) could

2114

"lead to the strangulation of the revolution" (i.e.

2115

libertarian communism). In other words, this particular

2116

rationale put forward by Garica Oliver could not reflect

2117

the real thoughts of those present at the CNT plenum and

2118

so, in fact, was a later justification for the CNT's actions.

2119

2120

Similarly, Libertarian Communism is based on self-management,

2121

by its nature opposed to dictatorship. According to the

2122

CNT's resolution at its congress in Zaragonza in May,

2123

1936, "the foundation of this administration will be the

2124

Commune" which is "autonomous" and "federated at regional

2125

and national levels." The commune "will undertake to

2126

adhere to whatever general norms [that] may be agreed

2127

by majority vote after free debate." It stressed the

2128

free nature of society aimed at by the CNT:

2129

2130

"The inhabitants of a commune are to debate among themselves

2131

their internal problems . . . Federations are to deliberate

2132

over major problems affecting a country or province and all

2133

communes are to be represented at their reunions and assemblies,

2134

thereby enabling their delegates to convey the democratic

2135

viewpoint of their respective communes . . . every commune

2136

which is implicated will have its right to have its say . . .

2137

On matters of a regional nature, it is the duty of the regional

2138

federation to implement agreements . . . So the starting point

2139

is the individual, moving on through the commune, to the

2140

federation and right on up finally to the confederation."

2141

[quoted by Jose Peirats, The CNT in the Spanish Revolution,

2142

vol. 1, pp. 106-7]

2143

</blockquote>

2144

Hardly a picture of "anarchist dictatorship"! Indeed, it

2145

is far more "democratic" than the capitalist state Oliver

2146

describes as "democracy."

2147

2148

Clearly, these often quoted words of Garcia Oliver cannot be

2149

taken at face value. Made in 1937, they present an attempt to

2150

misuse anarchist ideals to defend the anti-anarchist activities

2151

of the CNT leadership rather than a meaningful explanation of

2152

the decisions made on the 20th of July, 1936.

2153

2154

Moreover, the decision made then clearly stated that Libertarian

2155

Communism would be back on the agenda once Franco was defeated.

2156

Oliver's comments were applicable after Franco was defeated

2157

just as much as when they were made. The real reasons for the

2158

decision to collaborate lies elsewhere, namely in the objective

2159

circumstances facing the CNT after the defeat of the army

2160

in Barcelona, July 20th, 1936, and not in anarchist theory.

2161

2162

This can clearly been seen from the report made by the CNT

2163

to the International Workers Association to justify

2164

the decision to forget anarchist theory and collaborate

2165

with bourgeois parties and join the government. The

2166

report states that "the CNT, loyal to its ideals and

2167

its purely anarchist nature, did not attack the forms

2168

of the State, nor try publicly to penetrate or dominate

2169

it . . . none of the political or juridical institutions

2170

were abolished." [quoted by Robert Alexander, The

2171

Anarchists in the Spanish Civil War, vol. 2, p. 1156]

2172

2173

In other words, according to this report, "anarchist" ideals

2174

do not, in fact, mean the destruction of the state, but

2175

rather the ignoring of the state. That this is nonsense,

2176

concocted to justify the CNT leaderships' betrayal of its

2177

ideals, is clear. To do so we just need to look at Bakunin

2178

and Kropotkin and look at the activities of the CNT before

2179

the start of the war.

2180

2181

Bakunin had argued that "the revolution must set out

2182

from the first to radically and totally destroy the State"

2183

and that the "natural and necessary consequence of this

2184

destruction" will include the "dissolution of army, magistracy,

2185

bureaucracy, police and priesthood." Capital would be

2186

expropriated (i.e. the "confiscation of all productive capital

2187

and means of production on behalf of workers' associations,

2188

who are to put them to use") and the state replaced by "the

2189

federative Alliance of all working men's associations" which

2190

"will constitute the Commune." [Michael Bakunin: Selected

2191

Writings, p. 170] Similarly, Kropotkin had stressed that

2192

the "Commune . . . must break the State and replace it

2193

by the Federation." [Words of a Rebel, p. 83]

2194

2195

Thus anarchism has always been clear on what to do with

2196

the state, and it is obviously not what the CNT did to it!

2197

Nor had the CNT always taken this perspective. Before the

2198

start of the Civil War, the CNT had organised numerous

2199

insurrections against the state. For example, in the spontaneous

2200

revolt of CNT miners in January 1932, the workers "seized town

2201

halls, raised the black-and-red flags of the CNT, and declared

2202

communismo liberatario." In Tarassa, the same year, the workers

2203

again "seiz[ed] town halls" and the town "swept by street

2204

fighting." The revolt in January 1933 began with "assaults by

2205

Anarchist action groups . . . on Barcelona's military barracks

2206

. . . Serious fighting occurred in working-class barrios and

2207

the outlying areas of Barcelona . . . Uprising occurred in

2208

Tarassa, Sardanola-Ripollet, Lerida, in several pueblos

2209

in Valencia province, and in Andalusia." In December 1933,

2210

the workers "reared barricades, attacked public buildings,

2211

and engaged in heavy street fighting . . . many villages

2212

declared libertarian communism." [Murray Bookchin, The

2213

Spanish Anarchists, p. 225, p. 226, p. 227 and p. 238]

2214

2215

It seems that the CNT leadership's loyalty to "its ideals

2216

and its purely anarchist nature" which necessitated "not

2217

attack[ing] the forms of the State" was a very recent

2218

development! That enemies of anarchism quote Garcia

2219

Oliver's words from 1937 or from this document and others

2220

like it in order to draw conclusions about anarchist theory

2221

says more about their politics than about anarchism!

2222

2223

As can be seen, the rationales later developed to justify

2224

the betrayal of anarchist ideas and the revolutionary

2225

workers of Spain have no real relationship to anarchist

2226

theory. They were created to justify a non-anarchist

2227

approach to the struggle against fascism, an approach

2228

based on ignoring struggle from below and instead forging

2229

alliances with parties and unions at the top (in the

2230

style of the UGT "Workers' Alliance" the CNT had

2231

correctly argued against before the war).

2232

2233

Rather than trying to cement a unity with other organisations

2234

at the top level, the leadership of the CNT should have

2235

applied their anarchist ideas by inciting the oppressed

2236

to enlarge and consolidate their gains (which they did

2237

anyway). This would have liberated all the potential

2238

energy within the country (and elsewhere), energy that

2239

clearly existed as can be seen from the spontaneous

2240

collectivisations that occurred after the fateful Plenum

2241

of July 20th and the creation of volunteer workers'

2242

militia columns sent to liberate those parts of Spain

2243

which had fallen to Franco.

