Spain and its Relevance Today - Part 1 by Iain MacSaorsa "If instead of condemning that experience [of collaboration], the [anarchist] movement continues to look for excuses for it, the same course will be repeated in the future...exceptional circumstances will again put...anarchism on [its] knees before the state" (Juan Gomaz Casas, Anarchist Organisation: The History of the FAI, page 251). Introduction Spain, in the 1930's, had the largest anarchist movement in the world. At the start of the Spanish "Civil" war, over one and one half million workers and peasants were members of the C.N.T.(the National Confederation of Labour), an anarchosyndicalist union federation, and 30,000 were members of the F.A.I. (the Anarchist Federation of Iberia). The total population of Spain at this time was 24 million. The anarchist movement was larger, more dynamic and more influential than the corresponding Marxist organisations (the U.G.T. union federation, the Socialist Party, etc). Since 1868, the history of the Spanish Labour and revolutionary movement was dominated by anarchism, a situation unique to Spain in many respects. Therefore, considering this, the need to understand and know the events of Spain is essential. Firstly, to learn from the activities of our comrades, to learn from their mistakes and, secondly, to find and apply what is still relevant from their history to OUR activities and political programme/agenda. Thirdly, to discuss some basis ideas of anarchism, with reference to actual events, which should be clear in people's heads. Hopefully comrades will find this article useful. Needless to say far more could be written on the subject of Spain. This is one view point and should be seen as an aid for the discussion, for further reading and debate and as an indication of what anarchism and anarchists are capable of doing. The Start of the Civil War/Revolution When the Generals revolted against the republic on July the 19th 1936, the government was paralysed. The only resistance to the fascists came from the working class, first and foremost from those sections organised in the C.N.T. and F.A.I.. While the government tried to negotiate with the fascists, offering them spaces in the cabinet at one point, the C.N.T. (and to a lesser degree the radical sections of the U.G.T.) constantly urged people to organise for a general strike, arm themselves and directly resist the coup. When the army did start its uprising, it was met on the streets with the heroism and initiative of the members of the C.N.T. ("Cenetistas") who went on the offensive. It was the C.N.T./F.A.I. which lead the resistance to the Generals. The members of the U.G.T. followed behind, while the politicians did nothing (as usual). It should be noted that U.G.T. unions in areas where the C.N.T. was strong were totally reformist. In areas where the C.N.T. was organised, but smaller, the U.G.T. was forced to be more radical under the influence of C.N.T. activities and the fear that their members would join the more militant (and effective and modern) organisation. After the resistance of the 19th of July, the Generals' coup had been defeated in TWO THIRDS of Spain. It is clear that as the cenetistas fought and died on the barricades they would not be risking their lives for some poxy republic. They unleased the most profound social revolution in the history of the world (so far at least...). The Revolution In the heady days after the 19th of July (people burning money was a common sight in the streets of Barcelona, for example) the initiative and power truly rested in the hands of the rank and file members of the C.N.T. and F.A.I. No positive directives came from the C.N.T. committees (who were to busy doing other things as we shall see later). It was ordinary people, under the influence of Faistas (members of the F.A.I.) and C.N.T. militants no doubt, who, after defeating the uprising, got production, distribution and consumption started again (under more equalitarian arrangements of course) as well as organising, and volunteering (in their thousands) to join, the militias which were to be sent to free those parts of Spain under Franco. In every possible way, the working class of Spain were creating by their own actions a new world based on their own ideas of social justice and freedom (ideas inspired, of course, by anarchism and anarchosyndicalism). The full extent of this revolution cannot be covered here. All that can be done is highlight a few points of special interest and hope that these will give some indication of the breath of these events and encourage people to read a few of the books listed in Appendix 1. All industry in Catalonia was placed either under workers self-management OR workers control (that is, either totally taking over ALL aspects of management, in the first case, or, in the second, controlling the old management). There was, of course, a direct relationship between the size and influence of the C.N.T. and the number and internal nature of the collectives formed. Workers in the U.G.T. were generally inspired to action by the practical example of the C.N.T. In some cases whole town and regional economies were transformed into federations of collectives. The example of Alcoy (population 45 000) can be given as a typical example: "Everything was controlled by the syndicates. But it most not therefore be assumed that everything was decided by a few higher bureaucratic committees without consulting the rank and file members of the union. Here libertarian democracy was practised. As in the C.N.T. there was a reciprocal double structure; from the grass roots at the base....upwards, and in the other direction a reciprocal influence from the federation of these same local