In this appendix of our FAQ we discuss and reply to various analyses of Spanish anarchism put forward by Marxists, particularly Marxist-Leninists of various shades. The history and politics of Spanish Anarchism is not well known in many circles, particularly Marxist ones, and the various misrepresentations and distortions that Marxists have spread about that history and politics are many. This appendix is an attempt to put the record straight with regards the Spanish Anarchist movement and point out the errors associated with the standard Marxist accounts of that movement, its politics and its history.
Hopefully this appendix will go some way towards making Marxists (and others) investigate the actual facts of anarchism and Spanish anarchist history rather than depending on inaccurate secondary material (usually written by their comrades).
Part of this essay is based on the article "Trotskyist Lies on Anarchism" which appeared in Black Flag issue no. 211 and Tom Wetzel's article Workers' Power and the Spanish Revolution.
The thesis that the Spanish Anarchists were "primitive rebels,"
with a primitive understanding of the nature of revolution is
a common one amongst Marxists. One of the main sources for this
kind of argument is Eric Hobsbawm's Primitive Rebels, who was
a member of the British Communist Party at the time. While the
obvious Stalinist nature of the author may be thought enough
to alert the intelligent of its political biases, its basic
thesis is repeated by many Marxists.
Before discussing Hobsbawm in more detail, it would be useful
to refute some of the more silly things so-called serious
historians have asserted about Spanish Anarchism. Indeed,
it would be hard to find another social or political movement
which has been more misrepresented or its ideas and activities
so distorted by historians whose attitudes seem more supported
by ideological conviction rather than history or investigation
of social life.
One of the most common descriptions of Spanish anarchism is that
it was "religious" or "millenarium" in nature. Hobsbawm himself
accepts this conceptualisation, along with historians and
commentators like Gerald Brenan and Franz Brokenau (who, in
fact, did state "Anarchism is a religious movement"). Such
use of religion was largely due to the influence of Juan Diaz
del Moral, a lawyer and historian who was also a landowner.
As Jerome R. Mintz points out, "according to Diaz del Moral,
the moral and passionate obreros conscientes [conscious
workers -- i.e. workers who considered themselves to be
anarchists] absorbed in their pamphlets and newspapers were
akin to frenzied believers in a new religion." [The Anarchists
of Casas Viejas, p. 5f] However, such a perspective was formed
by his class position and privileges which could not help
but reflect them:
As Mintz argues, "at first glance the religious model seems to
make anarchism easier to understand, particularly in the absence
of detailed observation and intimate contact. The model was,
however, also used to serve the political ends of anarchism's
opponents. Here the use of the terms 'religious' and 'millenarium'
stamp anarchist goals as unrealistic and unattainable. Anarchism
is thus dismissed as a viable solution to social ills." He
continues by arguing that the "oversimplifications posited
became serious distortions of anarchist belief and practice"
(as we shall see). [Op. Cit., p. 5 and p. 6]
Temma Kaplan's critique of the "religious" view is also worth
mentioning. She argues that "the millenarium theory is too
mechanistic to explain the complex pattern of Andalusian
anarchist activity. The millenarian argument, in portraying
the Andalusian anarchists as fundamentally religious, overlooks
their clear comprehension of the social sources of their
oppression." She concludes that "the degree of organisation,
not the religiosity of workers and the community, accounts
for mass mobilisations carried on by the Andalusian
anarchists at the end of the nineteenth century." She also
notes that the "[i]n a secular age, the taint of religion
is the taint of irrationality." [Anarchists of Andalusia:
1868-1903, pp. 210-12 and p. 211] Thus, the Andalusian
anarchists had a clear idea who their enemies were, namely
the ruling class of the region. She also points out that,
for all their revolutionary elan, the anarchists developed
a rational strategy of revolution, channelling their
energies into organising a trade union movement that
could be used as a vehicle for social and economic change.
Moreover, as well as a clear idea of how to change society
they had a clear vision of what sort of society they desired
-- one built around collective ownership and federations
of workers' associations and communes.
Therefore the idea that anarchism can be explained in "religious"
terms is fundamentally flawed. It basically assumes that the
Spanish workers were fundamentally irrational, unable to
comprehend the sources of their unhappiness nor able to define
their own political goals and tactics and instead looked to
naive theories which reinforced their irrationalities. In
actuality, like most people, they were sensible, intelligent
human beings who believed in a better life and were willing
to apply their ideas in their everyday life. That historians
apply patronising attitudes towards them says more about the
historians than the campesinos.
This uncomprehending attitude to historians can be seen from
some of the more strange assertions they make against the
Spanish Anarchists. Gerald Brenan, Eric Hobsbawm and Raymond
Carr, for example, all maintained that there was a connection
between anarchist strikes and sexual practices. Carr's
description gives a flavour:
Mintz, an American anthropologist who actually stayed with
the campesino's for a number of years after 1965, actually
asked them about such claims. As he put it, the "level-headed
anarchists were astonished by such descriptions of supposed
Spanish puritanism by over-enthusiastic historians." [Op. Cit.,
p. 6] As one anarchist put it, "[o]f course, without any
work the husband couldn't provide any food at dinnertime,
and so they were angry at each other, and she wouldn't have
anything to do with him. In that sense, yes, there were no
sexual relations." [quoted, Op. Cit., p. 7]
Mintz traces the citations which allowed the historians to
arrive at such ridiculous views to a French social historian,
Angel Maraud, who observed that during the general strike of 1902
in Moron, marriages were postponed to after the promised division
of the lands. As Mintz points out, "as a Frenchman, Maraud
undoubtedly assumed that everyone knew a formal wedding ceremony
did not necessarily govern the sexual relations of courting
couples." [Op. Cit., p. 6f]
As for abstinence and puritanism, nothing could be further from
the truth. As Mintz argues, the anarchists considered alcoholism
as being "responsible for much of the social malaise among
many workers . . . Excessive drinking robbed the worker of
his senses and deprived his family of food. Anarchist
newspapers and pamphlets hammered out the evil of this vice."
However, "[p]roscriptions were not of a puritanical order"
(and so there was no desire to "impose" such things on people)
and quotes an anarchist who stated that "coffee and tobacco
were not prohibited, but one was advised against using them.
Men were warned against going to a brothel. It was not a
matter of morality but of hygiene." As for vegetarianism,
it "attracted few adherents, even among the obreros
conscientes." [Op. Cit., pp. 86-7 and p. 88]
Moreover, academic mockery of anarchist attempts to combat
alcoholism (and not alcohol as such) forgets the social
context. Being academics they may not have experienced wage
labour directly and so do not realise the misery it can cause.
People turn to drink simply because their jobs are so bad
and seek escape from the drudgery of their everyday lives.
As Bakunin argued, "confined in their life like a prisoner
in his prison, without horizon, without outlet . . . the
people would have the singularly narrow souls and blunted
instincts of the bourgeois if they did not feel a desire
to escape; but of escape there are but three methods --
two chimerical and a third real. The first two are the
dram-shop and the church, debauchery of the body or
debauchery of the mind; the third is social revolution."
[God and the State, p. 16] So to combat alcoholism was
particularly important as many workers turned to alcohol
as a means of escaping the misery of life under capitalism.
Thus Bookchin:
Mintz sums up by stating "[c]ontrary to exaggerated accounts
of anarchist zeal, most thoughtful obreros conscientes
believed in moderation, not abstinence." [Op. Cit., p. 88]
Unfortunately Mintz's work, the product of years of living
with and talking to the people actually involved in the
movement, does not seem to have made much impact on the
historians. Unsurprising, really, as history is rarely
about the actions, ideas and hopes of working people.
As can be seen, historians seem to delight in misrepresenting the
ideas and actions of the Spanish Anarchists. Sometimes, as just seen,
the distortions are quite serious, extremely misleading and ensure
that anarchism cannot be understood or viewed as a serious political
theory (we can understand why Marxists historians would seek this).
Sometimes they can be subtle as when Ronald Fraser states that
at the CNT's Saragossa congress in 1936 "the proposal to create
a libertarian militia to crush a military uprising was rejected
almost scornfully, in the name of traditional anti-militarism."
[Blood of Spain, p. 101] Hugh Thomas makes the same claim,
stating at "there was no sign that anyone [at the congress]
realised that there was a danger of fascism; and no agreement,
in consequence, on the arming of militias, much less the
organisation of a revolutionary army as suggested by Juan Garcia
Oliver." [The Spanish Civil War, p. 181]
However, what Fraser and Thomas omit to tell the reader is that this motion
"was defeated by one favouring the idea of guerrilla warfare."
[Peter Marshal, Demanding the Impossible, p. 460] The Saragossa
resolution itself stated that a "permanent army constitutes the
greatest danger for the revolution . . . The armed people will be
the best guarantee against all attempts to restore the destroyed
regime by interior or exterior forces . . . Each Commune should
have its arms and elements of defence." [quoted by Robert Alexander,
The Anarchists in the Spanish Civil War, vol. 1, p. 64]
Fraser's and Hugh's omission is extremely serious -- it gives a
radically false impression of anarchist politics. Their comments
could led a reader to think that anarchists, as Marxists claim,
do not believe in defending a revolution. As can be seen from
the actual resolutions of the Saragossa conference, this is not
the case. Indeed, given that the congress was explicitly discussing,
along with many other issues, the question of "defence of the
revolution" their omission seriously distorts the CNT's position
and anarchist theory. As seen, the congress supported the need
to arm the people and to keep those arms under the control of the
communes (as well as the role of "Confederal Defence Forces"
and the efficient organisation of forces on a national level). Given
that Thomas quotes extensively from the Saragossa resolution on
libertarian communism we can only surmise that he forgot to read
the section entitled "Defence of the Revolution."
Hugh and Thomas omissions, however, ensure that anarchism is
presented as an utopian and naive theory, unaware of the problems
facing society. In reality, the opposite is the case -- the Spanish
anarchists were well aware of the need to arm the people and resist
counter-revolution and fascism by force. Regardless of Thomas' claims,
it is clear that the CNT and FAI realised the danger of fascism existed
and passed appropriate resolutions outlining how to organise an
effective means of self-defence (indeed, as early as February 14
of that year, the CNT had issued a prophetic manifesto warning that
right-wing elements were ready to provoke a military coup [Murray
Bookchin, The Spanish Anarchists, p. 273]). To state otherwise,
while quoting from the document that discusses the issue, must be
considered a deliberate lie.
However, to return to our main point -- Eric Hobsbawm's thesis
that the Spanish anarchists were an example of "pre-political"
groups -- the "primitive rebels" of his title.
Essentially, Hobsbawm describes the Spanish Anarchists --
particularly the Andalusian anarchists -- as modern-day
secular mystics who, like the millenarians of the Middle
Ages, were guided by the irrational belief that it was
possible to will profound social change. The actions of
the Spanish anarchist movement, therefore, can be explained
in terms of millenarian behaviour -- the belief that it
was able to jump start to utopia via an act of will.
The Spanish farm and industrial workers, it is argued, were
unable to grasp the complexities of the economic and political
structures that dominated their lives and so were attracted
to anarchism. According to Hobsbawm, anarchism is marked by
"theoretical primitivism" and a primitive understanding of
revolution and this explained why anarchism was popular with
Spanish workers, particularly farm workers. According to
Hobsbawm, anarchism told the workers that by spontaneously
rising up together they could overthrow the forces of
repression and create the new millennium.
Obviously, we cannot refute Hobsbawm's claims of anarchism's
"theoretical primitivism" in this appendix, the reader is
invited to consult the main FAQ. Moreover, we cannot stress
more that Hobsbawm's assertion that anarchists believe in
spontaneous, overnight uprisings is false. Rather, we see
revolution as a process in which day-to-day struggle and
organisation play a key role -- it is not seen as occurring
independently of the on-going class struggle or social
evolution. While we discuss in depth the nature of an
anarchist social revolution in
section J.7, we can present
a few quotes by Bakunin to refute Hobsbawm's claim:
"It is impossible to rouse people by artificial means. Popular
revolutions are born by the actual force of events . . . It
is impossible to bring about such a revolution artificially.
It is not even possible to speed it up at all significantly
. . . There are some periods in history when revolutions are
quite simply impossible; there are other periods when they
are inevitable." [Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings,
p. 183]
Therefore, Bakunin saw revolution as a process which starts
with day-to-day struggle and creation of labour unions to
organise that struggle. As he put it himself:
However, while quoting Bakunin refutes part of his thesis,
Hobsbawm does base his case on some actual events of Spanish
Anarchist history. Therefore we need to look at these cases
and show how he gets these wrong. Without an empirical basis,
his case obviously falls even without quotes by Bakunin. Luckily
the important examples he uses have been analysed by people without
the ideological blinkers inherent in Leninism.