2244

2245

The role of anarchists, therefore, was that of "inciting

2246

the people to abolish capitalistic property and the

2247

institutions through which it exercises its power for the

2248

exploitation of the majority by a minority" and "to

2249

support, to incite and encourage the development of the

2250

social revolution and to frustrate any attempts by the

2251

bourgeois capitalist state to reorganise itself, which

2252

it would seek to do." This would involve "seeking to

2253

destroy bourgeois institutions through the creation

2254

of revolutionary organisms." [Vernon Richards, Op. Cit.,

2255

p. 44, p. 46 and p. 193]

2256

2257

In other words, to encourage, what Bakunin called

2258

the "federation of the standing barricades," made

2259

up of "delegates . . . vested with binding mandates

2260

and accountable and revocable at all times") which could

2261

have been the initial framework for both defending and

2262

extending the revolution (to "defend the revolution"

2263

a "communal militia" would be organised, the revolution

2264

would "radiate . . . outwards" and communes would

2265

"federate . . . for common defence.") [Michael Bakunin,

2266

No Gods, No Masters, vol. 1, p. 155 and p. 142] The

2267

equivalent of the "Sections" of the French Revolution,

2268

what Kropotkin argued "laid the foundations of a new,

2269

free, social organisation" and expressed "the principles

2270

of anarchism." [The Great French Revolution, vol. 1,

2271

p. 206 and p. 204] Indeed, such an organisation already

2272

existing in embryo in the CNT's barrios defence committees

2273

which had led and co-ordinated the struggle against the

2274

military coup throughout the city.

2275

2276

Later, a delegate meeting from the various workplaces (CNT

2277

and UGT organised as well as unorganised ones) would have to

2278

had been arranged to organise, to again quote Bakunin, "the

2279

federal Alliance of workers associations" which would

2280

"constitute the Commune" and complement the "federation

2281

of the standing barricades." [Op. Cit., p. 155] In more

2282

modern terminology, a federation of workers' councils

2283

combined with a federation of workers' militias and

2284

community assemblies. Without this, the revolution was

2285

doomed as was the war against Franco's forces.

2286

2287

Such a development, applying the basic ideas of anarchism

2288

(and as expounded in the CNT's May resolution on Libertarian

2289

Communism), was not an impossibility. After all, the CNT-FAI

2290

organised something similar in Aragon. The fear that if

2291

libertarian communism was implemented then a civil war

2292

within the anti-fascist forces would occur (so aiding

2293

Franco) was a real one. Unfortunately, the conclusion draw

2294

from that fear, namely to win the war against Franco before

2295

talking about the revolution, was the wrong one. After all,

2296

a civil war within the Republican side did occur, when

2297

the state had recovered enough to do start it. Similarly,

2298

with the fear of a blockade by foreign governments. This

2299

happened away, confirming Durruti's comment that he "did

2300

not expect help for a libertarian revolution from any

2301

government in the world . . . not even from our own

2302

government in the last analysis." [quoted by Vernon

2303

Richards, Op. Cit., p. 194f] Organising a full and proper

2304

delegate meeting in the first days of the revolution would

2305

have allowed these ideas to be discussed by the whole membership

2306

of the CNT and, perhaps, a different decision may have been

2307

reached on the subject of collaboration.

2308

2309

By thinking they could postpone the revolution until after the

2310

war, the CNT leadership made two mistakes. Firstly, they should

2311

have known that their members would hardly miss this opportunity

2312

to implement their ideas so making their decision redundant

2313

(and a statist backlash inevitable). Secondly, they abandoned

2314

their anarchist ideas, failing to understand that the struggle

2315

against fascism would never be effective without the active

2316

participation of the working class. Such participation could

2317

never be achieved by placing the war before the revolution

2318

and by working in top-down, statist structures or within

2319

a state.

2320

2321

Indeed, the mistake made by the CNT, while understandable, cannot

2322

be justified given that their consequences had been predicted by

2323

numerous anarchists beforehand, including Kropotkin decades

2324

previously in an essay on the Paris Commune. In that essay he

2325

refutes the two assumptions of the CNT leadership -- first, of

2326

placing the war before the revolution and, second, that the

2327

struggle could be waged by authoritarian structures or a state.

2328

2329

Kropotkin had explicitly attacked the mentality and logic

2330

begin the official CNT line of not mentioning Libertarian

2331

Communism "until such time as we had captured that part of

2332

Spain that was in the hands of the rebels." Kropotkin had

2333

lambasted those who had argued "Let us first make sure of

2334

victory, and then see what can be done." His comments are

2335

worth quoting at length:

2336

2337

"Make sure of victory! As if there were any way of transforming

2338

society into a free commune without laying hands upon property!

2339

As if there were any way of defeating the enemy so long as the

2340

great mass of the people is not directly interested in the triumph

2341

of the revolution, in witnessing the arrival it of material, moral

2342

and intellectual well-being for all! They sought to consolidate

2343

the Commune first of all while postponing the social revolution

2344

for later on, while the only effective way of proceeding was

2345

to consolidate the Commune by the social revolution!

2346

2347

"It was the same with the governmental principle. In proclaiming

2348

the free Commune, the people of Paris proclaimed an essential

2349

anarchist principle . . . If we admit, in fact, that a central

2350

government is absolutely useless to regulate the relations of

2351

communes between each other, why do we grant its necessity to

2352

regulate the mutual relations of the groups that constitute

2353

the Commune? . . . A government within the Commune has no more

2354

right to exist than a government over the Commune." [Words

2355

of a Rebel, p. 97]

2356

</blockquote>

2357

Kropotkin's argument was sound, as the CNT discovered. By waiting

2358

until victory in the war they were defeated. Kropotkin also

2359

indicated the inevitable effects of the CNT's actions in

2360

co-operating with the state and joining representative bodies.

2361

In his words:

2362

2363

"Paris . . . sent her devoted sons to the Hotel-de-Ville [the

2364

town hall]. Indeed, immobilised there by fetters of red tape,

2365

forced to discuss when action was needed, and losing the

2366

sensitivity that comes from continual contact with the masses,

2367

they saw themselves reduced to impotence. Paralysed by their

2368

distancing from the revolutionary centre -- the people --

2369

they themselves paralysed the popular initiative." [Op. Cit.,

2370

pp. 97-8]

2371

</blockquote>

2372

Which, in a nutshell, was what happened to the leading militants of

2373

the CNT who collaborated with the state. Kropotkin was proved right,

2374

as was anarchist theory from Bakunin onwards.

2375

As Vernon Richards argues, "there can be no excuse" for the CNT's

2376

decision, as "they were not mistakes of judgement but the deliberate

2377

abandonment of the principles of the CNT." [Lessons of the Spanish

2378

Revolution, pp. 41-2] It seems difficult to blame anarchist

2379

theory for the decisions of the CNT when that theory argues the

2380

opposite position.

2381

2382

However, while the experience of Spain confirms anarchist theory

2383

negatively, it also confirms it positively by the Council of

2384

Aragon. The Council of Aragon was created by a meeting of

2385

delegates from CNT unions, village collectives and militia

2386

columns to protect the new society the people of Aragon were

2387

building. Its creation exposes as false the claim that anarchism

2388

failed in during the Spanish Civil War. In Aragon, the CNT did

2389

follow the ideas of anarchism, abolishing both the state and

2390

capitalism. If they had followed this example in Catalonia, the

2391

outcome of the Civil War may have been different.

