Spain and its Relevance Today by Iain MacSaorsa Lessons from the Spanish Revolution "To organise a [libertarian] communist society on a large scale it would be necessary to transform all economic life radically, such as methods of production, of exchange and consumption; and all this could not be achieved other than gradually, as the objective circumstances permitted and to the extent that the masses understood what advantages could be gained and were able to act for themselves" Errico Malatesta, Life and Ideas, page 36 In part one, we indicated the social revolution that occurred after Franco's military coup was defeated in the streets. We also said that this revolution was undermined by the state and could not develop fully and that this was caused (in part) by the actions of the C.N.T. and F.A.I. committees. The issue now is what lessons for our struggles and times can be learned from the anarchist movement in Spain and the 1936 revolution? We should not rush to condemn the C.N.T. out of hand. We should search for an explanation of what happened. The fact that anarchists joined a government should prompt the question, was the defeat in Spain a defeat of anarchist theory and tactics OR a failure of anarchists to apply their theory and tactics? It is clear from the actions of, for example, the Makhnovists in the Ukraine during the Russian Revolution that anarchism is a valid approach to social struggle and revolution. So what made Spain "special"? Firstly, as discussed in part one, the question of antifascist unity. The C.N.T. leaders were totally blinded by this, leading them to support a "democratic" state against a "fascist" one. While the bases of a new world was being created, inspiring the fight against fascism, the C.N.T. leaders collaborated with the system that spawns fascism, As the Friends of Durruti make clear, "Democracy defeated the Spanish people, not Fascism" (Class War on the Home Front, page 30). The false dilemma of "anarchist dictatorship" or "collaboration" was a fundamentally wrong. It was never a case of banning parties, etc under an anarchist system, far from it. Full rights of free speech, organisation and so on should have existed for all but the parties would only have as much influence as they exerted in union/workplace/community/ militia/etc assemblies, as should be the case! "Collaboration" yes, but within the rank and file and within organisations organised in an anarchist manner. Anarchism does not respect the "freedom" to be a boss or politician. Instead of this "collaboration" from the bottom up, the C.N.T. and F.A.I. committees favoured "collaboration" from the top down. This, as indicated in part 1, only favoured the state and the (political and economic) bosses. For example, Gaston Leval indicates that the collectivisation decree of October 1936 "legalising collectivisation", "distorted everything right from the start" (Collectives in the Spanish Revolution, page 227) and did not allow the collectives to develop beyond a self- managed semi-socialist condition into full socialism.[1] Anarchosyndicalism The centralisation which occurred within the C.N.T. after 19th July did not "just happen". There are institutional reasons why it occurred. These come from anarchosyndicalist practice. The fusion of anarchism and the union movement ("syndicalism") is the basic idea of anarchosyndicalism. The unions are enough in themselves and, through the daily struggle for reforms, can lead to socialism. In practice, this does not quite work (unfortunately). Anarchosyndicalist unions must operate within the same basic situation as normal unions, therefore they come under the same pressures and influences. These pressures of working within the capitalist system (in a unionist manner) produces in all unions the following tendencies: 1. They become bureaucratic/hierarchical, ie to generate "leaders" or union bosses separated from the rank and file. In order to get reforms, the union must negotiate and be prepared to compromise (which in practice means to get their members back to work). This results in the union committees, sooner or later, trying to control their own rank and file. This process of negotiation leads to a leader/led divide. 2. To concentrate on short term economic issues. This is due to the need to attract and keep a large union membership. It is clear from its history that the C.N.T. was not immune to these tendencies. For example, the F.A.I. was formed explicitly to combat reformism within the C.N.T. (see Peirats, page 238-9, and Juan Gomaz Casas, page 100, for example). The actions of the C.N.T. during the revolution had historical precedents. Consistently committees had represented plenums with fait accomplis and acted without mandates (sometimes in ways contrary to C.N.T. policy). However, it must be pointed out this was minimised by the nature of the C.N.T. although it did happen. While anarchosyndicalism sees these dangers and tries to combat them, it is clear that it can only partially do so in practice. In addition, the idea that by controlling the economy automatically means destroying the state is false. This comes from French Revolutionary Syndicalism and not Anarchism. In effect, it means ignoring the state. And ignoring something does not make it go away. This idea can be seen from some aspects of the Spanish Revolution, ie the working class took over the economy but left the state intact. The C.N.T. leadership collaborated with the state (had they become so used to negotiating that they could not see beyond it?) and the rest is history. However, without the C.N.T. the revolution would not have happened in the first place. The fact that the revolution occurred at all is a glowing testimony to the independence and militancy of ordinary C.N.T. members. An independence and militancy which the C.N.T. structure unlike marxist unions encouraged and not crushed through centralism. The very structure and practice of the C.N.T. did produce a revolutionary working class the likes of which the world has rarely seen. As Jose Peirats states, "above the union level, the CNT was an eminently political organisation..., a social and revolutionary organisation for agitation and insurrection" (Jose Peirats, Anarchists in the Spanish Revolution, page 239). Lessons The following positive points can be gathered from the C.N.T. and the Spanish anarchist movement : 1. Its structure encouraged the politicisation, initiative and organisational skills of its members. It was a federal, decentralised body, based on direct