Although the military coup commenced on the 17th of July, 1936, the 19th is often cited as the proper start for it was the day that unprompted, the people of Barcelona defended themselves against the army. Workers attacked the barracks, and were joined by soldiers, civil guards & policemen loyal to the republic and the falangists were defeated. It would take until January 1939, for the mutinous army to finally be able to march into Barcelona.
At the time the Socialist Party counselled caution to the Spanish workers. “The truth is - and the Spanish workers have got to learn it before they can hope to make progress in organising for the conquest of power for Socialism - that Socialism is at present absolutely out of the question, and that their only present hope is for the right to organise and carry on Socialist propaganda under capitalist democracy. Trying to go beyond this (or in the case of the Anarcho-Syndicalists, trying to go backwards) by means of armed revolts, and so on, will gain nothing except disillusionment, and will not help the working class or the Socialist movement.” It concludes that “.. it may be taken for granted that whether the Government forces or the rebels come out on top they will seek to disarm the workers.” which the Republican Government indeed strive to do.
A more definitive but again guarded article was later produced in 1937:
“Socialists are on the side of the exploited in their struggles against the landed and monied classes...while the SPGB is on the side of the exploited in their struggles, it does not necessarily approve of the way in which every struggle is carried on. Reckless and ill-timed action often defeats its object. It is desirable that every action be as democratically controlled and carefully considered as possible. Actions based on mere emotion and trust in leaders in disregard of the magnitude of the obstacles to be overcome are bad for the working class movement. This is particularly true when the action is one which involves grave and lasting consequences, such as the decision of the Austrians in February, 1934, and the Spaniards in July, 1936, to resist suppression by taking up arms. We are opposed to the theory that it is in every case better to strike or fight when the propertied class throws down the gauntlet, without counting the cost or the consequences...in Spain dissensions have continued in the midst of the war against Franco--and the likelihood of foreign intervention. There were some who held in both cases that armed resistance was not worth while. On balance, however, the Austrian and Spanish workers decided in favour of armed resistance. The Austrians were soon crushed, but in Spain Franco is still as far from victory as he was ten months ago. And whether the democratic resistance is eventually successful or not makes no difference to the Socialist attitude of being on the side of the democrats; though it will naturally influence our judgement and that of the Spaniards concerned as to the wisdom of the particular course of action...In the present struggle in Spain two main groups are in opposition. On the one side those, headed by Franco, who threaten to deprive the workers of the power to organise politically and industrially in their own interests. On the other side is the main body of the workers.
Whether the Spanish workers were wise in participating in a struggle so costly in human lives may be debatable, but as they have decided to take the plunge, and as they have the most violent partisans of capitalism against them, Socialists are, of course, on their side. It must be assumed that the Spanish workers weighed up the situation and counted the cost before deciding their course of action. That is a matter upon which their judgement should be better than that of people outside the country.”
As the situation in Spain drew to a close and defeat of the working class now became more of a reality the party offered its post-mortem.
“One thing the revolt does show again: that is the difficulty or the impossibility of achieving real unity by merging together in a Popular Front parties and individuals who differ fundamentally in aim, outlook, and method. It was obvious in 1936 that it would be an enormous task to secure unity between long standing opponents like the Spanish Labourites, Anarchist-Syndicalists, Communists, Trotskyites, Liberal Republicans, Catholic Basque Separatists, etc. The revolt in Barcelona, and now this revolt in Madrid, together with the frequent inability to secure effective and loyal co-operation, show that, even the stress of war will not make men who think differently work to a common programme.”
Having witnessed the events in Spain the Socialist Party passed a motion at its 1940 conference. “Applied to other recent wars, e.g. the Italo-Abyssinian war, the Spanish war (which was both a civil war and an International one), the Chino-Japanese war, we hold that it was not in the best interests of the Socialist movement, or democracy, or of the conditions of the workers, to participate in those wars. They arose out of the capitalist clash of interests, and taking into account the consequences of these wars, participation could not be justified either by the hope of achieving Socialism, the safeguarding of democracy or the improvement in the conditions of the working class."
The socialist position is that that worst thing the working class can do politically is put its class enemies in control of the machinery of government and the armed forces, as sooner or later they will be used against them. Both sides in the Spanish Civil War were pro-capitalist and anti-working class and socialists would not – and did not – support a capitalist government of either complexion. Socialists would of course prefer to operate under conditions of limited bourgeois political democracy than outright fascism and political dictatorship but history demonstrates that even elementary political democracy in capitalism cannot be defended through war.
Another view expressed by the worker councilist Paul Mattick can be shared by many.
“Disappointed revolutionary workers denounce their cowardly leadership, and then they look around for new and better leaders, for improved organization. The “Friends of Durrutti” split away from the corrupted leaders of the CNT and FAI in order to restore original anarchism, to safeguard the ideal, to maintain the revolutionary tradition. They have learned a few things, but they have not learned enough. The workers of the POUM are deeply disappointed in Gorkin, Nin and Company. These Leninists were not leninistic enough, and the party members look around for better Lenins. They have learned, but so little. The tradition of the past hangs like a stone around their neck. A change of men and a revival of the organization is not enough. A communist revolution is not made by leaders and organizations; it is made by the workers, by the class.”
Murray Bookchin questions whether an "anarchist revolution" could have been sustained in Spain in 1936. Certainly, the workers showed that they could take over and run the factories and the peasants that they could take over and cultivate the land without capitalists and landlords but, Bookchin asks, could it have lasted:
"But what would happen when everyday life began to feel the pinch of economic want of the material problems imposed not only by the Civil War but by Spain's narrow technological base? 'Communism will be the result of abundance,' Santillan had warned in the spring of 1936, 'without which it will remain only an ideal'. Could the ardor of the CNT and FAI surmount the obstacles of scarcity and material want in the basic necessities of life, obstacles that had limited the forward thrust of earlier revolutions?" (The Spanish Anarchists. The Heroic years 1868-1936).
Bookchin only hints at a negative answer, but in the event the matter was not tested. The "anarchist revolution" was first stopped by the Republican government with the Stalinist "Communists" in the lead and then savagely crushed by the Franco fascists.
A similar position is taken up by others.
“The Spanish collectives were eventually destroyed by in-fighting among the anti-fascists and by the fascist victory itself. One can only speculate about how they might have developed had they survived the Civil War. Our guess is that their basically capitalist nature would have become even more obvious. In the capitalist economy market competition forces every enterprise to try to produce its goods as cheaply as possible so as to undercut its rivals. The Spanish collectives, trading with each other and competing with non-collectivised enterprises, would inevitably have been subject to the same pressures.” Subversion,
“The workers’ revolution must be radical from the very outset, or it will be lost.” Paul Mattick
Further reading here
AJJ
No comments:
Post a Comment