2392

2393

In spite of opposition from the two Catalan militia leaders, the

2394

Aragonese delegates at the Bujaraloz assembly, encouraged by Durruti,

2395

supported the proposals and the Regional Defence Council of Arag�n

2396

was born with the specific objective of implementing libertarian

2397

communism. The meeting also decided to press for the setting up of

2398

a National Defence Committee which would link together a series of

2399

regional bodies that were organised on principles similar to the

2400

one now established in Aragon.

2401

2402

The formation of the Regional Defence Council was an affirmation

2403

of commitment to the principles of libertarian communism. This

2404

principled stand for revolutionary social and economic change

2405

stands at odds with the claims that the Spanish Civil War

2406

indicates the failure of anarchism. After all, in Aragon the

2407

CNT did act in accordance with anarchist theory and its own

2408

history and politics.

2409

2410

Therefore, the activities of the CNT during the Civil

2411

War cannot be used to discredit anarchism although it

2412

can be used to show that anarchists can and do make

2413

terrible decisions in difficult circumstances. That

2414

Marxists always point to this event in anarchist

2415

history is unsurprising, for it was a terrible mistake.

2416

2417

However, to use this to generalise about anarchism

2418

is false as it, firstly, requires a dismissal of

2419

the objective circumstances the decision was made in

2420

(see <a href="secI8.html#seci810">last section</a>)

2421

and, secondly, it means ignoring

2422

anarchist theory and history. It also gives the impression

2423

that anarchism as a revolutionary theory must be evaluated

2424

purely from one event in its history. The experiences of

2425

the Makhnovists in the Ukraine, the U.S.I and U.A.I.

2426

in the factory occupations of 1920 and fighting fascism

2427

in Italy, the insurrections of the C.N.T. during the

2428

1930s, the Council of Aragon created by the CNT in the

2429

Spanish Revolution and so on, are all ignored when

2430

evaluating anarchism. Hardly convincing, although

2431

handy for Marxists. As is clear from, for example, the

2432

experiences of the Makhnovists and the Council of

2433

Aragon, that anarchism has been applied successfully

2434

on a large scale, both politically and economically,

2435

in revolutionary situations.

2436

2437

As Emma Goldman argued, the "contention that there is

2438

something wrong with Anarchism . . . because the leading

2439

comrades in Spain failed Anarchism seems to be very faulty

2440

reasoning . . . the failure of one or several individuals

2441

can never take away from the depth and truth of an ideal."

2442

[Vision on Fire, p. 299] This is even more the case when

2443

anarchists can point to anarchist theory and other examples

2444

of anarchism in action which fully followed anarchist ideas.

2445

That opponents of anarchism fail to mention these examples

2446

suggests their case against anarchism, based on the experience

2447

of the CNT in the Spanish Civil War, is deeply flawed.

2448

2449

Rather than show the failure of anarchism, the experience

2450

of the Spanish Revolution indicates the failure of anarchists

2451

to apply their ideas in practice. Faced with extremely

2452

difficult circumstances, they compromised their ideas in

2453

the name of anti-fascist unity. Sadly, their compromises

2454

confirmed (rather than refuted) anarchist theory as

2455

they led to the defeat of both the revolution and the

2456

civil war.

2457

2458

<a name="seci812"><h2>I.8.12 Was the decision to collaborate imposed on the CNT's membership?</h2>

2459

2460

A few words have to be said about the development of the

2461

CNT and FAI post 19th of July. It is clear that the CNT and

2462

FAI changed in nature and were the not same organisations as

2463

they were before July 1936. Both organisations became more

2464

centralised and bureaucratic, with the membership excluded

2465

from many major decisions. As Peirats argues:

2466

2467

"In the CNT and among militant anarchists there had been a

2468

tradition of the most scrupulous respect for the deliberations

2469

and decisions of the assemblies, the grassroots of the

2470

federalist organisation. Those who held administrative

2471

office had been merely the mandatories of those decisions.

2472

The regular motions adopted by the National congresses

2473

spelled out to the Confederation and its representative

2474

committees ineluctable obligations of a basic and general

2475

nature incumbent upon very affiliated member regardless of

2476

locality or region. And the forming of such general motions

2477

was the direct responsibility of all of the unions by means of

2478

motions adopted at their respective general assemblies. Similarly,

2479

the Regional or Local Congresses would establish the guidelines

2480

of requirement and problems that obtained only at regional or

2481

local levels. In both instances, sovereignty resided always

2482

with the assemblies of workers whether in their unions or

2483

in their groups.

2484

2485

"This sense of rigorous, everyday federalist procedure was abruptly

2486

amended from the very outset of the revolutionary phase. . . This

2487

amendment of the norms of the organisation was explained away by

2488

reference to the exceptional turn of events, which required a greater

2489

agility of decisions and resolutions, which is to say a necessary

2490

departure from the circuitous procedures of federalist practice

2491

which operated from the bottom upwards." [The CNT in the Spanish

2492

Revolution, vol. 1, p. 213]

2493

</blockquote>

2494

In other words, the CNT had become increasingly hierarchical,

2495

with the higher committees becoming transformed into executive

2496

bodies rather than administrative ones ("it is safe to assert

2497

that the significant resolutions in the organisation were

2498

adopted by the committees, very rarely by the mass constituency.

2499

Certainly, circumstances required quick decisions from the

2500

organisation, and it was necessary to take precautions to

2501

prevent damaging leaks. These necessities tempted the committees

2502

to abandon the federalist procedures of the organisation."

2503

[Jose Peirats, Anarchists in the Spanish Revolution, p. 188]).

2504

2505

Ironically, rather than the "anarchist leaders" of the CNT

2506

failing to "seize power" as Trotsky and his followers lament,

2507

they did -- in their own organisations. Such a development

2508

proved to be a disaster and re-enforced the anarchist critique

2509

against hierarchical and centralised organisations. The CNT higher

2510

committees became isolated from the membership, pursued their

2511

own policies and compromised and paralysed the creative work

2512

being done by the rank and file -- as predicted in anarchist

2513

theory. However, be that as it may, as we will indicate below,

2514

it would be false to assert that these higher committees simply

2515

imposed the decision to collaborate on their memberships (as,

2516

for example, Vernon Richards seems to imply in his Lessons

2517

of the Spanish Revolution). While it is true that the

2518

committees presented many decisions as a fait accompli

2519

the rank-and-file of the C.N.T and F.A.I did not simply

2520

follow orders and ratify all decisions blindly.

2521

2522

In any revolutionary situation decisions have to be made fast

2523

and sometimes without consulting the base of the organisation.

2524

However, such decisions must be accountable to the membership

2525

who must discuss and ratify them (this was the policy within

2526

the CNT militias, for example). The experience of the CNT and

2527

FAI in countless strikes, insurrections and campaigns had proven

2528

the decentralised, federal structure was more than capable of

2529

pursuing the class war -- revolution is no exception as it is

2530

the class war in its most concentrated form. In other words, the

2531

organisational principles of the CNT and FAI were more than

2532

adequate for a revolutionary situation.