While we shall concentrate on just two cases -- Casa Viejas
in 1933 and the Jerez rising of 1892 -- a few general points
should be mentioned. As Jerome Mintz notes, Hobsbawms' "account
is based primarily on a preconceived evolutionary model of
political development rather than on data gathered in field
research. The model scales labour movements in accord with
their progress toward mass parties and central authority. In
short, he explains how anarchosyndicalists were presumed to
act rather than what actually took place, and the uprising
at Casa Viejas was used to prove an already established point
of view. Unfortunately, his evolutionary model misled him
on virtually every point." [Op. Cit., p. 271] We should also
note his "model" is essentially Marxist ideology -- namely,
Marx's assertion that his aim for mass political parties
expressed the interests of the working class and all other
visions were the products of sectarians. Mintz also points
out that Hobsbawm does not live up to his own model:
Hobsbawm believed that Casas Viejas was the classic "anarchist"
uprising -- "utopian, millenarian, apocalyptic, as all
witnesses agree it to have been." [Primitive Rebels, p. 90]
As Mintz states, "the facts prove otherwise. Casas Viejas
rose not in a frenzy of blind millenarianism but in response
to a call for a nation-wide revolutionary strike. The
insurrection of January 1933 was hatched by faistas
[members of the FAI] in Barcelona and was to be fought
primarily there and in other urban centres. The uprisings
in the countryside would be diversionary and designed to
keep the civil guard from shifting reinforcements. The
faista plot was then fed by intensive newspaper propaganda,
by travelling orators, and by actions undertaken by the
[CNT] defence committees. Representatives of the defence
committees from Casas Viejas and Medina had received
instructions at a regional meeting held days before. On
January 11, the anarchosyndicalists of Casas Viejas
believed that they were joining their companeros who
had already been at the barricades since January 8."
[Op. Cit., p. 272]
Hobsbawm argued that the uprising occurred in accordance
with an established economic pattern:
Mintz states the obvious:
"There is no evidence that kinship had anything to do with
leadership in the anarchist movement in Casa Viejas or
anywhere else. The reverse would be closer to the truth.
Since the anarchists expressed belief in universal brotherhood,
kinship ties were often undermined. In times of strike or
in carrying out any decision of the collective membership,
obreros conscientes sometimes had to act counter to their
kinship demands in order to keep faith with the movement
and with their companeros.
"Hobsbawm's specific examples are unfortunately based in
part on errors of fact. . .
"Hobsbawm's model [also] requires a charismatic leader.
Accordingly, the inspired leader of the uprising is said
to be 'old Curro Cruz ('Six Fingers') who issued the call
for revolution . . . '
[. . .]
"This celebration of Seisdedo's role ['Six Fingers'], however,
ignores the unanimous view of townspeople of every class and
political persuasion, who assert that the old man was apolitical
and had nothing to do with the uprising . . . every observer
and participant in the uprising agrees that Seisdedos was not
the leader and was never anything other than a virtuous
charcoal burner with but a slight interest in anarchosyndicalism.
[. . .]
"Should the role of charismatic leader be given to someone else
in the town? This was not a case of mistaken identity. No single
person in Casas Viejas could lay clam to dominating the hearts
and minds of the men. . .The sindicato was governed by a junta.
Among the cast of characters there is no sign of charismatic
leadership . . ." [Op. Cit., pp. 274-6]
The Jerez uprising of 1892 also fails to provide Hobsbawm with
any empirical evidence to support his claims. Indeed, as in
Casas Viejas, the evidence actually works against him. The
actual events of the uprising are as follows. Just before
midnight of 8th January 1892, several hundred workers entered
the town of Jerez crying "Long live the revolution! Long live
Anarchy!" Armed with only rocks, sticks, scythes and other
farm equipment, they marched toward the city jail with the
evident intention of releasing its prisoners -- who included
many political prisoners, victims of the government's recent
anti-anarchist campaign. A few people were killed and the
uprising dispersed by a regiment of mounted troops.
Hobsbawm claims this revolt as evidence for his "primitive
rebels" thesis. As historian George R. Esenwein argues:
Similarly, many Marxists (and liberal historians) point to the
"cycle of insurrections"
that occurred during the 1930s. They usually portray these
revolts as isolated insurrections organised by the FAI who
appeared in villages and proclaimed libertarian communism.
The picture is one of disorganisation, millenarianism and
a believe in spontaneous revolution inspired by a few militants
and their daring actions. Nothing could be further from the
truth. The "cycle of insurrections" was far more complex
that this, as Juan Gomez Casas makes clear:
Ultimately, Hobsbawm's thesis and its underlying model
represents Marxist arrogance and sectarianism. His model
assumes the validity of the Marxist claim that true working
class movements are based on mass political parties based on
hierarchical, centralised, leadership and those who reject
this model and political action (electioneering) are sects
and sectarians. It was for this reason that Marx, faced with
the increased influence of Bakunin, overturned the First
International's original basis of free discussion with his
own concept of what a real workers' movement should be.
Originally, because the various sections of the International
worked under different circumstances and had attained
different degrees of development, the theoretical ideals
which reflected the real movement would also diverge. The
International, therefore, was open to all socialist and
working class tendencies. The general policies of the
International would be, by necessity, based on conference
decisions that reflected the free political development
that flowed from local needs. These decisions would be
determined by free discussion within and between sections
of all economic, social and political ideas. Marx, however,
replaced this policy with a common program of "political
action" (i.e. electioneering) by mass political parties via
the fixed Hague conference of 1872. Rather than having this
position agreed by the normal exchange of ideas and theoretical
discussion in the sections guided by the needs of the practical
struggle, Marx imposed what he considered as the future of
the workers movement onto the International -- and denounced
those who disagreed with him as sectarians. The notion that
what Marx considered as necessary might be another sectarian
position imposed on the workers' movement did not enter his
head nor that of his followers -- as can be seen, Hobsbawm
(mis)interpreted anarchism and its history thanks to this
Marxist model and vision.
However, once we look at the anarchist movement without the
blinkers created by Marxism, we see that rather than being
a movement of "primitive rebels" Spanish Anarchism was a
movement of working class people using valid tactics to
meet their own social, economic and political goals -- tactics
and goals which evolved to meet changing circumstances. Seeing
the rise of anarchism and anarcho-syndicalism as the political
expression of the class struggle, guided by the needs of the
practical struggle they faced naturally follows when we
recognise the Marxist model for what it is -- just one
possible interpretation of the future of the workers'
movement rather than the future of that movement. Moreover,
as the history of Social Democracy indicates, the predictions
of Bakunin and the anarchists within the First International
were proved correct. Therefore, rather than being "primitive
rebels" or sectarian politics forced upon the working class,
anarchism reflected the politics required to built a
revolutionary workers' movement rather than a reformist
mass party.
It is fair to say that most Marxists in Britain base their criticisms
of the Spanish Anarchism, particularly the revolution of 1936, on
the work of Trotskyist Felix Morrow. Morrow's book Revolution and
Counter-Revolution in Spain, first published in 1938, actually is
not that bad -- for some kinds of information. However, it is
basically written as Trotskyist propaganda. All too often Morrow
is inaccurate, and over-eager to bend reality to fit the party line.
This is particularly the case when discussing the actions and ideas
of the CNT and FAI and when discussing the activities of his
fellow Trotskyists in Spain, the Bolshevik-Leninists. We discuss
the first set of inaccuracies in the following sections, here
we mention the second, Morrow's comments on the Spanish Trotskyists.
The Bolshevik-Leninists, for example, an obscure sect who perhaps
numbered 20 members at most, are, according to Morrow, transformed
into the only ones who could save the Spanish Revolution -- because
they alone were members of the Fourth International, Morrow's own
organisation. As he put it:
"Could that party [the party needed to lead the revolution] be any
but a party standing on the platform of the Fourth International?"
[Op. Cit., p. 248]
The POUM -- a more significant Marxist party in Spain, though still
tiny compared to the anarchists -- is also written up as far more
important than it was, and slagged off for failing to lead the
masses to victory (or listening to the Bolshevik-Leninists). The
Fourth Internationalists "offered the POUM the rarest and most
precious form of aid: a consistent Marxist analysis" [Op. Cit.,
p. 105] (never mind Spanish workers needing guns and solidarity!).
But when such a programme -- prepared in advance -- was offered to
the POUM by the Fourth International representative -- only two hours
after arriving in Spain, and a quarter of an hour after meeting the
POUM [Op. Cit., p. 139] -- the POUM were not interested. The POUM
have been both attacked (and claimed as their own) by Trotskyists
ever since.
It is Morrow's attacks on anarchism, though, that have most readily
entered leftist folklore -- even among Marxists who reject Leninism.
Some of Morrow's criticisms are fair enough -- but these were voiced
by anarchists long before Morrow put pen to paper. Morrow, in fact,
quotes and accepts the analyses of anarchists like Camillo Berneri
("Berneri had been right" etc. [Op. Cit., p. 153]), and praises
anarchists like Durruti ("the greatest military figure produced by
the war" [Op. Cit., p. 224]) -- then sticks the boot into anarchism.
Indeed, Durruti's analysis is praised but he is transformed into "no
theoretician, but an activist leader of masses. . . his words
express the revolutionary outlook of the class-conscious workers."
[Op. Cit., p. 250] Of course, his words, activity and "outlook"
(i.e. political analysis) did not spring out of thin air but
rather, to state the obvious, were informed by and reflected
his anarchist politics, history, activity and vision (which in
turn reflected his experiences and needs as a member of the
working class). Morrow obviously wanted to have his cake
and eat it.
Typically for today's left, perhaps, the most quoted sections of
Morrow's book are the most inaccurate. In the next eight sections
we discuss some of the most inaccurate claims. After that we point
out that Morrow's analysis of the militias is deeply ironic given
Trotsky's actions as leader of the Red Army. Then we discuss some
of Morrow's inaccurate assertions about anarchism in general.
Of course, some of the errors we highlight in Morrow's work
are the product of the conditions in which it was written --
thousands of miles from Spain in America, dependent on papers
produced by Spanish Marxists, Anarchists and others. We cannot
blame him for such mistakes (although we can blame the Trotskyist
publisher who reprints his account without indicating his factual
errors and the Marxist writers who repeat his claims without
checking their accuracy). We do, however, blame Morrow for his
errors and misrepresentations of the activities and politics of
the Spanish Anarchists and anarchism in general. These errors
derive from his politics and inability to understand anarchism
or provide an honest account of it.
By the end of our discussion we hope to show why anarchists argue
that Morrow's book is deeply flawed and its objectively skewed by
the authors politics and so cannot be taken at face value. Morrow's
book may bring comfort to those Marxists who look for ready-made
answers and are prepared to accept the works of hacks at face-value.
Those who want to learn from the past -- instead of re-writing it --
will have to look elsewhere.
According to Morrow, "Spanish Anarchism had in the FAI a highly
centralised party apparatus through which it maintained control
of the CNT" [Op. Cit., p. 100]
In reality, the FAI -- the Iberian Anarchist Federation --
was founded, in 1927, as a confederation of regional federations
(including the Portuguese Anarchist Union). These regional
federations, in turn, co-ordinated local and district
federations of highly autonomous anarchist affinity groups.
In the words of Murray Bookchin:
"The FAI, moreover, was not a politically homogeneous
organisation which followed a fixed 'line' like the
Communists and many Socialists. It had no official
program by which all faistas could mechanically
guide their actions." [Op. Cit., p. 224]
These are internal documents and so unlikely to be lies. [Juan
Gomez Casas, Anarchist Organisation: the History of the FAI,
p. 165 and p. 168]
Anarchists were obviously the main influence in the CNT. Indeed,
the CNT was anarcho-syndicalist long before the FAI was founded --
from its creation in 1910 the CNT had been anarcho-syndicalist
and remained so for 17 years before the FAI existed. However,
Morrow was not the only person to assert "FAI control" of the
CNT. In fact, the claim of "FAI control" was an invention of
a reformist minority within the organisation -- people like Angel
Pestana, ex-CNT National Secretary, who wanted to turn the CNT
into a politically "neutral" union movement. Pestana later showed
what he meant by forming the Syndicalist Party and standing for
Parliament (the Cortes). Obviously, in the struggle against the
reformists, anarcho-syndicalists -- inside the FAI or not -- voted
for people they trusted to run CNT committees. The reformists
(called Treinistas) lost, split from the CNT (taking about
10% of the membership with them), and the myth of "FAI dictatorship"
was born. Rather than accept that the membership no longer supported
them, the Treinistas consoled themselves with tales that a minority,
the FAI, had taken control of the CNT.
In fact, due to its decentralised and federal structure, the FAI
could not have had the sort of dominance over the CNT that is often
attributed to it. At union congresses, where policies and the
program for the movement were argued out:
He sums up by arguing:
Regardless of Morrow's claims, the FAI was a federation of
autonomous affinity groups in which, as one member put it,
"[e]ach FAI group thought and acted as it deemed fit, without
bothering about what the others might be thinking or deciding
. . . they had no . . . opportunity or jurisdiction . . . to
foist a party line upon the grass-roots." [Francisco Carrasquer,
quoted by Stuart Christie, We, the Anarchists!, p. 29] There
was co-ordination in a federal structure, of course, but that
did not create a "highly centralised" party-like organisation.
Morrow judged the FAI according to his own standards, squeezing
it into his ideological vision of the world rather than reporting
the reality of the situation (see Stuart Christie's work for
a more detailed refutation of the usual Marxist and Liberal
inventions of the activities and nature of the FAI).