discussion and decision making from the bottom up. "The CNT tradition was to discuss and examine everything", according to one militant. As Bakunin said "the International [ie the union movement] must be a people's movement, organised from the bottom up by the free spontaneous action of the masses. There must be no secret, governmentalism, the masses must be informed of everything... All affairs of the International must be thoroughly and openly discussed without evasions and circumlations" (Bakunin on Anarchism, edited by Sam Dolgoff, page 408). The C.N.T. rejected full-time officials. Instead union officials were part-timers who did union work either after work hours or, if they had to miss work, they were paid their normal wage. Hence they were in touch with the union members and shared their experiences and needs as they continued to be workers. This reduced the tendency for union bureaucracies to develop or for officials to become an (unofficial) governing caste within the organisations. This created a viable and practical example of an alternative method by which society could be organised. A method which was based on the ability of ordinary people to direct society themselves and which showed in practice that special ruling authorities are undesirable and unnecessary. It also proves that anarchist organisation is more revolutionary that "socialist" (i.e. Marxist) forms (which are, at best, more "democratic" forms of capitalist/statist structures). 2. The C.N.T. was organised, primarily, on a local basis. The industrial union federations (ie union federations for one industry) were weak. The real base of the C.N.T. was the regional/local federation of all industrial unions in an area. Hence class wide issues could be fought, industrial divides overcome and solidarity action spread across industry. The C.N.T., because of this, fought in and out of the factory for social issues, helping to reduce the tendency towards concentrating only on economics as "the demands of the CNT went much further than those of any social democrat: with its emphasis on true equality, autogestion [self-management] and working class dignity, anarchosyndicalism made demands on the capitalist system could not possibly grant to the workers" (J. Romero Maura, The Spanish case, page 79, from Anarchism Today, edited by James Joll et al. This short essay is very good summary of the history and practice of the C.N.T. up to 1936 (although I feel that it gets certain aspects of Bakunin's ideas on "syndicalism" wrong)). This is not to ignore the importance of industry wide federations of unions, of course. It just indicates that such forms of industrial unionism can, and do, concentrate on partial aspects of the class struggle and do not generate the same class and social awareness as regionally based organisations. 3. Direct action was used in every case. This raised the consciousness and militancy of the working class better than any election campaign. The benefits of "Doing it Yourself" was seen in practice. This, combined with anarchist organisation, resulted in a movement in which people could transform their assumptions about what was possible, necessary and desirable. 4. The role of anarchists, as anarchists. Without the actions and ideas of anarchists, the C.N.T. would have soon become the same as any other union. The anarchists raised the "moral tone" of the unions and ensured they did not degenerate into reformism. This had been pointed out by many people before hand, for example Malatesta wrote: "Trade unions are by their very nature reformist and never revolutionary. The revolutionary spirit must be introduced, developed and maintained by the constant actions of revolutionaries who work within their ranks as well as outside, but it cannot be the normal definition of the union function. On the contrary" (Errico Malatesta, Life and Ideas, page 117). [2] The actions of our comrades did make the C.N.T. a revolutionary organisation, did make it operate in an anarchist manner. However, the tactics they used over time changed. In the late 20s and early 30s, the F.A.I. started to fight reformism by be elected to every union post they could. In the short term it worked, but in the longer term it meant that "if the FAI influenced the CNT, the opposite was also true... anarchism lost much of its special character when anarchists tried to lead the anarchosyndicalist federation. In fact, the anarchists were run by the union..." and "blinkered by participation in union committees, the FAI became incapable of a wider vision" (Anarchists in the Spanish Revolution, Jose Peirats, page 239). This proved to by the undoing of the anarchist movement as the reality of being a union official resulted in militants becoming syndicalists first, anarchists second. As the rank and file militants left for the front, the "moral tone" of the organisation fell. The rank and file were too busy constructing collectives and fighting to effectively control the committees. In this situation, the actions of the committees could not be effectively stopped by the normal C.N.T. procedures (plenums, etc) and by the time anything could be done to stop the consequences of the initial betrayal of the 20th of July, it was too late. This problem of "officialdom" was seen by many anarchists. As Durruti noted "no anarchists in the union committees unless at ground level. In these committees, in the case of conflict with the boss, the militant is forced to compromise to arrive at an agreement. The contacts and activities which come from being in this position, push the militant towards bureaucracy. Conscious of this risk, we do not wish to run it. Our role is to analyse from the bottom the dangers which beset an union organisation like ours. No militant should prolong his (sic) job in committees, beyond the time allotted to him (sic). No permanent and indispensable people" (Durruti The People Armed, page 216) [3]. However, the dangers of bureaucracy could not be defeated by the tactics of the F.A.I. in the 30's nor by those anarchists who considered themselves as syndicalists first. 