2533

2534

The centralising tendencies, therefore, cannot be blamed on

2535

the exception circumstances of the war. Rather, it is the

2536

policy of collaboration which explains them. Unlike the

2537

numerous strikes and revolts that occurred before July 19th,

2538

1936, the CNT higher committees had started to work within

2539

the state structure. This, by its very nature, must generate

2540

hierarchical and centralising tendencies as those involved

2541

must adapt to the states basic structure and form. The

2542

violations of CNT policy flowed from the initial decision

2543

to compromise in the name of "anti-fascist unity" and a

2544

vicious circle developed -- each compromise pushed the

2545

CNT leadership further into the arms of the state, which

2546

increased hierarchical tendencies, which in turn isolated

2547

these higher committees of the CNT from the masses, which

2548

in turn encouraged a conciliatory policy by those committees.

2549

2550

This centralising and hierarchical tendency did not mean that

2551

the higher committees of the CNT simply imposed their will on

2552

the rest of the organisation. It is very clear that the decision

2553

to collaborate had, initially, the passive support of the majority

2554

of the CNT and FAI (probably because they thought the war would

2555

be over after a few weeks or months). This can be seen from various

2556

facts. As visiting French anarchist Sebastian Faure noted, while

2557

"effective participation in central authority has had the

2558

approval of the majority within the unions and in the groups

2559

affiliated to the FAI, that decision has in many places encountered

2560

the opposition of a fairly substantial minority. Thus there has been

2561

no unanimity." [quoted by Jose Peirats, The CNT in the Spanish

2562

Revolution, vol. 1, p. 183]

2563

2564

In the words of Peirats:

2565

2566

"Were all of the militants of the same mind? . . . Excepting some

2567

vocal minorities which expressed their protests in their press

2568

organs and through committees, gatherings, plenums and assemblies,

2569

the dismal truth is that the bulk of the membership was in thrall

2570

to a certain fatalism which was itself a direct consequence of the

2571

tragic realities of the war." [Op. Cit., p. 181]

2572

</blockquote>

2573

And:

2574

2575

"We have already seen how, on the economic plane, militant anarchism

2576

forged ahead, undaunted, with its work of transforming the economy.

2577

It is not to be doubted -- for to do so would have been to display

2578

ignorance of the psychology of libertarian rank and file of the

2579

CNT -- that a muffled contest, occasionally erupting at plenums and

2580

assemblies and manifest in some press organs broke out as soon as

2581

the backsliding began. In this connection, the body of opinion

2582

hostile to any possible deviation in tactics and principles was

2583

able to count throughout upon spirited champions."

2584

[Op. Cit., p. 210]

2585

</blockquote>

2586

Thus, within the libertarian movement, there was a substantial

2587

minority who opposed the policy of collaboration and made their

2588

opinions known in various publications and meetings. While many

2589

(if not most) revolutionary anarchists volunteered for the

2590

militias and so were not active in their unions as before, there

2591

were various groups (such as Catalan Libertarian Youth, the

2592

Friends of Durruti, other FAI groups, and so on) which were

2593

opposed to collaboration and argued their case openly in the

2594

streets, collectives, organisational meetings and so on. Moreover,

2595

outside the libertarian movement the two tiny Trotskyist groups

2596

also argued against collaboration, as did sections of the POUM.

2597

Therefore it is impossible to state that the CNT membership

2598

were unaware of the arguments against the dominant policy.

2599

Also the Catalan CNT's higher committees, for example, after

2600

the May Days of 1937 could not get union assemblies or plenums

2601

to expel the Friends of Durruti nor to get them to withhold

2602

financial support for the Libertarian Youth, who opposed

2603

collaboration vigorously in their publications, nor

2604

get them to call upon various groups of workers to stop

2605

distributing opposition publications in the public transit

2606

system or with the daily milk. [Abe Bluestein in Gomez Casas's

2607

Anarchist Organisation: The History of the FAI, p. 10]

2608

2609

This suggests that in spite of centralising tendencies, the higher

2610

committees of the CNT were still subject to some degree of popular

2611

influence and control and should not be seen as having dictatorial

2612

powers over the organisation. While many decisions were presented

2613

as fait accompli to the union plenums (often called by the

2614

committees at short notice), in violation of past CNT procedures,

2615

the plenums could not be railroaded into any ratifying any

2616

decision the committees wanted. The objective circumstances

2617

associated with the war against Franco and fascism convinced most

2618

C.N.T. members and libertarian activists that working with other

2619

parties and unions within the state was the only feasible

2620

option. To do otherwise was to weaken the war effort by provoking

2621

another Civil War in the anti-Franco camp. While such a policy

2622

did not work (when it was strong enough the Republican state did

2623

start a civil war against the C.N.T. which gutted the struggle

2624

against fascism) it cannot be argued that it was imposed upon

2625

the membership nor that they did not hear opposing positions.

2626

Sadly, the call for anti-fascist unity dominated the minds of

2627

the libertarian movement.

2628

2629

In the early stages, the majority of rank-and-file militants believed

2630

that the war would be over in a matter of weeks. After all, a few days

2631

had been sufficient to rout the army in Barcelona and other industrial

2632

centres. This inclined them to, firstly, tolerate (indeed, support)

2633

the collaboration of the CNT with the "Central Committee of Anti-Fascist

2634

Militias" and, secondly, to start expropriating capitalism in the

2635

belief that the revolution would soon be back on track (the

2636

opportunity to start introducing anarchist ideas was simply

2637

too good to waste, regardless of the wishes of the CNT Plenum).

2638

They believed that the revolution and libertarian communism, as

2639

debated and adopted by the CNT's Zaragoza Congress of May that

2640

year, was an inseparable aspect of the struggle against economic

2641

and social oppression and proceeded appropriately. The

2642

ignoring of the state, rather than its destruction, was seen as

2643

a short-term compromise, soon to be corrected. Sadly, there were

2644

wrong -- collaboration had a logic all its own, one which got

2645

worse as the war dragged on (and soon it was too late).

2646

2647

Which, we must note indicates the superficial nature of most Marxist

2648

attacks on anarchism using the CNT as the key evidence. After all, it

2649

was the anarchists and anarchist influenced members of the CNT who

2650

organised the collectives, militias and started the transformation

2651

of Spanish society. They did so inspired by anarchism and in an

2652

anarchist way. To praise their actions, while attacking "anarchism",

2653

shows a lack of logic -- it was anarchism which inspired these

2654

actions. Indeed, these actions have more in common with anarchist

2655

ideas than the actions and rationales of the CNT leadership. Thus,

2656

to attack "anarchism" by pointing to the anti-anarchist actions

2657

of a few leaders while ignoring the anarchist actions of the majority

2658

is flawed.

2659

2660

Therefore, to summarise, it is clear that while the internal structure

2661

of the CNT was undermined and authoritarian tendencies increased by

2662

its collaboration with the state, the CNT was not transformed into

2663

a mere appendage to the higher committees of the organisation.

2664

The union plenums could and did reject the calls made by the

2665

leadership of the CNT. Support for "anti-fascist unity" was

2666

widespread among the CNT membership (in spite of the activities

2667

and arguments of large minority of anarchists) and was reflected

2668

in the policy of collaboration pursued by the organisation. While

2669

the CNT higher committees were transformed into a bureaucratic

2670

leadership, increasingly isolated from the rank and file, it

2671

cannot be argued that their power was absolute nor totally at

2672

odds with the wishes of the membership. Ironically, but

2673

unsurprisingly, the divergences from the C.N.T's previous

2674

libertarian organisational principles confirmed anarchist

2675

theory and became a drag on the revolution and a factor in

2676

its defeat.