In addition, Morrow's picture of the FAI implicitly paints the CNT
as a mere "transmission belt" for that organisation (and so a
re-production of the Bolshevik position on the relationship of
the labour unions and the revolutionary party). Such a picture,
however, ignores the CNT's character as a non-hierarchical,
democratic (self-managed) mass movement which had many tendencies
within it. It also fails to understand the way anarchists seek to
influence mass organisations -- not by assuming positions of power
but by convincing their fellow workers' of the validity of their
ideas in policy making mass assemblies (see
section J.3.6 for more
details).
In other words, Morrow's claims are simply false and express a
total lack of understanding of the nature of the CNT, the FAI
and their relationship.
Morrow states that the "tide of the October Revolution had, for
a short time, overtaken the CNT. It had sent a delegate to the
Comintern [Communist International] Congress in 1921. The
anarchists had then resorted to organised fraction work and
recaptured it." [Op. Cit., p. 100] He links this to the FAI by
stating "[t]henceforward . . . the FAI . . . maintained control
of the CNT." Given that the FAI was formed in 1927 and the CNT
disassociated itself with the Comintern in 1922, five years
before the FAI was created, "thenceforward" does not do
the FAI's ability to control the CNT before it was created
justice!
Partly it is the inability of the Communist Party and its Trotskyist
off-shoots to dominate the CNT which explains Morrow's comments.
Seeing anarchism as "petty bourgeois" it is hard to combine this
with the obvious truth that a mass, revolutionary, workers' union
could be so heavily influenced by anarchism rather than Marxism.
Hence the need for FAI (or anarchist) "control" of the CNT. It
allows Trotskyists ignore dangerous ideological questions. As
J. Romero Maura notes, the question why anarchism influenced
the CNT "in fact raises the problem why the reformist social
democratic, or alternatively the communist conceptions, did not
impose themselves on the CNT as they managed to in most of the
rest of Europe. This question . . . is based on the false
assumption that the anarcho-syndicalist conception of the
workers' struggle in pre-revolutionary society was completely
at odds with what the real social process signified (hence
the constant reference to religious', 'messianic', models
as explanations)." He argues that the "explanation of Spanish
anarcho-syndicalist success in organising a mass movement with
a sustained revolutionary elan should initially be sought in
the very nature of the anarchist concept of society and of how
to achieve revolution." [J. Romero Maura, "The Spanish Case", in
Anarchism Today, D. Apter and J. Joll (eds.), p. 78 and p. 65]
Once we do that, we can see the weakness of Morrow's (and others)
"Myth of the FAI" -- having dismissed the obvious reason for
anarchist influence, namely its practicality and valid politics,
there can only be "control by the FAI."
However, the question of affiliation of the CNT to the Comintern
is worth discussing as it indicates the differences between
anarchists and Leninists. As will be seen, the truth of this
matter is somewhat different to Morrow's claims and indicates
well his distorted vision.
Firstly to correct a factual error. The CNT in fact sent two
delegations to the Comintern. At its 1919 national congress,
the CNT discussed the Russian Revolution and accepted a
proposition that stated it "declares itself a staunch
defender of the principles upheld by Bakunin in the First
International. It declares further that it affiliates
provisionally to the Third International on account of its
predominantly revolutionary character, pending the holding
of the International Congress in Spain, which must establish
the foundations which are to govern the true workers'
International." [No Gods, No Masters, vol. 2, pp. 220-1]
In June 1920, Angel Pestana arrived in Moscow and represented
the CNT at the Second Congress of the Communist International.
He was arrested when he arrived back in Spain and so could not
give his eye-witness account of the strangulation of the revolution
and the deeply dishonest manipulation of the congress by the
Communist Party. A later delegation arrived in April 1921,
headed by Andres Nin and Joaquin Maurin professing to represent
the CNT. Actually, Nin and Maurin represented virtually no one
but the Lerida local federation (their stronghold). Their actions
and clams were disavowed by a plenum of the CNT the following
August.
How did Nin and Maurin manage to get into a position to be sent
to Russia? Simply because of the repression the CNT was under
at the time. This was the period when Catalan bosses hired
gun men to assassinate CNT militants and members and the police
exercised the notorious practice known as ley de fugas (shot
while trying to escape). In such a situation, the normal
workings of the CNT came under must stress and "with the
best known libertarian militants imprisoned, deported,
exiled, if not murdered outright, Nin and his group managed
to hoist themselves on to the National Committee . . . Pestana's
report not being available, it was decided that a further
delegation should be sent . . . in response to Moscow's
invitation to the CNT to take part in the foundation of
the Red International of Labour Unions." [Ignaio de Llorens,
The CNT and the Russian Revolution, p. 8] Juan Gomez Casas
confirms this account:
By the time Leval arrived back in Spain, Pestana's account
of his experiences had been published -- along with accounts
of the Bolshevik repression of workers, the Kronstadt revolt,
the anarchist movement and other socialist parties. These
accounts made it clear that the Russian Revolution had become
dominated by the Communist Party and the "dictatorship of
the proletariat" little more that dictatorship by the central
committee of that party.
Moreover, the way the two internationals operated violated
basic libertarian principles. Firstly, the "Red Labour
International completely subordinated trade unions to the
Communist Party." [Peirats, Anarchists in the Spanish
Revolution, p. 38] This completely violated the CNT principle
of unions being controlled by their members (via self-management
from the bottom up). Secondly, the congresses' methodology
in its debates and decision-making were alien to the CNT
tradition. In that organisation self-management was its
pride and glory and its gatherings and congresses reflected
this. Pestana could not fathom the fierce struggle surrounding
the make-up of the chairmanship of the Comintern congress:
Many of the syndicalist delegates to this "pantomime" congress
later meet in Berlin and founded the anarcho-syndicalist
International Workers Association based on union autonomy,
self-management and federalism. Unsurprisingly, once Pestana
and Leval reported back to their organisation, the CNT rejected
the Bolshevik Myth and re-affirmed the libertarian principles
it had proclaimed at its 1919 congress. At a plenum of the CNT
in 1922, the organisation withdrew its provisional affiliation
and voted to join the syndicalist International formed in Berlin.
Therefore, rather than the anarchists conducting "fraction work"
to "recapture" the CNT, the facts are the pro-Bolshevik National
Committee of 1921 came about due to the extreme repression the
CNT was suffering at the time. Militants were being assassinated
in the streets, including committee members. In this context it
is easy to see how an unrepresentative minority could temporarily
gain influence in the National Committee. Moreover, it was CNT
plenary session which revoked the organisations provisional
affiliation to the Comintern -- that is, a regular meeting
of mandated and accountable delegates. In other words, by the
membership itself who had been informed of what had actually
been happening under the Bolsheviks. In addition, it was this
plenum which agreed affiliation to the anarcho-syndicalist
International Workers Association founded in Berlin during
1922 by syndicalists and anarchists horrified by the Bolshevik
dictatorship, having seen it at first hand.
Thus the decision of the CNT in 1922 (and the process by which
this decision was made) follow exactly the decisions and processes
of 1919. That congress agreed to provisionally affiliate to the
Comintern until such time as a real workers' International
inspired by the ideas of Bakunin was created. The only difference
was that this International was formed in Germany, not Spain.
Given this, it is impossible to argue that the anarchists
"recaptured" the CNT.
As can be seen, Morrow's comment presents radically false image of
what happened during this period. Rather than resort to "fraction
work" to "recapture" the CNT, the policies of the CNT in 1919 and
1922 were identical. Moreover, the decision to disaffiliate from
the Comintern was made by a confederal meeting of mandated delegates
representing the rank-and-file as was the original. The anarchists
did not "capture" the CNT, rather they continued to influence the
membership of the organisation as they had always done. Lastly,
the concept of "capture" displays no real understanding of how
the CNT worked -- each syndicate was autonomous and self-managed.
There was no real officialdom to take over, just administrative
posts which were unpaid and conducted after working hours. To
"capture" the CNT was impossible as each syndicate would ignore
any unrepresentative minority which tried to do so.
However, Morrow's comments allow us to indicate some of the key
differences between anarchists and Leninists -- the CNT rejected
the Comintern because it violated its principles of self-management,
union autonomy and equality and built party domination of the union
movement in its place.
Morrow in his discussion of the struggles of the 1930s implies
that the CNT was at fault in not joining the Socialist UGT's
"Workers' Alliance" (Alianza Obrera). These were first
put forward by the Marxist-Leninists of the BOC (Workers and
Peasants Bloc -- later to form the POUM) after their attempts
to turn the CNT into a Bolshevik vanguard failed [Paul Preston,
The Coming of the Spanish Civil War, p. 154]. Socialist Party
and UGT interest began only after their election defeat in 1933.
By 1934, however, there existed quite a few alliances, including
one in Asturias in which the CNT participated. Nationally, however,
the CNT refused to join with the UGT and this, he implies, lead to
the defeat of the October 1934 uprising (see
next section for a
discussion of this rebellion).
However, Morrow fails to provide any relevant historical background
to understand the CNT's decision. Moreover, their reasons why
they did not join have a striking similarity to Morrow's own
arguments against the "Workers' Alliance" (which may explain why
Morrow does not mention them). In effect, the CNT is dammed for
having policies similar to Morrow's but having principles enough
to stick to them.
First, we must discuss the history of UGT and CNT relationships
in order to understand the context within which the anarchists
made their decision. Unless we do this, Morrow's claims may
seem more reasonable than they actually are. Once we have done
this we will discuss the politics of that decision.
From 1931 (the birth of the Second Spanish Republic) to 1933 the
Socialists, in coalition with Republicans, had attacked the CNT
(a repeat, in many ways, of the UGT's collaboration with the
quasi-fascist Primo de Rivera dictatorship of 1923-30). Laws
were passed, with Socialist help, making lightening strikes
illegal and state arbitration compulsory. Anarchist-organised
strikes were violently repressed, and the UGT provided scabs --
as against the CNT Telephone Company strike of 1931. This strike
gives in indication of the role of the socialists during its time
as part of the government (Socialist Largo Caballero was the
Minister of Labour, for example):
"The Ministry of Labour declared the strike illegal and
the Ministry of the Interior called out the Civil Guard
to intimidate the strikers . . . Shedding all pretence
of labour solidarity, the UGT provided the Compania
Telefonica with scabs while El Socialista, the
Socialist Party organ, accused the CNT of being run by
pistoleros. Those tactics were successful in Madrid,
where the defeated strikers were obliged to enrol in the
UGT to retain their jobs. So far as the Socialists were
concerned, the CNT's appeals for solidarity had fallen on
deaf ears. . .
"In Seville, however, the strike began to take on very
serious dimensions. . . on July 20, a general strike broke
out in Seville and serious fighting erupted in the streets.
This strike . . . stemmed from the walkout of the telephone
workers . . . pitched battles took place in the countryside
around the city between the Civil Guard and the agricultural
workers. Maura, as minister of interior, decided to crush the
'insurrection' ruthlessly. Martial law was declared and the
CNT's headquarters was reduced to shambles by artillery fire.
After nine days, during which heavily armed police detachments
patrolled the streets, the Seville general strike came to an
end. The struggle in the Andalusian capital left 40 dead and
some 200 wounded." [Murray Bookchin, The Spanish Anarchists,
pp. 221-2]
Morrow fails to discuss this history of violence against the
CNT. He mentions in passing that the republican-socialist coalition
government "[i]n crushing the CNT, the troops broadened the
repression to the whole working class." He states that
"[u]nder the cover of putting down an anarchist putsch in
January 1933, the Civil Guard 'mopped up' various groups of
trouble makers. And encounter with peasants at Casas Viejas,
early in January 1933, became a cause celebre which shook
the government to its foundations." However, his account
of the Casas Viejas massacre is totally inaccurate. He states
that "the little village . . ., after two years of patient
waiting for the Institute of Agrarian Reform to divide the
neighbouring Duke's estate, the peasants had moved in and
begun to till the soil for themselves." [Op. Cit., p. 22]
Nothing could be further from the truth. Firstly, we must note
that the land workers (who were not, in the main, peasants) were
members of the CNT. Secondly, as we pointed in
section 1, the
uprising had nothing to do with land reform. The CNT members
did not "till the soil", rather they rose in insurrection as
part of a planned CNT-FAI uprising based on an expected rail
workers strike (the "anarchist putsch" Morrow mentions). The
workers were too busy fighting the Civil and Assault Guards to
till anything. He is correct in terms of the repression, of
course, but his account of the events leading up to it is not
only wrong, it is misleading (indeed, it appears to be an
invention based on Trotskyist ideology rather than having any
basis in reality). Rather than being part of a "broadened
. . . repression [against] the whole working class," it was
actually part of the "putting down" of the anarchist revolt.
CNT members were killed -- along with a dozen politically
neutral workers who were selected at random and murdered.
Thus Morrow downplays the role of the Socialists in repressing
the CNT and FAI -- he presents it as general repression rather
than a massacre resulting from repressing a CNT revolt.