units at all levels downwards. from the source back to the source." (Gaston Leval, quoted in "The Anarchist Collectives", Ed Sam Dolgoff, page 105) It should be noted this was obviously before the counterrevolution got under way and that the organs of the collectives were NOT identical to the corresponding organs of the C.N.T., although they did operate like the C.N.T. did before the Civil War. In practice, until sabotaged by the state, the collectives proved that ALL aspects of industry and agriculture can be operated better by the workers themselves (using anarchist organisation) than under capitalism. Collectivisation was not full socialism (although it was definitely socialistic). For example, most collectives kept the use of money (in some form or another) as well as distributing goods according to DEED not NEED (ie, saying that so much labour is "worth" so much and so retaining value relationships from capitalism). Obviously, food was distributed free in some cases (to the old, sick, etc and militia at the front) but the main rationing schemes were still based on certain (not all) capitalist principles. As Gaston Leval states, "it was not... true socialisation, but a form of workers neo-capitalism, a self-management straddling capitalism and socialism, which we maintain would not have occurred had the Revolution been able to extend itself fully under the direction of our syndicates" (Gaston Leval, "Collectives in the Spanish Revolution", p227/8). This should be remembered, as should the last point. In no way can this truly detract from the positive achievements of working class self-management and the anarchist reorganisation of the economy. In general, the collectives created most of the structural framework of an anarchocommunist economy, while, due to the concrete realities of Spain (its isolation economically and politically, the lack of other widespread revolutionary movements in other countries and its agrarian economic base) it could not apply some of the social aspects (abolition of wage labour, money, etc). The militias set to fight the war were organised in true anarchist fashion and often defeated better armed, better trained and more numerous detachments of the fascist army. There was no rank, no saluting and no officer class. Everybody was equal. The militias did use ex-officers, but only as advisors. The direction of the war rested in the militia committees, under the control of the front line fighters who could countermand and replace delegates. The militias contained both men and women. Ironically enough, Trotskyites always say how much they approve of the militias and how "democratic" they were, without ever mentioning how Trotsky removed all these features from the Red Army before and during the Russian Civil War..... When a militia entered a town or village, they did not force the people to join collectives or dictate the form social life would take. All they did was to ensure the population could organise their own lives, as the population saw fit. On the social front, anarchist organisations created rational schools, a libertarian health service, social centres, and so on. The Mujeres Libres (free women) combated the traditional role of wymmin in Spanish society, empowering thousands both inside and outside the anarchist movement (much to the annoyance of some male anarchists...). The story of the Mujeres Libres would take an article in itself (See the Free Women of Spain by Martha A. Ackelsberg for more information on this very important organisation). This activity on the social front only built on the work started long before the start of the war, for example the unions often funded rational schools, workers centres and so on. This (very) short summary cannot do justice to the achievements of our comrades in Spain. The booklist in Appendix 1 contains material for those who wish to find out more. It should come as no surprise that anarchism did create the seeds of a new world and that this world operated infinitely better than capitalism (or state socialism). And we must also remember that anarchism can never be created "overnight". Between capitalism and a classless society (full communist anarchism), there will, of necessity, be a "transition" period after a successful insurrection. This period will be marked by the need to create anarchist structures and social relationships (consolidating the revolution) while defending this task (by force, if necessary). Its first step will be to smash the state and ensure a new one is not formed. The Counterrevolution The "May Days" of 1937 signified the effective defeat of the Spanish Revolution. The state felt strong enough to crush the power of the working class and remove the last remains of their conquests from the 19th of July. The leaders of the CNT and FAI urged compromise, and so aided the state and the counterrevolution. So what went wrong? What had allowed the social revolution to be sidetracked and defeated so quickly. Sad to say, it was the actions of the CNT-FAI and, in particular, the actions of certain "influential militants" (or leaders). For a revolution to be successful it needs to create organisations which can effectively replace the state and the market, that is to create a widespread libertarian organisation for social and economic decision making through which working class people can start to set their own agendas. Only by going this can the state and capitalism be effectively smashed . For example, if the state is not smashed, it continue and get stronger as it will be the only medium for wide scale decision making. This will result in revolutionaries having to work within it, trying to influence it since no other means exist to reach collective