2677

2678

As we argued in

2679

<a href="secI8.html#seci811">section I.8.11</a>,

2680

the initial compromise with the

2681

state, the initial betrayal of anarchist theory and CNT policy,

2682

contained all the rest. Moreover, rather than refute anarchism,

2683

the experience of the CNT after it had rejected anarchist theory

2684

confirmed the principles of anarchism -- centralised, hierarchical

2685

organisations hindered and ultimately destroyed the revolution.

2686

2687

The experience of the C.N.T and F.A.I suggests that those,

2688

like Leninists, who argue for more centralisation and for

2689

"democratic" hierarchical structures have refused to understand,

2690

let alone learn from, history. The increased centralisation

2691

within the C.N.T aided and empowered the leadership (a minority)

2692

and disempowered the membership (the majority). Rather than

2693

federalism hindering the revolution, it, as always, was

2694

centralism which did so.

2695

2696

Therefore, in spite of a sizeable minority of anarchists within

2697

the C.N.T and F.A.I arguing against the dominate policy of

2698

"anti-fascist unity" and political collaboration, this policy

2699

was basically agreed to by the C.N.T membership and was not

2700

imposed upon them. The membership of the C.N.T could, and did,

2701

reject suggestions of the leadership and so, in spite of the

2702

centralisation of power that occurred in the C.N.T due to the

2703

policy of collaboration, it cannot be argued that this policy

2704

was alien to the wishes of the rank-and-file.

2705

2706

<a name="seci813"><h2>I.8.13 What political lessons were learned from the revolution?</h2>

2707

2708

The most important political lesson learned from the Spanish Revolution

2709

is that a revolution cannot compromise with existing power structures.

2710

In this, it just confirmed anarchist theory.

2711

2712

The Spanish Revolution is a clear example of the old maxim, "those

2713

who only make half a revolution dig their own graves." Essentially,

2714

the most important political lesson of the Spanish Revolution is

2715

that a social revolution will only succeed if it follows an

2716

anarchist path and does not seek to compromise in the name of

2717

fighting a "greater evil." As Kropotin put it, a "revolution

2718

that stops half-way is sure to be soon defeated." [The Great

2719

French Revolution, vol. 2, p. 553]

2720

2721

On the 20th of July, after the fascist coup had been defeated in

2722

Barcelona, the C.N.T. sent a delegation of its members to meet the

2723

leader of the Catalan Government. A plenum of C.N.T union shop

2724

stewards, in the light of the fascist coup, agreed that libertarian

2725

communism would be "put off" until Franco had been defeated (the

2726

rank and file ignored them and collectivised their workplaces).

2727

They organised a delegation to visit the Catalan president

2728

to discuss the situation:

2729

2730

"The delegation. . . was intransigent . . . Either Companys

2731

[the Catalan president] must accept the creation of a

2732

Central Committee [of Anti-Fascist Militias] as the ruling

2733

organisation or the C.N.T. would consult the rank and file

2734

and expose the real situation to the workers. Companys

2735

backed down." [Abel Paz, Durruti: the people Armed, p. 216,

2736

our emphasis]

2737

</blockquote>

2738

The C.N.T committee members used their new-found influence in the

2739

eyes of Spain to unite with the leaders of other organisations/parties

2740

but not the rank and file. This process lead to the creation of the

2741

"Central Committee of Anti-Fascist Militias", in which political

2742

parties as well as labour unions were represented. This committee

2743

was not made up of mandated delegates from workplaces, communities

2744

or barricades, but of representatives of existing organisations,

2745

nominated by committees. Instead of a genuine confederal body (made

2746

up of mandated delegates from workplace, militia and neighbourhood

2747

assemblies) the C.N.T. created a body which was not accountable to,

2748

nor could reflect the ideas of, ordinary working class people

2749

expressed in their assemblies. The state and government was not

2750

abolished by self-management, only ignored.

2751

2752

This first betrayal of anarchist principles led to all the rest,

2753

and so to the defeat of the revolution and the civil war. As Emma

2754

Goldman argued, the Spanish anarchists had "come to realise that

2755

once they went into the so-called united-front, they could do

2756

nothing else but go further. In other words, the one mistake,

2757

the one wrong step inevitably led to others as it always does.

2758

I am more than ever convinced that if the comrades had remained

2759

firm on their own grounds they would have remained stronger than

2760

they are now. But I repeat, once they had made common cause for

2761

the period of the anti-Fascist war, they were driven by the

2762

logic of events to go further." [Vision on Fire, pp. 100-1]

2763

2764

The most obvious problem, of course, was that collaboration with

2765

the state ensured that a federation of workers' associations

2766

could not be created to co-ordinate the struggle against fascism

2767

and the social revolution. As Stuart Christie argues, "[b]y

2768

imposing their leadership from above, these partisan committees

2769

suffocated the mushrooming popular autonomous revolutionary

2770

centres -- the grass-roots factory and local revolutionary

2771

committees -- and prevented them from proving themselves

2772

as an efficient and viable means of co-ordinating communications,

2773

defence and provisioning. They also prevented the Local

2774

Revolutionary committees from integrating with each other

2775

to form a regional, provincial and national federal network

2776

which would facilitate the revolutionary task of social

2777

and economic reconstruction." [We, the Anarchists!,

2778

pp. 99-100]

2779

Without such a federation, it was only a matter of time before

2780

the C.N.T joined the bourgeois government.

2781

2782

Rather than being an example of "dual power" as many

2783

Trotskyists maintain, the "Central Committee of Anti-Fascist

2784

Militias" created on July 20th, 1936, was, in fact, an organ

2785

of class collaboration and a handicap to the revolution. Stuart

2786

Christie was correct to call it an "artificial and hybrid

2787

creation," a "compromise, an artificial political solution,

2788

an officially sanctioned appendage of the Generalidad

2789

government" which "drew the CNT-FAI leadership inexorably

2790

into the State apparatus, until then its principal enemy."

2791

[Op. Cit., p. 105] Only a true federation of delegates from

2792

the fields, factories and workplaces could have been the

2793

framework of a true organisation of (to use Bakunin's

2794

expression) "the social (and, by consequence, anti-political)

2795

power of the working masses." [Michael Bakunin: Selected

2796

Writings, pp. 197-8]

2797

2798

Therefore, the C.N.T forgot a basic principle of anarchism,

2799

namely "the destruction . . . of the States." Instead, like

2800

the Paris Commune, the C.N.T thought that "in order to combat

2801

. . . reaction, they had to organise themselves in reactionary

2802

Jacobin fashion, forgetting or sacrificing what they themselves

2803

knew were the first conditions of revolutionary socialism." The

2804

real basis of the revolution, the basic principle of anarchism,

2805

was that the "future social organisation must be made solely

2806

from the bottom upwards, by the free association or federation

2807

of workers, firstly in their unions, then in communes, regions,

2808

nations and finally in a great federation, international and

2809

universal." [Bakunin, Op. Cit., p. 198, p. 202 and p. 204] By

2810

not doing this, by working in a top-down compromise body rather

2811

than creating a federation of workers' councils, the C.N.T

2812

leadership could not help eventually sacrificing the revolution

2813

in favour of the war.