He even quotes a communist paper stating that 9 000 political
prisoners were in jail in June 1933. Morrow states that they
were "mostly workers." [p. 23] Yes, they were mostly workers,
CNT members in fact -- "[i]n mid-April [1933]. . . the CNT
launched a massive campaign to release imprisoned CNT-FAI
militants whose numbers had now soared to about 9 000."
[Bookchin, Op. Cit., pp. 231-2]
Moreover, during and after CNT insurrections in Catalonia in
1932, and the much wider insurrections of January 1933 (9 000
CNT members jailed) and December 1933 (16 000 jailed) Socialist
solidarity was nil. Indeed, the 1932 and January 1933 revolts
had been repressed by the government which the Socialist Party
was a member of.
In other words, and to state the obvious, the socialists had
been part of a government which repressed CNT revolts and
syndicates, imprisoned and killed their members, passed laws
to restrict their ability to strike and use direct action
and provided scabs during strikes. Little wonder that Peirats
states "[i]t was difficult for the CNT and the FAI to get used
to the idea of an alliance with their Socialist oppressors."
[Anarchists in the Spanish Revolution, p. 94]
It is only in this context can we understand the events of
1934 and the refusal of the CNT to run into the UGT's alliance.
Morrow, needless to say, does not present this essential
context and so the reader cannot understand why the CNT acted
as it did in response to Socialist appeals for "unity." Instead,
Morrow implies that CNT-FAI opposition to "workers alliances"
were due to them believing "all governments were equally bad."
[p. 29] Perhaps if Morrow had presented an honest account of the
repression the republican-socialist government had inflicted on
the CNT then the reader could make an informed judgement on why
anarchist opposition to the socialist proposals existed. Rather
than being sectarian or against labour unity, they had been
at receiving end of extensive socialist scabbing and state
repression.
Moreover, as well as the recent history of socialist repression
and scabbing, there was also the experience of a similar alliance
between the CNT and UGT that had occurred in 1917. The first
test of the alliance came with a miners strike in Andalusia,
and a "CNT proposal for a joint general strike, to be initiated
by UGT miners and railway workers, had been rejected by the
Madrid Socialists . . . the miners, after striking for four
months, returned to work in defeat." Little wonder that "the
pact was in shreds. It was to be eliminated completely when
a general strike broke out in Barcelona over the arrests of
the CNT leaders and the assassination of Layret. Once again
the CNT called upon the UGT for support. Not only was aid
refused but it was denied with an arrogance that clearly
indicated the Socialists had lost all interest in future
collaboration. . . The strike in Catalonia collapsed and,
with it, any prospect of collaboration between the two
unions for years to come." [Bookchin, Op. Cit., pp. 175-6]
Of course, such historical context would confuse readers
with facts and so goes unmentioned by Morrow.
In addition, there was another reason for opposing the "workers'
alliances" -- particularly an alliance between the UGT and CNT.
Given the history of UGT and CNT pacts plus the actions of
the UGT and socialists in the previous government it was
completely sensible and politically principled. This reason
was political and flowed from the CNT's libertarian vision.
As Durruti argued in 1934:
Only such an alliance, from the bottom up and based on workers'
self-management could be a revolutionary one. Indeed, any pact
not based on this but rather conducted between organisations
would be a pact the CNT and the bureaucracy of the UGT -- and
remove any possibility of creating genuine bodies of working
class self-management (as the history of the Civil War proved).
Indeed, Morrow seems to agree:
Of course, Morrow's statement that "labour parties and unions"
should be represented by delegates as well as "the shop and
street" contradicts claims it would be democratic. After all,
that it would mean that some workers would have multiple votes
(one from their shop, their union and their party). Moreover,
it would mean that parties would have an influence greater
than their actual support in the working class -- something
a minuscule group like the Spanish Trotskyists would obviously
favour as would the bureaucrats of the Socialist and Communist
Parties. Little wonder the anarchists urged a workers' alliance
made up of actual workers rather than an organisation which
would allow bureaucrats, politicians and sects more influence
than they actually had or deserved.
In addition, the "Workers' Alliances" were not seen by the UGT
and Socialist Party as an organisation of equals. Rather, in
words of historian Paul Preston, "from the first it seemed that
the Socialists saw the Alianza Obrera was a possible means of
dominating the workers movement in areas where the PSOE and
UGT were relatively weak." [Op. Cit., p. 154] The Socialist
Party only allowed regional branches of the Alianza Obrera
to be formed only if they could guarantee Party control
would never be lost. [Adrian Schubert "The Epic Failure: The
Asturian Revolution of October 1934", in Revolution and War
in Spain, Paul Preston (ed.), p. 127] Raymond Carr argues
that the Socialists, "in spite of professions to the contrary,
wished to keep socialist domination of the Alianza Obrera"
[Spain: 1808-1975, pp. 634-5f] And only one month after the
first alliance was set up, one of its founder members -- the
Catalan Socialist Union -- left in protest over PSOE
domination. [Preston, The Coming of the Spanish Civil
War, p. 157] In Madrid, the Alianza was "dominated by
the Socialists, who imposed their own policy." [Op. Cit.,
p. 154] Indeed, as Jose Peirats notes, in Asturias where the
CNT had joined the Alliance, "despite the provisions of the
terms of the pact of Alliance to which the CNT was signatory,
the order for the uprising was issued by the Socialists. The
specifically Socialist, revolutionary committee was secretly
at work in Oviedo and it contained no CNT representative."
[The CNT in the Spanish Revolution, vol. 1, p. 48] Largo
Caballero's desire for trade union unity in 1936 was from a
similar mould -- "[t]he clear implication was that proletarian
unification meant Socialist take-over." Little wonder Preston
states that "[i]f the use that he [Caballero] made of the
Alianza Obreras in 1934 had revealed anything, it was that
the domination of the working class movement by the UGT meant
far more to Largo Caballero than any future prospect of
revolution." [Preston, Op. Cit., p. 270]
As can be seen, the CNT's position seemed a sensible one given
the nature and activities of the "Workers' Alliance" in practice.
Also it seems strange that, if unity was the UGT's aims, that
a CNT call, made by the national plenary in February 1934, for
information and for the UGT to clearly and publicly state its
revolutionary objectives, met with no reply. [Peirats, Op. Cit.,
p. 46] In addition, the Catalan Workers' Alliance called a
general strike in March 1934 the day after the CNT's --
hardly an example of workers' unity. [Norman Jones,
"Regionalism and Revolution in Catalonia", Revolution and
War in Spain, Paul Preston (ed.), p. 102]
Thus, the reasons why the CNT did not join in the UGT's "Workers'
Alliance" are clear. As well as the natural distrust towards
organisations that had repressed them and provided scabs to
break their strikes just one year previously, there were political
reasons for opposing such an alliance. Rather than being a
force to ensure revolutionary organisations springing from
the workplace, the "Workers' Alliance" was little more than
pacts between the bureaucrats of the UGT and various Marxist
Parties. This was Morrow's own argument, which also provided
the explanation why such an alliance would weaken any real
revolutionary movement. To requote Morrow, "[w]ithout developing
soviets -- workers' councils -- it was inevitable that even the
anarchists and the POUM would drift into governmental collaboration
with the bourgeoisie." [Op. Cit., p. 89]
That is exactly what happened in July, 1936, when the CNT did
forsake its anarchist politics and joined in a "Workers'
Alliance" type organisation with other anti-fascist parties
and unions to set up the "Central Committee of Anti-Fascist
Militias" (see section 20).
Thus Morrow himself provides the
explanation of the CNT's political rationale for being wary
of the UGT's "Workers' Alliance" while, of course, refusing
to provide the historical context the decision was made.
However, while the CNT's refusal to join the "Workers' Alliance"
outside of Asturias may have been principled (and sensible), it
may be argued that they were the only organisation with
revolutionary potential (indeed, this would be the only
argument Trotskyists could put forward to explain their
hypocrisy). Such an argument would be false for two reason.
Firstly, such Alliances may have potentially created a
revolutionary situation but they would have hindered the
formation of working class organs of self-management such
as workers' councils (soviets). This was the experience of
the Central Committee of Anti-Fascist Militias and of the
Asturias revolt -- in spite of massive revolutionary upheaval
such councils based on delegates from workplace and community
assembles were not formed.
Secondly, the CNT policy of "Unity, yes, but by the rank-and-file"
was a valid method of "from the bottom up solidarity." This can
be seen from just two examples -- Aragon in 1934 and Madrid in
1936. In Aragon, there was a "general strike that had totally
paralysed the Aragonese capital throughout April 1935, ending
. . . on 10 May. . . the Zaragoza general strike had been a
powerful advertisement of the value of a united working-class
front . . . [However,] no formal agreement . . . had been
reached in Zaragoza. The pact there has been created on a
purely circumstantial basis with a unity of trade-union action
achieved in quite specific circumstances and generated to a
considerable extent by the workers themselves." [Graham Kelsey,
Anarchism in Aragon, p. 72] In Madrid, April 1936 (in the
words of Morrow himself) "the CNT declared a general strike in
Madrid . . . The UGT had not been asked to join the strike, and
at first had denounced it . . . But the workers came out of
all the shops and factories and public services . . . because
they wanted to fight, and only the anarchists were calling
them to struggle." [Op. Cit., p. 41]
Thus Morrow's comments against the CNT refusing to join the
Workers' Alliance do not provide the reader with the historical
context required to make an informed judgement of the CNT's
decision. Moreover, they seem hypocritical as the CNT's reasons
for refusing to join is similar to Morrow's own arguments
against the Workers' Alliance. In addition, the CNT's practical
counter-proposal of solidarity from below had more revolutionary
potential as it was far more likely to promote rank-and-file
unity plus the creation of self-managed organisations such as
workers' councils. The Workers' Alliance system would have
hindered such developments.
Again, following Morrow, Marxists have often alleged that the
Socialist and Workers Alliance strike wave, of October 1934,
was sabotaged by the CNT. To understand this allegation, you
have to understand the background to October 1934, and the split
in the workers' movement between the CNT and the UGT (unions
controlled by the reformist Socialist Party, the PSOE).
Socialist conversion to "revolution" occurred only after the
elections of November 1933. In the face of massive and bloody
repression (see last section),
the CNT-FAI had agitated for a
mass abstention at the polling booth. Faced with this campaign,
the republicans and socialists lost and all the laws they had
passed against the CNT were used against themselves. When cabinet
seats were offered to the non-republican (fascist or quasi-fascist)
right, in October 1934, the PSOE/UGT called for a general strike.
If the CNT, nationally, failed to take part in this -- a mistake
recognised by many anarchist writers -- this was not (as reading
Morrow suggests) because the CNT thought "all governments were
equally bad" [Morrow, Op. Cit., p. 29], but because of well-founded,
as it turned out, mistrust of Socialist aims.
A CNT call, on the 13th of February 1934, for the UGT to clearly
and publicly state its revolutionary objectives, had met with no
reply. As Peirats argues, "[t]hat the absence of the CNT did not
bother them [the UGT and Socialist Party] is clear from their
silence in regards to the [CNT's] National Plenary's request."
[Peirats, Anarchists in the Spanish Revolution, p. 96] Rhetoric
aside, the Socialist Party's main aim in October seems to have been
to force new elections, so they could again form a (mildly reformist)
coalition with the Republicans (their programme for the revolt was
written by right-wing socialist Indalecio Prieto and seemed more like
an election manifesto prepared by the Liberal Republicans than a
program for revolutionary change). This was the viewpoint of the CNT,
for example. Thus, the CNT, in effect, was to be used as cannon-fodder
to help produce another government that would attack the CNT.
As we discussed in the last section,
the UGT backed "Workers
Alliances" were little better. To repeat our comments again,
the Socialist Party (PSOE) saw the alliances as a means of
dominating the workers movement in areas where the UGT was weak.
The Socialist "Liaison Committee", for instance, set up to prepare
for insurrection, only allowed regional branches to take part
in the alliances if they could guarantee Party control (see
last section). Raymond Carr argues that the Socialists, "in
spite of professions to the contrary, wished to keep socialist
domination of the Alianza Obrera." [Spain: 1808-1975,
pp. 634-5f] Only one month after the first alliance was set up,
one of its founder members -- the Socialist Union of Catalonia
-- left in protest over PSOE domination.
During October the only real centre of resistance was in Asturias
(on the Spanish north coast). However, before discussing that
area, we must mention Madrid and Barcelona. According to Morrow,
Catalonia "should have been the fortress of the uprising" and
that "[t]erribly discredited for their refusal to join the
October revolt, the anarchists sought to apologise by pointing
to the repression they were undergoing at the time from Companys."
[Op. Cit., p. 30 and p. 32] Morrow fails, however and yet again,
to mention a few important facts.
Firstly, the uprising in Catalonia was pushed for and lead by
Estat Catala which had "temporary ascendancy over the other
groups in the Esquerra" (the Catalan Nationalist Party which
was the Catalan government). "Companys felt obliged to yield
to Dencas' [the leader of Estat Catala] demand that Catalonia
should take this opportunity for breaking with Madrid."