decisions. This problem confronted the leaders of the CNT on the 20th of July. They interpreted the needs of the situation as "either we seize power or we collaborate with political parties" (and so the state) in effect, "anarchist dictatorship" or "democracy". While the rank and file members of the CNT (and other sections of the working class inspired by the CNT) were in the process of constructing a new world, clearly showing in practice that they were in favour of anarchism, the "influential militants" in CNT committees were stabbing them in the back. Instead of pursuing anarchist policies (and past CNT policy as indicated from congresses), the committee members started to pursue their own policies. Far from NOT seizing power themselves (as the Trotskyites lament, their definition of "workers power"), the CNT and FAI committee members seized power within their own organisations. Without receiving any mandate from the CNT syndicates they claimed to be delegates from, the leading committees decided off their own backs not to talk of libertarian communism but only of the fight against fascism. In practice the committees had been separated from the rank and file and their members transformed from delegates into representatives ("leaders" in every sense of the word) who started to make policy decisions on the rank and files behalf, without bothering to consult them. On the 20th of July, instead of, for example, organising a joint plenum of CNT and UGT syndicate delegates plus delegates from previously unorganised workplaces (mandated by the rank and file) in order to discuss the situation and possibly create a permanent delegate federation to coordinate the revolution and the war against the fascists, the CNT-FAI committees sent a delegation of its members to meet the leader of the Catalan Government "The delegation...was intransigent....[e]ither Companys [the Catalan president] must accept the creation of a Central Committee [of AntiFascist Militias] as the ruling organisation or the CNT would CONSULT THE RANK AND FILE AND EXPOSE THE REAL SITUATION TO THE WORKERS. Companys backed down." (p216, Durruti the people armed (my emphasis)) This shows clearly the role of the CNT committee members (see also "Towards a Fresh Revolution" by the Friends of Durruti). They used their new found influence in the eyes of Spain to unite with the leaders of other organisations/parties but not the rank and file. This process lead to the creation of the "Central Committee of AntiFascist Militias", in which political parties as well as labour unions were represented. This committee was not made up of mandated delegates, but of representatives of existing organisations, nominated by committees. Instead of a genuine federal body (made up of mandated delegates from workplace, militia and neighbourhood assemblies) the C.N.T. created a body which was not accountable to, nor could reflect the ideas of, ordinary working class people expressed in their assemblies. The state and government was not abolished by self-management, only ignored. This first betrayal of anarchist principles led to all the rest, and so the defeat of the revolution and so the civil war. In the name of "antifascist" unity, the CNT worked with parties and classes which hated both them and the revolution. In the words of Sam Dolgoff "both before and after July 19th, an unwavering determination to crush the revolutionary movement was the leitmotif behind the policies of the Republican government; irrespective of the party in power" (The Anarchist Collectives, p40) It is clear that anti-fascism destroyed the revolution, not fascism. "Fascism is not something new, some new force of evil opposed to society, but is only the old enemy, Capitalism, under a new and fearful sounding name...AntiFascism is the new slogan by which the working class is being betrayed" (Ethal McDonald, Workers Free Press, Oct 1937) To justify their collaboration, the leaders of the CNT-FAI claimed not to collaborate would have lead to a civil war within the civil war. In practice, while paying lip service to the revolution, the communists and republicans attacked the collectives, murdered anarchists, cut supplies to collectivised industries (even WAR industries) and disbanded the anarchist militias after refusing to give them weapons and ammunition (preferring to arm the Civil Guard in the rearguard in order to crush the CNT and so the revolution). By collaborating, a civil war was not avoided. One occurred anyway, with the working class as its victims, as soon as the state felt strong enough. Garcia Oliver (soon to be the first ever "anarchist" minister of justice) stated that collaboration was necessary and that the CNT had "renounc[ed] revolutionary totalitarianism, which would lead to the strangulation of the revolution by anarchist and Confederal [CNT] dictatorship. We had confidence in the word and in the person of a Catalan democrat" Companys (who had in the past jailed anarchists). Which means that only by working with the state, politicians and capitalists can an anarchist revolution be truly libertarian! The continued existence of the state ensured that economic federalism (ie extending the revolution under the direction of the syndicates) could not develop naturally nor be developed far enough in all places. Due to the political compromises of the C.N.T. the tendencies to coordination and mutual aid could not develop. For example, in Barcelona during the first two months of the revolution there were few real attempts at economic federation between industries. While understandable in the circumstances, ie the need to get production going again placed federalism down the list of things to do, it did lead to some collectives becoming "collective capitalists" as the market could not be replaced by an integrated social organism. In addition, due to the existence of rich and poor capitalist firms before the revolution, there were rich and poor collectives as well. Since there did not exist the means to coordinate production and distribute goods according to need, attempts at mutual aid were often ad hoc. This lack of coordination meant that the collectivisation could not develop towards full socialisation (socialism/communism) plus it made equalising any differences between collectives much harder to achieve. It also allowed the state to intervene into the economy and, through its control of credit, control the collectives. The October 1936 Collectivisation Degree (used by the CNT leadership to "legalise" the revolution!) allowed the state a further way to undermine self-management in industry. This Decree distorted and controlled the revolutionary economy, ensuring that it could develop no further and laid the ground work for its degeneration back towards normal capitalism, which state control of credit (and so the collectives) ensured. Not destroying the state meant that the revolution could never be fully successful economically as politics and economics are bound together so closely. Only under the political conditions of anarchism can its economic conditions flourish and vica versa. The CNT leaders, from the very start of the revolution, claimed that only by a united ("anti-fascist") front, could fascism be defeated. The leadership gave the rank and file no choice (a fait accompli) and, in addition, members at the front were not consulted (most of the "hard-core" anarchists - ie those who were most against compromise - were there) thus reducing opposition to the leadership's line. This fait accompli was the most extreme example of similar actions which had occurred periodically in the past, ie the committees controlling the union and not the syndicate assemblies. Usually, CNT plenums,congresses and conferences managed to curb this tendency to a large extent. The leadership centrally controlled the organisation, calling plenums at short notice, defining the agenda (which was unheard of in the past) and not distributing information to the union assemblies. The leadership's policy, of "anti-fascism" as opposed to antistate/anticapitalism and its actions lead to the defeat of the revolution and so the war. As Vernon Richards makes clear: "[was it] essential, and possible, to collaborate with political parties that is politicians honestly and sincerely, and at a time when power was in the hands of the two workers organisations... ...All the initiative... was in the hands of the workers. The politicians were like generals without armies floundering in a desert of futility. Collaboration with them could not, by any stretch of the imagination, strengthen resistance to Franco. On the contrary, it was clear that collaboration with political parties meant the recreation of governmental institutions and the transferring of initiative from the armed workers to a central body with executive powers" (Vernon Richards' Lessons of the Spanish Revolution, page 42). This is a very good book and is recommended. This collaboration gave the state and capitalism a breathing space and time to gather their strength. When the time was right, they counter attacked and destroyed the revolution and their "allies" in the antifascist front, the CNT-FAI. In the space of two months, the Central Committee of Anti-Fascist Militias was abolished and, having no where left to go, the CNT committees sent 4 representatives into the government as ministers. According to Solidaridad Obrera (the CNT paper) this meant that "the government has stopped being an oppressive force against the working class...with the participation of the CNT, the state and government no longer oppress the people". This is a sick joke considering that soon after the state decided to crush the collectives by force and provoked the May Day events (during which the "anarchist" ministers, in effect, sided with the state and in the name of antifascist "unity" called on the working class to stop resistance). Spain, by the actions of the ordinary members of the CNT-FAI gave anarchism one of its most glorious moments. Unfortunately, it also gave us one of its worse by the actions of certain "influential militants". In part 2, next issue, lessons from the Spanish Revolution and Spanish anarchism. Appendix 1 : Bibliography Lessons of the Spanish Revolution by Vernon Richards (Freedom Press) Anarchists in the Spanish Revolution by Jose Peirats (Freedom Press) The Spanish Anarchists by Murray Bookchin Collectives in the Spanish Revolution by Gaston Level (Freedom Press) Free Women of Spain by Martha A. Ackelsberg A New World in Our Hearts edited by A. Meltzer Durruti the People Armed by Abel Paz (Black Rose Books) Anarchist Organisation : the History of the F.A.I. by Juan Gomaz Casas (Black Rose Books) Objectivity and Liberal Scholarship by Noam Chomsky The Spanish Case by J. Romero Maura (contained in Anarchism Today, pages 60-83, edited by James Joll and David E. Apter). The Practice of direct action : The Barcelona rent strike of 1931 by Nick Rider (from For Anarchism edited by David Goodway Vision of Fire: Emma Goldman (Edited David Porter) Homage to Catalonia by George Orwell The anarchist collectives edited by Sam Dolgoff (Black Rose Books) Towards a Fresh Revolution by The Friends of Durruti (Drowned Rat) Spain: Social Revolution, Counter Revolution Freedom Press (selections from "Spain and the World") The Writings of Camillo Berneri Cienfuegos Press Anarchist Review The Spanish Revolution by Burnett Bolloten The Blood of Spain by Ronald Frazer