2814

2815

Of course, if a full plenum of CNT unions and barrios

2816

defence committees, with delegates invited from UGT and

2817

unorganised workplaces, had taken place there is no

2818

guarantee that the decision reached would have been in

2819

line with anarchist theory. The feelings for antifascist

2820

unity were strong. However, the decision would have been

2821

fully discussed by the rank and file of the union, under

2822

the influence of the revolutionary anarchists who were

2823

later to join the militias and leave for the front. It

2824

is likely, given the wave of colllectivisation and what

2825

happened in Aragon, that the decision would have been

2826

different and the first step would have made to turn

2827

this plenum into the basis of a free federation of

2828

workers associations -- i.e. the framework of an

2829

anarchist and self-managed society -- which could have

2830

smashed the state and ensured no other appeared to

2831

take its place.

2832

2833

The basic idea of anarchism, the need to create a federation of

2834

workers councils, was ignored. In the name of "antifascist" unity,

2835

the C.N.T worked with parties and classes which hated both them

2836

and the revolution. In the words of Sam Dolgoff "both before and

2837

after July 19th, an unwavering determination to crush the

2838

revolutionary movement was the leitmotif behind the policies

2839

of the Republican government; irrespective of the party in

2840

power." [The Anarchist Collectives, p. 40] Without creating

2841

a means to organise the "social power" of the working class,

2842

the CNT was defenceless against these parties once the state

2843

had re-organised itself.

2844

2845

To justify their collaboration, the leaders of the C.N.T-F.A.I argued

2846

that not collaborating would have lead to a civil war within the civil

2847

war, so allowing Franco easy victory. In practice, while paying lip

2848

service to the revolution, the Communists and republicans attacked

2849

the collectives, murdered anarchists, cut supplies to collectivised

2850

industries (even war industries) and disbanded the anarchist militias

2851

after refusing to give them weapons and ammunition (preferring to arm

2852

the Civil Guard in the rearguard in order to crush the C.N.T. and so the

2853

revolution). By collaborating, a civil war was not avoided. One occurred

2854

anyway, with the working class as its victims, as soon as the state felt

2855

strong enough.

2856

2857

Garcia Oliver (the first ever, and hopefully last, "anarchist" minister

2858

of justice) stated in 1937 that collaboration was necessary and that the

2859

C.N.T. had "renounc[ed] revolutionary totalitarianism, which would lead to

2860

the strangulation of the revolution by anarchist and Confederal [C.N.T.]

2861

dictatorship. We had confidence in the word and in the person of a Catalan

2862

democrat" Companys (who had in the past jailed anarchists). Which means that

2863

only by working with the state, politicians and capitalists can an anarchist

2864

revolution be truly libertarian! Furthermore, in the words of Vernon Richards:

2865

2866

"This argument contains . . . two fundamental mistakes, which many

2867

of the leaders of the CNT-FAI have since recognised, but for which

2868

there can be no excuse, since they were not mistakes of judgement

2869

but the deliberate abandonment of the principles of the CNT. Firstly,

2870

that an armed struggle against fascism or any other form of reaction

2871

could be waged more successfully within the framework of the State

2872

and subordinating all else, including the transformation of the

2873

economic and social structure of the country, to winning the war.

2874

Secondly, that it was essential, and possible, to collaborate with

2875

political parties -- that is politicians -- honestly and sincerely,

2876

and at a time when power was in the hands of the two workers

2877

organisations. . .

2878

2879

"All the initiative . . . was in the hands of the workers. The

2880

politicians were like generals without armies floundering in a

2881

desert of futility. Collaboration with them could not, by any

2882

stretch of the imagination, strengthen resistance to Franco.

2883

On the contrary, it was clear that collaboration with political

2884

parties meant the recreation of governmental institutions and the

2885

transferring of initiative from the armed workers to a central

2886

body with executive powers. By removing the initiative from the

2887

workers, the responsibility for the conduct of the struggle and

2888

its objectives were also transferred to a governing hierarchy,

2889

and this could not have other than an adverse effect on the morale

2890

of the revolutionary fighters." [Lessons of the Spanish Revolution,

2891

p. 42]

2892

</blockquote>

2893

The dilemma of "anarchist dictatorship" or "collaboration" raised

2894

in 1937 was fundamentally wrong. It was never a case of banning

2895

parties, and other organisations under an anarchist system, far

2896

from it. Full rights of free speech, organisation and so on should

2897

have existed for all but the parties would only have as much

2898

influence as they exerted in union, workplace, community and

2899

militia assemblies, as should be the case! "Collaboration" yes,

2900

but within the rank and file and within organisations organised

2901

in an anarchist manner. Anarchism does not respect the "freedom"

2902

to be a boss or politician.

2903

2904

In his history of the F.A.I., Juan Gomaz Casas (an active F.A.I.

2905

member in 1936) makes this clear:

2906

2907

"How else could libertarian communism be brought about? It would

2908

always signify dissolution of the old parties dedicated to the idea

2909

of power, or at least make it impossible for them to pursue their

2910

politics aimed at seizure of power. There will always be pockets of

2911

opposition to new experiences and therefore resistance to joining

2912

'the spontaneity of the unanimous masses.' In addition, the masses

2913

would have complete freedom of expression in the unions and in the

2914

economic organisations of the revolution as well as their political

2915

organisations in the district and communities." [Anarchist

2916

Organisation: the History of the F.A.I., p. 188f]

2917

</blockquote>

2918

Instead of this "collaboration" from the bottom up, by means

2919

of a federation of workers' associations, community assemblies

2920

and militia columns as argued for by anarchists from Bakunin

2921

onwards, the C.N.T. and F.A.I. committees favoured "collaboration"

2922

from the top down. The leaders ignored the state and co-operated

2923

with other trade unions officials as well as political parties in

2924

the Central Committee of Anti-Fascist Militias. In other words,

2925

they ignored their political ideas in favour of a united front

2926

against what they considered the greater evil, namely fascism.

2927

This inevitably lead the way to counter-revolution, the destruction

2928

of the militias and collectives, as they was no means by which

2929

these groups could co-ordinate their activities independently

2930

of the state.

2931

2932

In particular, the continued existence of the state ensured that

2933

economic confederalism between collectives (i.e. extending the

2934

revolution under the direction of the syndicates) could not

2935

develop naturally nor be developed far enough in all places.

2936

Due to the political compromises of the C.N.T. the tendencies

2937

to co-ordination and mutual aid could not develop freely

2938

(see <a href="secI8.html#seci814">next section</a>).

2939

2940

It is clear that the defeat in Spain was due to a failure not of

2941

anarchist theory and tactics but a failure of anarchists to apply

2942

their theory and tactics. Instead of destroying the state, the

2943

C.N.T.-F.A.I. ignored it. For a revolution to be successful it

2944

needs to create organisations which can effectively replace the

2945

state and the market; that is, to create a widespread libertarian

2946

organisation for social and economic decision-making through

2947

which working class people can start to set their own agendas.