[Gerald Brenan, The Spanish Labyrinth, pp. 282-3] Estat
Catala "was a Youth movement . . . and composed mostly of
workmen and adventurers -- men drawn from the same soil as
the sindicatos libres [boss created anti-CNT yellow unions]
of a dozen years before -- with a violent antagonism to
the Anarcho-Syndicalists. It had a small military organisation,
the escamots, who wore green uniforms. It represented Catalan
Nationalism in its most intransigent form: it was in fact
Catalan Fascism." [Op. Cit., p. 282] Gabriel Jackson calls
Estat Catala a "quasi-fascist movement within the younger
ranks of the Esquerra." [The Spanish Republic and the Civil
War: 1931-1939, p. 150] Ronald Fraser terms it "the extreme
nationalist and proto-fascist" wing of the party. [Blood of
Spain, p. 535] Hugh Thomas notes "the fascist colouring of
Dencas ideas." [The Spanish Civil War, p. 135]
In other words, Morrow attacks the CNT for not participating
in a revolt organised and led by Catalan Fascists (or, at
best, near fascists)!
Secondly, far from being apologetics, the repression the
CNT was suffering from Dencas police forces was very real
and was occurring right up to the moment of the revolt. In
the words of historian Paul Preston:
This is confirmed by anarchist accounts of the rising.
As Peirats points out:
In other words, the first shots fired in the Catalan revolt
were against the CNT by those in revolt against the central
government!
Why were the first shots of the revolt directed at the
members of the CNT? Simply because they were trying to take
part in the revolt in an organised and coherent manner as
urged by the CNT's Regional Committee itself. In spite of
the mass arrests of anarchists and CNT militants the night
before by the Catalan rebels, the CNT's Catalan Regional
Committee issued a clandestine leaflet that stated that
the CNT "must partake in the fray in the manner
congruent with its revolutionary anarchist principles . . .
The revolt which broke out this morning must assume the
characteristics of a popular act . . . We demand the right to
intervene in this struggle and that right we seize." A leaflet
had to be issued as Solidaridad Obrera was several hours late
in appearing due censorship by the Catalan state. The workers had
tried to open their union halls (all CNT union buildings had been
closed by the Catalan government since the CNT revolt of December
1933) because the CNT's leaflet had called for them to be opened
and "the massing of the workers on those premises." [quoted by
Peirats, The CNT in the Spanish Revolution, vol. 1, p. 53] The
participation of the CNT in the revolt as an organised force was
something the Catalan rebels refused to allow and so they fired on
workers trying to open their union buildings. Indeed, after
shutting down Solidaridad Obrera, the police then tried to
break up the CNT's regional plenum that was then in session,
but fortunately it was meeting on different premises and so
they failed. [Peirats, Op. Cit., p. 53]
Juan Gomez Casas argues that:
In other words, during the Catalan revolt, "the CNT had a
difficult time because the insurgents were its worst enemies."
[Peirats, The Anarchists in the Spanish Revolution, p. 98]
However, the complexity of the actual situation does not bother
the reader of Morrow's work as it is not reported. Little
wonder, as Peirats argues, the "absurd contention according
to which the confederal proletariat of Catalonia allegedly
betrayed their brethren in Asturias melts away in the face
of a truthful narration of the facts." [The CNT in the
Spanish Revolution, vol. 1, p. 53-4]
In summary, therefore, Morrow expected the membership of the
Catalan CNT and FAI to join in a struggle started and directed
by Catalan fascists, whose leaders in the government were arresting
and shooting their members, censoring their press, closing
their union offices and refusing them a role in the revolt as
self-organised forces. We think that sums up the validity of
Trotskyism as a revolutionary theory quite well.
In Madrid, the revolt was slightly less farcical. Here the CNT
joined the general strike. However, the UGT gave the government
24 hours notice of the general strike, allowing the state to
round up the Socialist "leaders," seize arm depots and repress
the insurrection before it got started [Morrow, Op. Cit., p. 30].
As Bookchin argues, the "massive strike in Madrid, which was
supported by the entire left, foundered for want of arms and
a revolutionary sense of direction." [Op. Cit., p. 245] He
continues:
Therefore, in two of the three centres of the revolt, the uprising
was badly organised. In Catalonia, the revolt was led by fascist
Catalan Nationalists who arrested and shot at CNT militants. In
Madrid, the CNT backed the strike and was ignored by the Socialists.
The revolt itself was badly organised and quickly repressed (thanks,
in part, to the actions of the Socialists themselves). Little
wonder Peirats asks:
Morrow states that the "backbone of the struggle was broken . . .
when the refusal of the CNT railroad workers to strike enabled the
government to transport goods and troops." [Morrow, Op. Cit., p. 30]
Yet in Asturias (the only area where major troop transportation was
needed) the main government attack was from a sea borne landing of
Foreign Legion and Moroccan troops - against the port and CNT
stronghold (15 000 affiliates) of Gijon (and, we must stress,
the Socialists and Communists refused to provide the anarchists
of these ports with weapons to resist the troop landings). Hence his
claim seems somewhat at odds with the actual events of the October
uprising.
Moreover, he seems alone in this claim. No other historian (for
example, Hugh Thomas in The Spanish Civil War, Raymond Carr in
Spain: 1808-1975, Paul Preston in The Coming of the Spanish
Civil War, Gerald Brenan, The Spanish Labyrinth, Gabriel
Jackson, The Spanish Republic and the Civil War: 1931-1939)
makes this claim. But, of course, these are not Trotskyists and
so can be ignored. However, for objective readers such an omission
might be significant. In addition, they point to other reasons for
the defeat of the revolt -- the amazingly bad organisation of
it by the Socialist Party. Raymond Carr sums up the overwhelming
opinion of the historians when he says that "[a]s a national
movement the revolution was a fiasco." [Op. Cit., p. 633] Hugh
Thomas states that the revolt in Catalonia was "crushed nearly
as quickly as the general strike had been in Madrid." [The
Spanish Civil War, p. 136] Brenan correctly argues that "[f]rom
the moment that Barcelona capitulated and the rising in Madrid
fizzled out, the miners were of course doomed." [Op. Cit.,
p. 286] The failure of both these revolts was directly
attributable to the policies and actions of the Socialists
who controlled the "Workers' Alliances" in both areas. Having
discussed both Madrid and Barcelona above, we leave it to the
reader to conclude whether Morrow's comments are correct or
whether a more likely alternative explanation for the revolt's
failure is possible.
However, even assuming Morrow's claims that the failure of the
CNT rail workers' union to continue striking in the face of a
completely farcical "revolt" played a key role in its defeat
were true, it does not explain many facts. Firstly, the
government had declared martial law -- placing the railway
workers in a dangerous position. Secondly, as Jerome R. Mintz
points out, railway workers "were represented by two competing
unions -- the Sindicato Nacional Ferroviario of the UGT . . .
and the CNT-affiliated FNIFF . . . The UGT . . . controlled
the large majority of the workers. [In 1933] Trifon Gomez,
secretary of the UGT union, did not believe it possible
to mobilise the workers, few of whom had revolutionary
aspirations." [The Anarchists of Casa Viejas, p. 178]
Outside of Catalonia, the majority of the railway workers
belonged to the UGT [Sam Dolgoff, The Anarchist Collectives,
p. 90f] Asturias (the only area where major troop transportation
was needed) does not border Catalonia -- apparently the army
managed to cross Spain on a rail network manned by a minority
of its workers.
However, these points are of little import when compared to
the fact that Asturias the main government attack was, as
we mentioned above, from a sea borne landing of Foreign
Legion and Moroccan troops. Troops from Morocco who land
by sea do not need trains. Indeed, The ports of Aviles and
Gijon were the principle military bases for launching the
repression against the uprising.
The real failure of the Asturias revolt did not lie with the
CNT, it lay (unsurprisingly enough) with the Socialists and
Communists. Despite CNT pleas the Socialists refused arms,
Gjon fell after a bloody struggle and became the main base
for the crushing of the entire region (in "the ports of Aviles
and Gijon . . . [the] revolutionary committees . . . were
Anarchist dominated . . . the Socialists and Communists
of Oviedo clearly distrusted them and had refused arms to
their delegate the day before" troops landed [Gabriel
Jackson, Op. Cit., p. 152]).
This Socialist and Communist sabotage of Anarchist resistance
was repeated in the Civil War, less than two years later.
As can be seen, Morrow's account of the October Insurrection
of 1934 leaves a lot to be desired. The claim that the CNT
was responsible for its failure cannot withstand a close
examination of the events. Indeed, by providing the facts which
Morrow does not provide we can safely say that the failure
of the revolt across Spain rested squarely with the PSOE
and UGT. It was badly organised, they failed to co-operate
or even communicate with CNT when aid was offered, they relied
upon the enemies of the CNT in Catalonia and refused arms to
the CNT in both Madrid and Asturias (so allowing the government
force, the main force of which landed by sea, easy access to
Asturias). All in all, even if the minority of railway workers
in the CNT had joined the strike it would have, in all probability,
resulted in the same outcome.
Unfortunately, Morrow's assertions have become commonplace
in the ranks of the Left and have become even more distorted
in the hands of his Trotskyist readers. For example, we find
Nick Wrack arguing that the "Socialist Party called a general
strike and there were insurrectionary movements in Asturias
and Catalonia, In Madrid and Catalonia the anarchist CNT
stood to one side, arguing that this was a 'struggle between
politicians' and did not concern the workers even though
this was a strike against a move to incorporate fascism
into the government." He continues, "[i]n Asturias the
anarchist militants participated under the pressure of
the masses and because of the traditions of unity in
that area. However, because of their abstentionist
stupidity, the anarchists elsewhere continued to work,
even working trains which brought the Moorish troops
under Franco to suppress the Asturias insurrection."
["Marxism, Anarchism and the State", pp. 31-7, Militant
International Review, no. 46, p. 34]
Its hard to work out where to start in this travesty of
history. We will start with the simple errors. The CNT
did take part in the struggle in Madrid. As Paul Preston
notes, in Madrid the "Socialists and Anarchists went on
strike" [The Coming of the Spanish Civil War, p. 174]
In Catalonia, as indicated above, the "insurrectionary
movement" in Catalonia was organised and lead by Catalan
Fascists, who shot upon CNT members when they tried to
open their union halls and who arrested CNT and FAI
militants the night before the uprising. Moreover, the
people organising the revolt had been repressing the
CNT for months previously. Obviously attempts by Catalan
Fascists to become a government should be supported by
socialists, including Trotskyists. Moreover, the UGT and
PSOE had worked with the quasi-fascist Primo do Rivera
dictatorship during the 1920s. The hypocrisy is clear.
So much for the CNT standing "to one side, arguing that
this was a 'struggle between politicians' and did not
concern the workers even though this was a strike against
a move to incorporate fascism into the government."
His comments that "the anarchists . . . work[ed] trains which
brought the Moorish troops under Franco to suppress the Asturias
insurrection" is just plain silly. It was not anarchists who
ran the trains, it was railway workers -- under martial law --
some of whom were in the CNT and some of whom were anarchists.
Moreover, as noted above the Moorish troops under Franco arrived
by sea and not by train. And, of course, no mention of the fact
that the CNT-FAI in the strategically key port of Gijon was denied
arms by the Socialists and Communists, which allowed the Moorish
troops to disembark without real resistance.
Morrow has a lot to answer for.
It is sometimes claimed that the Friends of Durruti Group
which formed during the Spanish Revolution were Marxists
or represented a "break" with anarchism and a move towards
Marxism. Both these assertions are false. We discuss whether
the Friends of Durruti (FoD) represented a "break" with
anarchism in the
following section. Here we indicate that
claims of the FoD being Marxists are false.
The Friends of Durruti were formed, in March 1937, by anarchist
militants who had refused to submit to Communist-controlled
"militarisation" of the workers' militias. During the Maydays --
the government attack against the revolution two months later --
the Friends of Durruti were notable for their calls to stand
firm and crush the counter-revolution. During and after the
May Days, the leaders of the CNT asserted that the FoD were
Marxists (which was quite ironic as it was the CNT leaders
who were acting as Marxists in Spain usually did by joining
with bourgeois governments). This was a slander, pure and
simple.
The best source to refute claims that the FoD were Marxists
(or becoming Marxist) or that they were influenced by,
or moved towards, the Bolshevik-Leninists is Agustin
Guillamon's book The Friends of Durruti Group: 1937-1939.
Guillamon is a Marxist (of the "left-communist" kind) and
no anarchist (indeed he states that the "Spanish Revolution
was the tomb of anarchism as a revolutionary theory of the
proletariat." [p. 108]). That indicates that his account can
be considered objective and not anarchist wishful thinking.
Here we use his work to refute the claims that the FoD
were Marxists. Section 9 discusses their links (or lack
of them) with the Spanish Trotskyists.
So were the FoD Marxists? Guillamon makes it clear -- no,
they were not. In his words, "[t]here is nothing in the
Group's theoretical tenets, much less in the columns of
El Amigo del Pueblo [their newspaper], or in their
various manifestos and handbills to merit the description
'marxist' being applied to the Group [by the CNT leadership].