5. As noted earlier, for anarchism to succeed the state must not be ignored but smashed and "replaced" by a libertarian structure(s) to coordinate activity. In his history of the FAI, Juan Gomaz Casas (an active Faista in 1936) makes this clear: "How else could libertarian communism be brought about? It would always signify dissolution of the old parties dedicated to the idea of power, or at least make it impossible for them to pursue their politics aimed at seizure of power. There will always be pockets of opposition to new experiences and therefore resistance to joining 'the spontaneity of the unanimous masses'. In addition, the masses would have complete freedom of expression in the unions as well as...their political organisations in the district and communities" (Anarchist Organisation: the History of the FAI, page 188). As the Friends of Durruti said "A revolution requires the absolute domination of the workers organisations". (The Friends of Durruti accuse, from Class War on the Home Front, page 34). Only this, the creation of viable anarchist organisations can ensure that the state and capitalism can be destroyed and replaced with a just system based on liberty, equality and solidarity. By way of a conclusion Anarchism must be relevant to working class people. We must advocate anarchist tactics and organisation in all struggles. It is clear that to organise anarchists is not enough. We must encourage the organisation of the working class, otherwise "revolutionary" ideas are only the domain of professional revolutionaries. People, under these circumstances, cannot formulate and apply their own agenda and so remain passive tools in the hands of leaders. By permanent libertarian social organisation, people can control their own struggles and so, eventually, their own lives. It accustoms people, through practice, to self-management and so anarchism. The experience of the C.N.T. shows this. This was the great strength of the Spanish Anarchist movement. It was a movement "that, in addition to possessing a revolutionary idealogy [sic], was also capable of mobilising action around objectives firmly rooted in the life and conditions of the working class.... It was this ability periodically to identify and express widely felt needs and feelings that, together with its presence at community level, formed the basis of the strength of radical anarchism, and enabled it to build a mass base of support" (Nick Rider, The practice of direct action: the Barcelona rent strike of 1931, page 99, from For Anarchism, pages 79-105). As Malatesta made clear, "to encourage popular organisations of all kinds is the logical consequence of our basic ideas, and should therefore be an integral part of our programme... anarchists do not want to emancipate the people; we want the people to emancipate themselves... we want the new way of life to emerge from the body of the people and correspond to the state of their development and advance as they advance" (Life and Ideas, page 90). This can only occur via popular self-organisation. Bearing this in mind, we must also be aware of the dangers in anarchosyndicalism. The anarchist movement must not be (con)fused with the mass organisations of the working class ("unions"). The "union" (by which I mean any social organisation organised in a libertarian manner, within and without workplaces, and definitely not STUC trade unions) movement and anarchism follow different, but related paths. These "unions" should be encouraged by anarchists and be as anarchistic as possible in their operation and practice, but they must never replace the anarchist movement (ie certain aspects of anarchosyndicalism as tactics, not principles). In building the new world we must destroy the old one. Revolutions are authoritarian by their very nature, but only in respect to structures and social relations which promote injustice, hierarchy and inequality. It is not "authoritarian" to destroy authority! Revolutions, above all else, must be libertarian in respect to the oppressed. That is, they must develop structures that involve the great majority of the population, who have previously been excluded from decision making about social and economic issues. When it comes to mass movements (and a revolution is the ultimate mass movement), the role of anarchists is clear: encourage direct action, decentralised, federal delegate organisations based on direct discussion and direct decision making and destroy the state. Not to do so is to repeat the mistakes of all previous revolutions and which were the undoing of the largest anarchist movement in the world. Notes :- 1. As Bakunin wrote 60 years earlier "In a free community, collectivism can only come about through the pressure of circumstances, not by imposition from above but by a free spontaneous movement from below" (Bakunin on Anarchism, page 200). For where else could the impetus for a libertarian social revolution come from unless from "below"? Its no coincidence that collectivisation was more socialistic in rural collectives as the state was effectively destroyed in many areas (like Aragon) by federations of collectives. As one militant describes the process of collectivisation had to be based on free federation "from the bottom up" :- "There were, of course, those who didn't want to share and who said that each collective should take care of itself. But they were usually convinced in the assemblies. We would try to speak to them in terms they understood. We'd ask, "Did you think it was fair when the cacique [local boss] let people starve if there wasn't enough work?" and they said, "Of course not". They would eventually come around. Don't forget, there were three hundred thousand collectivists [in Aragon], but only ten thousand of us had been members of the C.N.T.. We had a lot of educating to do". Felix Carrasquer, quoted in Free Women of Spain, page 79. An anarchist society cannot be created "overnight", to assume so would be to imagine that we could enforce our ideas on a pliable population. Socialism can only be created from below, by people who want it and understand it, organising and liberating themselves. The lessons of Russia should have cleared any such illusions about "socialist" states long ago. The lesson from every revolution is that the mistakes made in the process of liberation by people themselves are always minor compared to the results of creating authorities which eliminate such "ideological errors" by destroying the freedom to make mistakes. This only destroys freedom as such, the only real basis for socialism. 2. Such ideas would, now, only be appropriate to rank and file organisations created in and by struggle in opposition to the Trade Unions. The STUC cannot be reformed, so why try? The last 70 years have contained enough proof of this. 3. As an aside, Durruti is echoing Bakunin who said "The purpose of the Alliance [ie 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, edited by Sam Dolgoff, page 387).