2948

Only by going this route can the state and capitalism be

2949

effectively smashed.

2950

2951

In building the new world we must destroy the old one. Revolutions

2952

are authoritarian by their very nature, but only in respect to

2953

structures and social relations which promote injustice, hierarchy

2954

and inequality. It is not "authoritarian" to destroy authority and

2955

not tyrannical to dethrone tyrants! Revolutions, above all else,

2956

must be libertarian in respect to the oppressed. That is, they

2957

must develop structures that involve the great majority of the

2958

population, who have previously been excluded from decision-making

2959

about social and economic issues. As such, a revolution is the

2960

most libertarian thing ever.

2961

2962

As the Friends of Durruti argued a "revolution requires the absolute

2963

domination of the workers' organisations." ["The Friends of Durruti

2964

accuse", from Class War on the Home Front, p. 34] Only this, the

2965

creation of viable anarchist social organisations, can ensure that

2966

the state and capitalism can be destroyed and replaced with a just

2967

system based on liberty, equality and solidarity. Just as Bakunin,

2968

Kropotkin and a host of other anarchist thinkers had argued decades

2969

previously.

2970

2971

Thus the most important lesson gained from the Spanish Revolution

2972

is simply the correctness of anarchist theory on the need to

2973

organise the "social power" of the working class by a free

2974

federation of workers associations to destroy the state. Without

2975

this, no revolution can be lasting. As Gomez Casas correctly

2976

argues, "if instead of condemning that experience [of collaboration],

2977

the movement continues to look for excuses for it, the same

2978

course will be repeated in the future . . . exceptional

2979

circumstances will again put . . . anarchism on [its] knees

2980

before the State." [Op. Cit., p. 251]

2981

2982

The second important lesson is on the nature of anti-fascism. The

2983

C.N.T. leadership, along with many (if not most) of the rank-and-file,

2984

were totally blinded by the question of anti-fascist unity, leading

2985

them to support a "democratic" state against a "fascist" one. While

2986

the basis of a new world was being created around them by the working

2987

class, inspiring the fight against fascism, the C.N.T. leaders

2988

collaborated with the system that spawns fascism. Indeed, while

2989

the anti-fascist feelings of the CNT leadership were sincere, the

2990

same cannot be said of their "allies" (who seemed happier attacking

2991

the gains of the semi-revolution than fighting fascism). As the

2992

Friends of Durruti make clear, "Democracy defeated the Spanish

2993

people, not Fascism." [Class War on the Home Front, p. 30]

2994

2995

To be opposed to fascism is not enough, you also have to be

2996

anti-capitalist. As Durruti stressed, "[n]o government in the

2997

world fights fascism to the death. When the bourgeoisie sees

2998

power slipping from its grasp, it has recourse to fascism

2999

to maintain itself." [quoted Vernon Richards, Op. Cit.,

3000

p. 193f]

3001

3002

In Spain, anti-fascism destroyed the revolution, not fascism. As

3003

the Scottish Anarchist Ethal McDonald argued at the time, "Fascism

3004

is not something new, some new force of evil opposed to society, but

3005

is only the old enemy, Capitalism, under a new and fearful sounding

3006

name . . . Anti-Fascism is the new slogan by which the working class

3007

is being betrayed." [Workers Free Press, Oct 1937]

3008

3009

Thirdly, the argument of the CNT that Libertarian Communism

3010

can wait until after the war was a false one. Fascism can only

3011

be defeated by ending the system that spawned it (i.e. capitalism).

3012

In addition, in terms of morale and inspiration, the struggle

3013

against fascism could only be effective if it was also a struggle

3014

for something better -- namely a free society. To fight fascism

3015

for a capitalist democracy which had repressed the working class

3016

would hardly inspire those at the front. Similarly, the only hope

3017

for workers' self-management was to push the revolution as far

3018

as possible, i.e. to introduce libertarian communism while

3019

fighting fascism. The idea of waiting for libertarian communism

3020

ultimately meant sacrificing it for the war effort.

3021

3022

Fourthly, the role of anarchists in a social revolution is to

3023

always encourage organisation "from below" (to use one of

3024

Bakunin's favourite expressions), revolutionary organisations

3025

which can effectively smash the state. Bakunin himself argued

3026

(as noted above) in favour of workers' councils, complemented

3027

by community assemblies (the federation of the barricades) and

3028

a self-managed militia. This model is still applicable today

3029

and was successfully applied in Aragon by the CNT.

3030

3031

Therefore, the political lessons gained from the experience of the

3032

C.N.T come as no surprise. They, in general, confirm anarchist theory.

3033

As Bakunin argued, no revolution is possible unless the state is smashed,

3034

capital expropriated and a free federation of workers' associations

3035

created as the framework of libertarian socialism. Rather than

3036

refuting anarchism, the experience of the Spanish Revolution confirms

3037

it.

3038

3039

<a name="seci814"><h2>I.8.14 What economic lessons were learned from the revolution?</h2>

3040

3041

The most important lesson from the revolution is the fact that ordinary

3042

people took over the management of industry and did an amazing job of

3043

keeping (and improving!) production in the face of the direst circumstances.

3044

Not only did workers create a war industry from almost nothing in Catalonia,

3045

they also improved working conditions and innovated with new techniques and

3046

processes. The Spanish Revolution shows that self-management is possible

3047

and that the constructive powers of ordinary people inspired by an

3048

ideal can transform society.

3049

3050

From the point of view of individual freedom, its clear that self-management

3051

allowed previously marginalised people to take an active part in the decisions

3052

that affected them. Egalitarian organisations provided the framework for a

3053

massive increase in participation and individual self-government, which

3054

expressed itself in the extensive innovations carried out by the Collectives.

3055

The Collectives indicate, in Stirner's words, that "[o]nly in the union can

3056

you assert yourself as unique, because the union does not possess you, but

3057

you possess it or make it of use to you." [The Ego and Its Own, p. 312]

3058

A fact Emma Goldman confirmed from her visits to collectives and

3059

discussions with their members:

3060

3061

"I was especially impressed with the relies to my questions as to

3062

what actually had the workers gained by the collectivisation . . .

3063

the answer always was, first, greater freedom. And only secondly,

3064

more wages and less time of work. In two years in Russia [1920-21]

3065

I never heard any workers express this idea of greater freedom."

3066

[Vision on Fire, p. 62]

3067

</blockquote>

3068

As predicted in anarchist theory, and borne out by actual experience, there

3069

exists large untapped reserves of energy and initiative in the ordinary

3070

person which self-management can call forth. The collectives proved

3071

Kropotkin's argument that co-operative work is more productive and that if

3072

the economists wish to prove "their thesis in favour of private property

3073

against all other forms of possession, should not the economists demonstrate

3074

that under the form of communal property land never produces such rich

3075

harvests as when the possession is private. But this they could not prove;

3076

in fact, it is the contrary that has been observed." [The Conquest of Bread,

3077

p. 146]

3078

3079

Therefore, five important lessons from the actual experience of a libertarian

3080

socialist economy can be derived:

3081

3082

Firstly, that an anarchist society cannot be created overnight, but is a

3083

product of many different influences as well as the objective conditions.