They were simply an opposition to the CNT's leadership's
collaborationist policy, making their stand within the
organisation and upon anarcho-syndicalist ideology." [p. 61]
He stresses this in his conclusion:
Morrow claims that the Friends of Durruti (FoD) "represented a
conscious break with the anti-statism of traditional anarchism.
They explicitly declared the need for democratic organs of
power, juntas or soviets, in the overthrow of capitalism."
[Morrow, Op. Cit., p. 247] The truth of the matter is somewhat
different.
Before discussing his assertion in more detail a few comments
are required. Typically, in Morrow's topsy-turvy world, all
anarchists like the Friends of Durruti (Morrow also includes
the Libertarian Youth, the "politically awakened" CNT rank
and file, local FAI groups, etc.) who remained true to
anarchism and stuck to their guns (often literally) --
represented a break with anarchism and a move towards Marxism,
the revolutionary vanguard party (no doubt part of the 4th
International), and a fight for the "workers state." Those
anarchists, on the other hand, who compromised for "anti-fascist
unity" (but mainly to try and get weapons to fight Franco) are
the real anarchists because "class collaboration . . . lies
concealed in the heart of anarchist philosophy." [Op. Cit.,
p. 101]
Morrow, of course, would have had a fit if anarchists pointed
to the example of the Social Democrat's who crushed the German
Revolution or Stalin's Russia as examples that "rule by an
elite lies concealed in the heart of Marxist philosophy."
It does not spring into Morrow's mind that those anarchists
he praises are the ones who show the revolutionary heart of
anarchism. This can best be seen from his comments on the
Friends of Durruti, who we argue were not evolving towards
"Marxism" but rather were trying to push the CNT and FAI
back to its pre-Civil War politics and strategy. Moreover,
as we argue in section 12,
anarchism has always argued for
self-managed working class organisations to carry out and
defend a revolution. The FoD were simply following in the
tradition founded by Bakunin.
In other words, we will show that they did not "break with"
anarchism -- rather they refused to compromise their anarchism
in the face of "comrades" who thought winning the war meant
entering the government. This is clear from their leaflets,
paper and manifesto. Moreover, as will become obvious, their
"break" with anarchism actually just restates pre-war CNT
policy and organisation.
For example, their leaflets, in April 1937, called for the unions
and municipalities to "replace the state" and for no retreat:
"This body will be organised as follows: members of the revolutionary
Junta will be elected by democratic vote in the union organisations.
Account is to be taken of the number of comrades away at the front
. . . The Junta will steer clear of economic affairs, which are the
exclusive preserve of the unions.
"The functions of the revolutionary Junta are as follows:
"Posts to come up regularly for re-allocation so as to prevent anyone
growing attached to them. And the trade union assemblies will exercise
control over the Junta's activities.
"II - All economic power to the syndicates.
"Since July the unions have supplied evidence of the great capacity for
constructive labour. . . It will be the unions that structure the
proletarian economy.
"An Economic Council may also be set up, taking into consideration
the natures of the Industrial Unions and Industrial federations, to
improve on the co-ordination of economic activities.
"III - Free municipality.
[...]
"The Municipality shall take charge of those functions of society
that fall outside the preserve of the unions. And since the society
we are going to build shall be composed exclusively of producers,
it will be the unions, no less, that will provide sustenance for
the municipalities. . .
"The Municipalities will be organised at the level of local, comarcal
and peninsula federations. Unions and municipalities will maintain
liaison at local, comarcal and national levels." [Towards a Fresh
Revolution]
Firstly, we should note that the "municipality" was a common CNT
expression to describe a "commune" which was considered as "all
the residents of a village or hamlet meeting in assembly (council)
with full powers to administer and order local affairs, primarily
production and distribution." In the cities and town the equivalent
organisation was "the union" which "brings individuals together,
grouping them according to the nature of their work . . . First,
it groups the workers of a factory, workshop or firm together,
this being the smallest cell enjoying autonomy with regard to
whatever concerns it alone . . . The local unions federate with
one another, forming a local federation, composed of the committee
elected by the unions, and of the general assembly that, in the
last analysis, holds supreme sovereignty." [Issac Puente,
Libertarian Communism, p. 25 and p. 24]
In addition, the "national federations [of unions] will hold as
common property the roads, railways, buildings, equipment, machinery
and workshops" and the "free municipality will federate with its
counterparts in other localities and with the national industrial
federations." [Op. Cit., p. 29 and p. 26] Thus Puente's classic
pre-war pamphlet is almost identical to points two and three of
the FoD Programme.
Moreover, the "Economic Council" urged by the FoD in point two
of their programme is obviously inspired by the work of Abad Diego
de Santillan, particularly his book After the Revolution (El
Organismo Economico de la Revolucion). Discussing the role of the
"Federal Council of Economy", de Santillan says that it "receives
its orientation from below and operates in accordance with the
resolutions of the regional and national assemblies." [p. 86] Just
as the CNT Congresses were the supreme policy-making body in the
CNT itself, they envisioned a similar body emanating from the
rank-and-file assemblies to make the guiding decisions for a
socialised economy.
This leaves point one of their programme, the call for a
"Revolutionary Junta or National Defence Council." It is here
that Morrow and a host of other Marxists claim the FoD broke
with anarchism towards Marxism. Nothing could be further from
the truth.
Firstly, anarchists have long supported the idea of workers'
councils (or soviets) as an expression of working class power
to control their own lives (and so society) -- indeed, far
longer than Marxists. Thus we find Bakunin arguing that the
"future social organisation must be made solely from the bottom
up, by the free association or federation of workers, firstly
in their unions, then in the communes, regions, nations and
finally in a great federation, international and universal."
Anarchists "attain this goal . . . by the development and
organisation, not of the political but of the social (and,
by consequence, anti-political) power of the working masses."
[Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings, p. 206 and p. 198]
These councils of workers' delegates (workers' councils) would
be the basis of the commune and defence of the revolution:
Camillo Berneri sums up the anarchist perspective clearly
when he wrote:
Anarchists oppose representative organs of power as these
are governments and so based on minority power and subject
to bureaucratic deformations which ensure un-accountablity
from below. Anarchists argue "that, by its very nature,
political power could not be exercised except by a very
restricted group of men at the centre. Therefore this power
-- the real power -- could not belong to the soviets. It
would actually be in the hands of the party." [Voline,
Op. Cit., p. 213]
Thus Morrow's argument is flawed on the basic point that he
does not understand anarchist theory or the nature of an
anarchist revolution (also see
section 12).
Secondly, and more importantly given the Spanish context, the
FoD's vision has a marked similarity to pre-Civil War CNT
organisation, policy and vision. This means that the idea of
a National Defence Council was not the radical break with the
CNT that some claim. Before the civil war the CNT had long has
its defence groups, federated at regional and national level.
Historian Jerome Mintz provides a good summary:
1. Were the Spanish Anarchists "Primitive Rebels"?
"Diaz del Moral ascribed to the campesinos [of Andalusia] racial
and cultural stereotypes that were common saws of his class.
The sole cause for the waves of rural unrest, Diaz del Moral
asserted, could be found in the psychology of the campesinos
. . . He believed that the Andalusian field workers had
inherited a Moorish tendency toward ecstasy and millenarianism
that accounted for their attraction to anarchist teaching.
Diaz del Moral was mystified by expressions of animosity
directed toward him, but the workers considered him to be a
senorito, a landowner who does not labour . . . Although he
was both scholarly and sympathetic, Diaz del Moral could not
comprehend the hunger and the desperation of the campesinos
around him . . . To Diaz del Moral, campesino ignorance,
passion, ecstasy, illusion, and depression, not having a
legitimate basis in reality, could be found only in the
roots of their racial heritage." [Op. Cit., pp. 5-6]
Hence the "religious" nature of anarchism -- it was one of
the ways an uncomprehending member of the middle-class could
explain working class discontent and rebellion. Unfortunately,
this "explanation" has become common place in history books
(partly reflected academics class interest too and lack of
understanding of working class interests, needs and hopes).
"Austere puritans, they sought to impose vegetarianism, sexual
abstinence, and atheism on one of the most backward peasantries
of Europe . . . Thus strikes were moments of exaltation as
well as demands for better conditions; spontaneous and often
disconnected they would bring, not only the abolition of
piece-work, but 'the day,' so near at hand that sexual
intercourse and alcohol were abandoned by enthusiasts till
it should dawn." [Spain: 1808-1975, p. 444]
"[T]o abstain from smoking, to live by high moral standards,
and to especially adjure the consumption of alcohol was
very important at the time. Spain was going through her own
belated industrial revolution during the period of anarchist
ascendancy with all its demoralising features. The collapse
of morale among the proletariat, with rampant drunkenness,
venereal disease, and the collapse of sanitary facilities,
was the foremost problem which Spanish revolutionaries had
to deal with . . . On this score, the Spanish anarchists
were eminently successful. Few CNT workers, much less a
committed anarchist, would have dared show up drunk at
meetings or misbehave overtly with their comrades. If one
considers the terrible working and living conditions of
the period, alcoholism was not as serious a problem in
Spain as it was in England during the industrial revolution."
["Introductory Essay", The Anarchist Collectives, Sam
Dolgoff (ed.), pp. xix-xxf]
"Revolutions are not improvised. They are not made at will
by individuals. They come about through the force of
circumstances and are independent of any deliberate ill
or conspiracy." [quoted by Brian Morris, Bakunin: The
Philosophy of Freedom, p. 139]
As Brian Morris correctly argues, "Bakunin denies that a social
revolution could be made by the will of individuals, independent
of social and economic circumstances. He was much less a
voluntarist than his Marxist critics make out . . . he was
. . . aware that the social revolution would be a long process
that may take many years for its realisation." [Bakunin: The
Philosophy of Freedom, pp. 138-9] To aid the process of social
revolution, Bakunin supported the need for "pioneering groups
or associations of advanced workers who were willing to initiate
this great movement of self-emancipation." However, more is
needed -- namely popular working class organisations -- "what
is the organisation of the masses? . . . It is the organisation
by professions and trades . . . The organisation of the trade
sections . . . bear in themselves the living seed of the new
society which is to replace the old world. They are creating
not only the ideas but also the facts of the future itself."
[Bakunin on Anarchism, p. 252 and p. 255]
"What policy should the International [Workers' Association]
follow during th[e] somewhat extended time period that
separates us from this terrible social revolution . . .
the International will give labour unrest in all countries
an essentially economic character, with the aim of
reducing working hours and increasing salary, by means of
the association of the working masses . . . It will [also]
propagandise its principles . . . Lastly, the International
will expand and organise across frontiers of all countries,
so that when the revolution -- brought about by the force
of circumstances -- breaks out, the International will be
a real force and will know what it has to do. Then it will
be able to take the revolution into its own hands and
give it a direction that will benefit the people: an earnest
international organisation of workers' associations from
all countries, capable of replacing this departing world
of States and bourgeoisie." [The Basic Bakunin, pp. 109-10]
"While Hobsbawm's theoretical model is evolutionary, in
his own treatment anarchism is often regarded as unchanging
from one decade to the other. In his text, attitudes and
beliefs of 1903-5, 1918-20, 1933, and 1936 are lumped
together or considered interchangeable. Of course during
these decades the anarchosyndicalists had developed their
programs and the individuals involved had become more
experienced." [Op. Cit., p. 271f]
"Economic conditions naturally determined the timing and
periodicity of the revolutionary outbreaks -- for instance,
social movements tended to reach a peak intensity during the
worse months of the year -- January to March, when farm
labourers have least work (the march on Jerez in 1892 and
the rising of Casas Viejas in 1933 both occurred early in
January), March-July, when the proceeding harvest has been
exhausted and times are lean." [Op. Cit., p. 79]
"In reality, most agricultural strikes took place in May
and June, the period of the harvest and the only time of
the year when the campesinos had any leverage against the
landowners. The uprising at Casas Viejas occurred in January
precisely because it was not an agricultural strike. The
timing of the insurrection, hurriedly called to coincide
with a planned railway strike that would make it difficult
for the government to shift its forces, was determined by
strategic rather than economic considerations." [Op. Cit.,
p. 273]
As for the revolt itself, Hobsbawm asserts that:
"Secure from the outside world, [the men] put up the red and
black flag of anarchy and set about dividing the land. They
made no attempt to spread the movement or kill anyone."
[Op. Cit., p. 274]
Which, as Mintz clearly shows, was nonsense:
"As is already evident, rather than securing themselves from
the rest of world, the uprising at Casas Viejas was a pathetic
attempt to join in an ill-fated national insurrection. With
regard to his second point, there was neither the time nor
the opportunity to 'set about dividing the land.' The men
were scattered in various locations guarding roads and paths
leading to the town. There were no meetings or discussions
during this brief period of control. Only a few hours
separated the shooting at the barracks and the entrance of
the small [government] rescue force from Alcala. Contrary
to Hobsbawm's description of peaceful enterprise, at the
outset the anarchists surrounding the barracks had fired
on the civil guards, mortally wounding two men." [Op. Cit.,
p. 274]
As can be seen, Hobsbawm was totally wrong about the uprising
itself and so it cannot be used as evidence for his thesis.