3084

In this the anarchist collectives confirmed the ideas of anarchist

3085

thinkers like Bakunin and Kropotkin (see

3086

<a href="secI2.html">section I.2</a>).

3087

3088

The lesson from every revolution is that the mistakes made in the process

3089

of liberation by people themselves are always minor compared to the results

3090

of creating institutions for people. The Spanish Revolution is a clear

3091

example of this, with the "collectivisation decree" causing more harm than

3092

good. Luckily, the Spanish anarchists recognised the importance of having

3093

the freedom to make mistakes, as can be seen by the many different forms

3094

of collectives and federations tried.

3095

3096

The actual process in Spain towards industrial co-ordination and so

3097

socialisation was dependent on the wishes of the workers involved --

3098

as would be expected in a true social revolution. As Bakunin argued,

3099

the "revolution should not only be made for the people's sake; it

3100

should also be made by the people." [No Gods, No Masters, vol. 1,

3101

p. 141] The problems faced by a social revolution will be solved

3102

in the interests of the working class only if working class people

3103

solve them themselves. For this to happen it requires working class

3104

people to manage their own affairs directly -- and this implies

3105

anarchism, not centralisation or state control/ownership. The

3106

experience of the collectives in Spain supports this basic idea

3107

of anarchism.

3108

3109

Secondly, that self-management allowed a massive increase in innovation

3110

and new ideas.

3111

3112

The Spanish Revolution is clear proof of the anarchist case against

3113

hierarchy and validates Isaac Puente words that in "a free collective

3114

each benefits from accumulated knowledge and specialised experiences of

3115

all, and vice versa. There is a reciprocal relationship wherein information

3116

is in continuous circulation." [cited in The Anarchist Collectives, p. 32]

3117

b''

3118

Thirdly, the importance of decentralisation of management.

3119

3120

The woodworkers' union experience indicates that when an industry becomes

3121

centralised, the administration of industry becomes constantly merged in fewer

3122

hands which leads to ordinary workers being marginalised. This can happen even

3123

in democratically run industries and soon result in apathy developing within

3124

it. This was predicted by Kropotkin and other anarchist theorists (and by

3125

many F.A.I. members in Spain at the time). While undoubtedly better than

3126

capitalist hierarchy, such democratically run industries are only close

3127

approximations to anarchist ideas of self-management. Importantly, however,

3128

the collectivisation experiments also indicate that co-operation need not

3129

imply centralisation (as can be seen from the Badelona collectives).

3130

3131

Fourthly, the importance of building links of solidarity between workplaces

3132

as soon as possible.

3133

3134

While the importance of starting production after the fascist uprising

3135

made attempts at co-ordination seem of secondary importance to the

3136

collectives, the competition that initially occurred between workplaces

3137

helped the state to undermine self-management. Because there was no

3138

People's Bank or other communistic body to co-ordinate credit and

3139

production, state control of credit and the gold reserves made it

3140

easier for the Republican state (through its monopoly of credit) to

3141

undermine the revolution and control the collectives and (effectively)

3142

nationalise them in time (Durruti and a few others planned to seize the

3143

gold reserves but were advised not to by De Santillan).

3144

3145

This attack on the revolution started when the Catalan State issued a decree

3146

legalising (and so controlling) the collectives in October 1936 (the famous

3147

"Collectivisation Decree"). The counter-revolution also withheld funds for

3148

collectivised industries, even war industries, until they agreed to come

3149

under state control. The industrial organisation created by this decree

3150

was a compromise between anarchist ideas and those of other parties

3151

(particularly the communists) and in the words of Gaston Leval, "the

3152

decree had the baneful effect of preventing the workers' syndicates

3153

from extending their gains. It set back the revolution in industry."

3154

[The Anarchist Collectives, p. 54]

3155

3156

And lastly, that an economic revolution can only succeed if the existing

3157

state is destroyed. As Kropotkin argued, "a new form of economic organisation

3158

will necessarily require a new form of political structure" -- capitalism

3159

needs the state, socialism needs anarchy. [Kropotkin's Revolutionary

3160

Pamphlets, p. 181] Without the new political structure, the new economic

3161

organisation cannot develop to its full potential.

3162

3163

Due to the failure to consolidate the revolution politically, it was

3164

lost economically. The decree "legalising collectivisation" "distorted

3165

everything right from the start" [Collectives in the Spanish Revolution,

3166

p. 227] and helped undermine the revolution by ensuring that the mutualism

3167

of the collectives did not develop freely into libertarian communism ("The

3168

collectives lost the economic freedom they had won at the beginning" due

3169

to the decree, as one participant put it. [Ronald Fraser, Blood of Spain,

3170

p. 230]).

3171

3172

As Fraser notes, it "was doubtful that the C.N.T. had seriously

3173

envisaged collectivisation of industry. . .before this time."

3174

[Op. Cit., p. 212] C.N.T. policy was opposed to the collectivisation

3175

decree. As an eyewitness pointed out, the C.N.T.'s "policy was thus

3176

not the same as that pursued by the decree." [Op. Cit., p. 213]

3177

Indeed, leading anarchists like Abad de Santillan opposed it and

3178

urged people to ignore it:

3179

3180

"I was an enemy of the decree because I considered it premature . . .

3181

when I became councillor, I had no intention of taking into account or

3182

carrying out the decree: I intended to allow our great people to carry

3183

on the task as they best saw fit, according to their own inspiration."

3184

[Op. Cit., p. 212]

3185

</blockquote>

3186

However, with the revolution lost politically, the C.N.T. was soon forced

3187

to compromise and support the decree (the C.N.T. did propose more libertarian

3188

forms of co-ordination between workplaces but these were undermined by

3189

the state). A lack of effective mutual aid organisations allowed the

3190

state to gain power over the collectives and so undermine and destroy

3191

self-management. Working class control over the economy (important as it

3192

is) does not automatically destroy the state. In other words, the economic

3193

aspects of the revolution cannot be considered in isolation from its

3194

political ones.

3195

3196

However, these points do not diminish the successes of the Spanish

3197

revolution. As Gaston Leval argued, "in spite of these shortcomings

3198

[caused lack of complete socialisation] . . . the important fact

3199

is that the factories went on working, the workshops and works

3200

produced without the owners, capitalists, shareholders and

3201

without high management executives." [Collectives in the Spanish

3202

Revolution, p. 228]

3203

3204

Beyond doubt, these months of economic liberty in Spain show not

3205

only that libertarian socialism works and that working class

3206

people can manage and run society ourselves but that it can

3207

improve the quality of life and increase freedom. Given the

3208

time and breathing space, the experiment would undoubtedly have

3209

ironed out its problems. Even in the very difficult environment

3210

of a civil war (and with resistance of almost all other parties

3211

and unions) the workers and peasants of Spain showed that a

3212

better society is possible. They gave a concrete example of

3213

what was previously just a vision, a world which was more

3214

humane, more free, more equitable and more civilised than

3215

that run by capitalists, managers, politicians and bureaucrats.

3216

3217

</body>

3218

</html>