On other, less key issues, he was equally wrong. Mintz gives
an excellent summary:
"Since kinship is a key feature in 'primitive' societies,
according to Hobsbawm, it was a major factor in the
leadership of the sindicato [union] in Casas Viejas.
Mintz sums up by stating "Hobsbawm's adherence to a model,
and the accumulation of misinformation, led him away from
the essential conflicts underlying the tragedy and from the
reality of the people who participated in it." [Op. Cit.,
p. 276]
"[T]he Jerez incident cannot be explained in terms of this
model. What the millenarian view fails to do in this instance
is to credit the workers with the ability to define their
own political goals. This is not to deny that there were
millenarian aspects of the rising, for the mob action of
the workers on the night of 8 January indicates a degree
of irrationalism that is consistent with millenarian
behaviour. But . . . the agitators seem to have had a
clear motive in mind when they rose: they sought to
release their comrades from the local jail and thereby
demonstrate their defiance of the government's incessant
persecution of the International [Workers' Association]
movement. However clumsily and crudely they expressed
their grievance, the workers were patently aiming to
achieve this objective and not to overthrow the local
government in order to inaugurate the birth of a
libertarian society." [Anarchist Ideology and the
Working Class Movement in Spain: 1868-1898, p. 184]
"Between 1932 and 1934 . . . the Spanish anarchists tried
to destroy the existing social order through a series of
increasingly violent strikes and insurrections, which
were at first spontaneous, later co-ordinated." [Anarchist
Organisation: The History of the FAI, p. 135]
Stuart Christie stresses this point when he wrote "[i]t has
been widely assumed that the cycle of insurrections which began
in . . . January 1933 were organised and instigated by the
FAI . . . In fact the rising had nothing to do with the FAI.
It began as an entirely spontaneous local affair directed
against a local employer, but quickly mushroomed into a
popular movement which threatened to engulf the whole of
Catalonia and the rest of Spain . . . [CNT militant] Arturo
Parera later confirmed that the FAI had not participated in
the aborted movement 'as an organisation.'" [We, the
Anarchists, p. 61] While the initial revolts, such as those
of the miners of Alto Llobregat in January 1932, were spontaneous
acts which caught the CNT and FAI by surprise, the following
insurrections became increasingly organised and co-ordinated
by those organisations. The January 1933 revolt, as noted
above, was based around a planned strike by the CNT railway
workers union. The revolt of December 1933 was organised by
a National Revolutionary Committee. Both revolts aimed at
uprisings all across Spain, based on the existing organisations
of the CNT -- the unions and their "Defence committees". Such
a degree of planning belies any claims that Spanish Anarchists
were "primitive rebels" or did not understand the complexities
of modern society or what was required to change it.
2. How accurate is Felix Morrow's book on the Spanish Revolution?
"Only the small forces of the Bolshevik-Leninists. . . clearly
pointed the road for the workers." [Felix Morrow, Revolution and
Counter-Revolution in Spain, p. 191]
And so on. As we will make clear in the following discussion,
Morrow was as wrong about this as he was about anarchism.
3. Did a "highly centralised" FAI control
the CNT?
"Like the CNT, the FAI was structured along confederal
lines: the affinity groups were linked together in a
Local Federation and the Local Federation in District
and Regional Federations. A Local Federation was
administered by an ongoing secretariat, usually of
three persons, and a committee composed of one mandated
delegate from each affinity group. This body comprised
a sort of local executive committee. To allow for a full
expression of rank-and-file views, the Local Federation
was obliged to convene assemblies of all the faistas
in its area. The District and Regional Federations,
in turn, were simply the Local federation writ large,
replicating the structure of the lower body. All the
Local Districts and Regional Federations were linked
together by a Peninsular Committee whose tasks, at
least theoretically, were administrative. . . [A
FAI secretary] admits that the FAI 'exhibited a tendency
towards centralism' . . . Yet it must also be emphasised
that the affinity groups were far more independent than
any comparable bodies in the Socialist Party, much less
the Communist. . . the FAI was not an internally repressive
organisation . . . Almost as a matter of second nature,
dissidents were permitted a considerable amount of freedom
in voicing and publishing material against the leadership
and established policies." [The Spanish Anarchists,
pp. 197-8]
And:
"Most writers on the Spanish labour movement seem to
concur in the view that, with the departure of the
moderates, the CNT was to fall under the complete
domination of the FAI . . . But is this appraisal
correct? The FAI . . . was more loosely jointed as
an organisation than many of its admirers and critics
seem to recognise. It has no bureaucratic apparatus,
no membership cards or dues, and no headquarters
with paid officials, secretaries, and clerks. . .
They jealously guarded the autonomy of their affinity
groups from the authority of higher organisational
bodies -- a state of mind hardly conducive to the
development of a tightly knit, vanguard organisation.
So, while the FAI may have had centralising tendencies,
a "highly centralised" political party it was not. Further,
many anarcho-syndicalists and affinity groups were not in
the FAI (though most seem to have supported it), and many
FAI members put loyalty to the CNT (the anarcho-syndicalist
union confederation) first. For instance, according to the
minutes of the FAI national plenum of January-February 1936:
"The Regional Committee [of Aragon, Rioja, and Navarra] is
completely neglected by the majority of the militants because
they are absorbed in the larger activities of the CNT"
And:
"One of the reasons for the poor condition of the FAI was the
fact that almost all the comrades were active in the defence
groups of the CNT" (report from the Regional Federation of the
North).
"[D]elegates, whether or not they were members of the FAI, were
presenting resolutions adopted by their unions at open membership
meetings. Actions taken at the congress had to be reported back to
their unions at open meetings, and given the degree of union
education among the members, it was impossible for delegates
to support personal, non-representative positions." [Juan Gomez
Casas, Anarchist Organisation: The History of the FAI, p. 121]
The union committees were typically rotated out of office
frequently and committeemen continued to work as wage-earners.
In a movement so closely based on the shop floor, the FAI could
not maintain influence for long if they ignored the concerns
and opinions of co-workers. Moreover, only a minority of the
anarcho-syndicalist activists in the CNT belonged to the FAI
and, as Juan Gomez Casas points out in his history of the
FAI, FAI militants frequently had a prior loyalty to the CNT.
Thus his summation seems correct:
"As a minority organisation, the FAI could not possibly have
had the kind of control attributed to it . . . in 1931 . . .
there were fifty CNT members for each member of a FAI group.
The FAI was strongly federalist, with its groups at the base
freely associated. It could not dominate an organisation like
the CNT, which had fifty times as many members and was also
opposed to hierarchy and centralism. We know that FAI militants
were also CNT militants, and frequently they were loyal first
to the CNT. Their influence was limited to the base of the
organisation through participation in the plenums of militants
or unions meetings." [Op. Cit., p. 133]
"The myth of the FAI as conqueror and ruler of the CNT was
created basically by the Treinistas" [Op. Cit., p. 134]
Therefore, Morrow is re-cycling an argument which was produced
by the reformist wing of the CNT after it had lost influence
in the union rank-and-file. Perhaps he judges the FAI by his
own standards? After all, the aim of Leninists is for the
vanguard party to control the labour unions in their countries.
Anarchists reject such a vision and believe in union autonomy
-- influence of political parties and groups should only exist
in as much as they influence the rank-and-file who control
the union. Rather than aim to control the CNT, the FAI worked
to influence its membership. In the words of Francisco Ascaso
(friend of Durruti and an influential anarchist militant in the
CNT and FAI in his own right):
"There is not a single militant who as a 'FAIista' intervenes
in union meetings. I work, therefore I am an exploited person.
I pay my dues to the workers' union and when I intervene at
union meetings I do it as someone who us exploited, and with
the right which is granted me by the card in my possession, as
do the other militants, whether they belong to the FAI or not."
[cited by Abel Paz, Durruti: The People Armed, p. 137]
In other words, the FAI "controlled" the CNT only to the extent
it influenced the membership -- who, in fact, controlled the
organisation. We must also note that Ascaso's comment echoes
Bakunin's that the "purpose of the Alliance [i.e. anarchist
federation] is to promote the Revolution . . . it will combat
all ambition to dominate the revolutionary movement of the people,
either by cliques or individuals. The Alliance will promote the
Revolution only through the NATURAL BUT NEVER OFFICIAL INFLUENCE
of all members of the Alliance." [Bakunin on Anarchism, p. 387]
4. What is the history of the CNT and the Communist International?
"At a plenum held in Lerida in 1921, while the CNT was in
disarray [due to repression] in Catalonia, a group of
Bolsheviks was designated to represent the Spanish CNT in
Russia . . . The restoration of constitutional guarantees
by the Spanish government in April 1922, permitted the
anarcho-syndicalists to meet in Saragossa in June 11 . . .
[where they] confirmed the withdrawal of the CNT from the
Third International and the entrance on principle into the
new [revolutionary syndicalist] International Working Men's
Association." [Anarchist Organisation: History of the FAI,
p. 61]
We should note that along with pro-Bolshevik Nin and Maurin was
anarchist Gaston Leval. Leval quickly got in touch with Russian
and other anarchists, helping some imprisoned Russia anarchists
get deported after bringing news of their hunger strike to the
assembled international delegates. By embarrassing Lenin and
Trotsky, Leval helped save his comrades from the prison camp
and so saved their lives.
"Pestana says that he was particularly intrigued by the
struggle for the chairmanship. He soon realised that the
chair was the congress, and that the Congress was a
farce. The chairman made the rules, presided over deliberations,
modified proposals at will, changed the agenda, and presented
proposals of his own. For a start, the way the chair handled
the gavel was very inequitable. For example, Zinoviev gave
a speech which lasted one and one-half hours, although each
speaker was supposedly limited to ten minutes. Pestana tried
to rebut the speech, but was cut off by the chairman, watch
in hand. Pestana himself was rebutted by Trotsky who spoke
for three-quarters of an hour, and when Pestana wanted to
answer Trotsky's attack on him, the chairman declared the
debate over." [Op. Cit., pp. 37-8]
In addition, "[i]n theory, every delegate was free to table
a motion, but the chair itself selected the ones that were
'interesting.' Proportional voting [by delegation or delegate]
had been provided for, but was not implemented. The Russian
Communist Party ensured that it enjoyed a comfortable majority."
Peirats continues by noting that "[t]o top it all, certain
important decisions were not even made in the congress hall,
but were made begin the scenes." That was how the resolution
that "[i]n forthcoming world congresses of the Third International,
the national trade union organisations affiliated to it are
to be represented by delegates from each country's Communist
Party" was adopted. He also noted that "[o]bjections to this
decision were quite simply ignored." [No Gods, No Masters,
vol. 2, p. 224]
5. Why did the CNT not join the Workers' Alliance?
"The UGT . . . had its own bone to pick with the CNT. The
telephone syndicate, which the CNT had established in 1918,
was a constant challenge to the Socialists' grip on the
Madrid labour movement. Like the construction workers'
syndicate, it was a CNT enclave in a solidly UGT centre.
Accordingly, the government and the Socialist Party found
no difficulty in forming a common front to break the strike
and weaken CNT influence.
Elsewhere, "[d]uring a Barcelona building strike CNT workers
barricaded themselves in and said they would only surrender
to regular troops. The army arrived and then machine-gunned
them as soon as they surrendered." [Antony Beevor, The Spanish
Civil War, p. 33] In other words, the republican-socialist
government repressed the CNT with violence as well as using
the law to undermine CNT activities and strikes.
"The alliance, to be revolutionary, must be genuinely working
class. It must be the result of an agreement between the
workers' organisation, and those alone. No party, however,
socialist it may be, can belong to a workers' alliance,
which should be built from its foundations, in the
enterprises where the workers struggle. Its representative
bodies must be the workers' committee chosen in the shops,
the factories, the mines and the villages. We must reject
any agreement on a national level, between National
Committees, but rather favour an alliance carried out
at the base by the workers themselves. Then and only
then, can the revolutionary drive come to life, develop
and take root." [quoted by Abel Paz, Durruti: The People
Armed, p. 154]
In the Central Region, Valeriano Orobon Fernandez argued
along similar lines in Madrid's La Tierra:
"Revolutionary worker democracy is direct management of
society by the proletariat, a certain bulwark against
party dictatorships and a guarantee of the development
of the revolution's forces and undertakings. . .
guidelines of a general nature sort should be laid
down so that these may serve as a platform for the
alliance, and furnish a combative and constructive norm
for the forces unites . . . [These include:] Acceptance
of revolutionary worker democracy, which is to say, of
the majority will of the proletariat, as the common
denominator and determining factor of the new order
of things. . . Immediate socialisation of the means
of production, transportation, exchange, accommodation
and finance . . . Federated on the basis of their
area of interest and confederated at national level,
the municipal and industrial organisations will look
after the upkeep of the precept of unity in the
structuring of the economy." [quoted by Jose Peirats,
The CNT in the Spanish Revolution, vol. 1, pp. 45-6]
The May 1936 Saragossa congress of the CNT passed a
resolution concerning revolutionary alliances which
was obviously based on these arguments. It stated
that in order "the social revolution may be
an effective reality, the social and political system
regulating the life of the country has to be utterly
destroyed" and that the "new order of co-existence
born of the act of revolution is to be determined by the
free election of the freely assembled workers."
[quoted by Jose Peirats, Op. Cit., p. 63]
"The broad character of the proletarian insurrection was
explained by the Communist Left (Trotskyist). It devoted
itself to efforts to build the indispensable instrument of
the insurrection: workers' councils constituted by delegates
representing all the labour parties and unions, the shops and
streets; to be created in every locality and joined together
nationally . . . Unfortunately, the socialists failed to
understand the profound need of these Workers' Alliances. The
bureaucratic traditions were not to be so easily overcome . . .
the socialist leaders thought that the Workers' Alliances
meant they would have merely to share leadership with the
Communist Left and other dissident communist groups . . .
actually in most cases they [Workers' Alliances] were merely
'top' committees, without elected or lower-rank delegates,
that is, little more than liaison committees between the
leadership of the organisations involved." [Op. Cit.,
pp. 27-8]
As can be seen, this closely follows Durruti's arguments.
Bar the reference of "labour parties," Morrow's "indispensable
instrument" is identical to Durruti's and other anarchist's
arguments against taking part in the "Workers' Alliances"
created by the UGT and the creation of genuine alliances
from the bottom-up. Thus Morrow faults the CNT for trying to
force the UGT to form a real workers' alliance by not taking
part in what Morrow himself admits were "little more than liaison
committees between the leadership"! Also, Morrow argues that
"[w]ithout developing soviets -- workers' councils -- it
was inevitable that even the anarchists and the POUM would
drift into governmental collaboration with the bourgeoisie"
and he asks "[h]ow could party agreements be the substitute
for the necessary vast network of workers' councils?" [Op. Cit.,
p. 89 and p. 114] Which was, of course, the CNT-FAI's argument.
It seems strange that Morrow faults the CNT for trying to
create real workers' councils, the "indispensable instrument"
of the revolution, by not taking part in a "party agreements"
urged by the UGT which would undermine real attempts at
rank-and-file unity from below.
6. Was the October 1934 revolt sabotaged
by the CNT?
"[T]he Anarchists bitterly resented the way in which the
Generalitat had followed a repressive policy against them
in the previous months. This had been the work of the
Generalitat's counsellor for public order, Josep Dencas,
leader of the quasi-fascist, ultra-nationalist party
Estat Catala." [The Coming of the Spanish Civil War,
p. 176]
"On the eve of the rebellion the Catalan police jailed as
many anarchists as they could put their hands on . . . The
union offices had been shut for some time. The press censor
had completely blacked out the October 6th issue of
Solidaridad Obrera . . . When the woodworkers began to
open their offices, they were attacked by the police, and
a furious gunfight ensured. The official radio . . . reported
. . . that the fight had already began against the FAI
fascists . . . In the afternoon large numbers of police
and escamots turned out to attack and shut down the
editorial offices of Solidaridad Obrera." [Peirats,
Op. Cit., pp. 98-9]
"The situation [in October 1934] was especially difficult
in Catalonia. The Workers' Alliance . . . declared a
general strike. Luis Companys, president of the Catalan
Parliament, proclaimed the Catalan State within the Spanish
Federal Republic . . . But at the same time, militants of
the CNT and the FAI were arrested . . . Solidaridad Obrera
was censored. The Catalan libertarians understood that the
Catalan nationalists had two objectives in mind: to oppose
the central government and to destroy the CNT. Jose Dencas,
Counsellor of Defence, issued a strict order: 'Watch out
for the FAI' . . . Luis Companys broadcast a message on
October 5 to all 'citizens regardless of ideology.' However,
many anarchosyndicalist militants were held by his deputy,
Dencas, in the underground cells of police headquarters."
[Op. Cit., pp. 151-2]
Hence the paradoxical situation in which the anarchists,
anarcho-syndicalists and FAI members found themselves in
during this time. The uprising was organised by Catalan
fascists who continued to direct their blows against the
CNT. As Abel Paz argues, "[f]or the rank and file Catalan
worker . . . the insurgents . . . were actually orienting
their action in order to destroy the CNT. After that, how
could they collaborate with the reactionary movement which
was directing its blows against the working class? Here
was the paradox of the Catalan uprising of October 6,
1934." [Durruti: The People Armed, p. 158]
"As usual, the Socialists emerged as unreliable allies of the
Anarchists. A revolutionary committee, established by the CNT
and FAI to co-ordinate their own operations, was denied direly
needed weapons by the UGT. The arms, as it turned out, had
been conveniently intercepted by government troops. But even
if they had been available, it is almost certain that the
Socialists would not have shared them with the Anarchists.
Indeed, relationships between the two major sectors of the
labour movement had already been poisoned by the failure of
the Socialist Youth and the UGT to keep the CNT adequately
informed of their plans or confer with Anarchosyndicalist
delegates. Despite heavy fighting in Madrid, the CNT and FAI
were obliged to function largely on their own. When, at
length, a UGT delegate informed the revolutionary committee
that Largo Caballero was not interested in common action
with the CNT, the committee disbanded." [Op. Cit., p. 246]
Bookchin correctly states that "Abad de Santillan was to
observe with ample justification that Socialist attempts to
blame the failure of the October Insurrection on Anarchist
abstention was a shabby falsehood" and quotes Santillan:
"Can there be talk of abstention of the CNT and censure of it
by those who go on strike without warning our organisation
about it, who refuse to meet with the delegates of the
National Committee [of the CNT], who consent to let the
Lerrous-Gil Robles Government take possession of the arms
deposits and let them go unused before handing them over
to the Confederation and the FAI?" [Ibid.]
Historian Paul Preston confirms that in Madrid "Socialists and
Anarchists went on strike . . ." and that "the Socialists
actually rejected the participation of Anarchist and Trotskyist
groups who offered to help make a revolutionary coup in Madrid."
[The Coming of the Spanish Civil War, p. 174] Moreover, "when
delegates travelled secretly to Madrid to try to co-ordinate
support for the revolutionary Asturian miners, they were
rebuffed by the UGT leadership." [Graham Kelsey, Anarchism
in Aragon, p. 73]
"Although it seems absurd, one constantly has to ask whether
the Socialists meant to start a true revolution [in October
1934] in Spain. If the answer is affirmative, the questions
keep coming: Why did they not make the action a national one?
Why did they try to do it without the powerful national CNT?
Is a peaceful general strike revolutionary? Was what happened
in Asturias expected, or were orders exceeded? Did they mean
only to scare the Radical-CEDA government with their action?"
[The Anarchists in the Spanish Revolution, pp 95-6]
The only real centre of resistance was in Asturias (on the Spanish
north coast). Here, the CNT had joined the Socialists and Communists
in a "Workers Alliance". But, against the alliance's terms, the
Socialists alone gave the order for the uprising -- and the
Socialist-controlled Provincial Committee starved the CNT of
arms. This despite the CNT having over 22 000 affiliates in
the area (to the UGT's 40 000). We discuss the activities of
the CNT during the revolt in Asturias later (in
section 20) and
so will do so here.
7. Were the Friends of Durruti Marxists?
"The Friends of Durruti was an affinity group, like many
another existing in anarcho-syndicalist quarters. It was
not influenced to any extent by the Trotskyists, nor by
the POUM. Its ideology and watchwords were quintessentially
in the CNT idiom: it cannot be said that they displayed
a marxist ideology at any time . . . They were against
the abandonment of revolutionary objectives and of anarchism's
fundamental and quintessential ideological principles, which
the CNT-FAI leaders had thrown over in favour of anti-fascist
unity and the need to adapt to circumstances." [p. 107]
In other words, they wanted to return the CNT "to its class
struggle roots." [Ibid.] Indeed, Balius (a leading member
of the group and writer of its 1938 pamphlet Towards a
Fresh Revolution) was moved to challenge the charges of
"marxist" levelled at him:
"I will not repay defamatory comment in kind. But what I cannot
keep mum about is that a legend of marxism has been woven about
my person and I should like the record put straight . . . It
grieves me that at the present time there is somebody who dares
call me a Marxist when I could refute with unanswerable arguments
those who hang such an unjustified label on me. As one who attends
our union assemblies and specific gatherings, I might speak of the
loss of class sensibility which I have observed on a number of
occasions. I have heard it said that we should be making politics
-- in as many words, comrades -- in an abstract sense, and virtually
no one protested. And I, who have been aghast at countless such
instances, am dubbed a marxist just because I feel, myself to be
a one hundred percent revolutionary . . . On returning from exile
in France in the days of Primo de Rivera . . . I have been a defender
of the CNT and the FAI ever since. In spite of my paralysis, I have
done time in prison and been taken in manacles to Madrid for my
fervent and steadfast championship of our organisations and for
fighting those who once were friends of mine Is that not enough?
. . . So where is this marxism of mine? Is it because my roots are
not in the factory? . . . The time has come to clarify my position.
It is not good enough to say that the matter has already been agreed.
The truth must shine through. As far as I am concerned, I call upon
all the comrades who have used the press to hang this label upon me
to spell out what makes me a marxist." [El Amigo del Pueblo, no. 4,
p. 3]
As can be seen, the FoD were not Marxists. Two more questions arise.
Were they a "break" with anarchism (i.e. moving towards Marxism)
and were they influenced by the Spanish Trotskyists. We turn to these
questions in the next two sections.
8. Did the Friends of Durruti "break with"
anarchism?
"We have the organs that must supplant a State in ruins. The
Trade Unions and Municipalities must take charge of economic
and social life." [quoted by Agustin Guillamon, Op. Cit.,
p. 38]
This clearly is within the CNT and anarcho-syndicalist tradition.
Their manifesto, in 1938, repeated this call ("the state cannot
be retained in the face of the unions"), and made three demands
as part of their programme. It is worth quoting these at length:
"I - Establishment of a Revolutionary Junta or National Defence
Council.
This programme basically mimics the pre-war CNT policy and organisation
and so cannot be considered as a "break" with anarchist or CNT politics
or tradition.
"a) The management of the war
"b) The supervision of revolutionary order
"c) International affairs
"d) Revolutionary propaganda.
"the federative Alliance of all working men's associations . . .
constitute the Commune . . .. Commune will be organised by the
standing federation of the Barricades. . . [T]he federation of
insurgent associations, communes and provinces . . . [would]
organise a revolutionary force capable of defeating reaction
. . . it is the very fact of the expansion and organisation
of the revolution for the purpose of self-defence among the
insurgent areas that will bring about the triumph of the
revolution." [Op. Cit., pp. 170-1]
This perspective can be seen in the words of the German
anarcho-syndicalist H. Ruediger (member of the IWA's
secretariat in 1937) when he argued that for anarchists
"social re-organisation, like the defence of the revolution,
should be concentrated in the hands of working class
organisations -- whether labour unions or new organs of
spontaneous creation, such as free councils, etc., which,
as an expression of the will of the workers themselves,
from below up, should construct the revolutionary social
community." [quoted in The May Days in Barcelona, Vernon
Richards (ed.), p. 71]
"The Marxists . . . foresee the natural disappearance of the
State as a consequence of the destruction of classes by the
means of 'the dictatorship of the proletariat,' that is to say
State Socialism, whereas the Anarchists desire the destruction
of the classes by means of a social revolution which eliminates,
with the classes, the State. The Marxists, moreover, do not
propose the armed conquest of the Commune by the whole proletariat,
but the propose the conquest of the State by the party which
imagines that it represents the proletariat. The Anarchists allow
the use of direct power by the proletariat, but they understand
by the organ of this power to be formed by the entire corpus of
systems of communist administration -- corporate organisations
[i.e. industrial unions], communal institutions, both regional
and national -- freely constituted outside and in opposition to
all political monopoly by parties and endeavouring to a minimum
administrational centralisation." ["Dictatorship of the
Proletariat and State Socialism", Cienfuegos Press Anarchist
Review, no. 4, p. 52]
In other words, anarchists do support democratic organs of
power when they are directly democratic (i.e. self-managed).
"The basic idea of Anarchism is simple," argued Voline,
"no party . . . placed above or outside the labouring masses
. . . ever succeeds in emancipating them . . . Effective
emancipation can only be achieved by the direct, widespread,
and independent action of those concerned, of the workers
themselves, grouped, not under the banner of a political
party . . . but in their own class organisations (productive
workers' unions, factory committees, co-operatives, et cetra)
on the basis of concrete action and self-government." [The
Unknown Revolution, p, 197]
"The policies and actions of the CNT were conducted primarily
by administrative juntas, beginning with the sindicato, whose
junta consisted of a president, secretary, treasurer, and
council members. At each step in the confederation, a
representative [sic! -- delegate] was sent to participate
at the next organisational level -- from sindicato to the
district to the regional confederation, then to the national
confederation. In addition to the juntas, however, there
were two major committee systems established as adjuncts
to the juntas that had developed some autonomy: the
comites pro presos, or committees for political
prisoners, which worked for the release of prisoners and
raised money for the relief of their families; and the
comites de defensa, or defence committees, whose task
was to stockpile weapons for the coming battle and to
organise the shock troops who would bear the brunt of
the fighting." [The Anarchists of Casas Viejas,