                         Marxists and Spanish Anarchism

   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.

1. Were the Spanish Anarchists "Primitive Rebels"?

   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:

     "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).

   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:

     "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]

   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:

     "[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]

   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 [1]section J.7, we can present a few quotes by Bakunin to
   refute Hobsbawm's claim:

     "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]

     "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]

   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]

   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:

     "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]

   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:

     "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]

   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:

     "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]

   Mintz states the obvious:

     "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.

     "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]

   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]

   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:

     "[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]

   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:

     "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. 66] 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.

   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.

2. How accurate is Felix Morrow's book on the Spanish Revolution?

   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:

     "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]

     "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]

   And so on. As we will make clear in the following discussion, Morrow
   was as wrong about this as he was about anarchism.

   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.

3. Did a "highly centralised" FAI control the CNT?

   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:

     "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.

     "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]

   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).

   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:

     "[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]

   He sums up by arguing:

     "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]

   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. 28] 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
   [2]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.

4. What is the history of the CNT and the Communist International?

   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:

     "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.

   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:

     "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]

   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.

5. Why did the CNT not join the Workers' Alliance?

   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 [3]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 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.

     "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]

   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.

   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 [4]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:

     "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, Orobon Fernandez argued along similar lines in
   Madrid's La Tierra:

     "Revolutionary proletarian democracy is direct management of society
     by the workers, a certain bulwark against party dictatorships and a
     guarantee of the development of the revolution's forces and
     undertakings. . . what matters must is that general guidelines are
     laid down so that these may serve as a platform of the alliance and
     furnish a combative and constructive norm for the united forces . .
     . [These include:] acceptance of revolutionary proletarian
     democracy, which is to say, the will of the majority 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 according to their area of interest and confederated at
     national level, the municipal and industrial organisations will
     maintain the principle of unity in the economic structure." [quoted
     by Jose Peirats, The CNT in the Spanish Revolution, vol. 1, pp.
     74-5]

   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 "to make the social revolution an
   effective reality, the social and political system regulating the life
   of the country has to be utterly destroyed" and that the "new
   revolutionary order will be determined by the free choice of the
   working class." [quoted by Jose Peirats, Op. Cit., p. 100]

   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:

     "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.

   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 alliance to which the CNT had subscribed, the order
   for the uprising was issued by the socialists. In Oviedo a specifically
   socialist, revolutionary committee was secretly at work in Oviedo,
   which contained no CNT representatives." [The CNT in the Spanish
   Revolution, vol. 1, p. 78] 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. 75] 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 [5]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.

6. Was the October 1934 revolt sabotaged by the CNT?

   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 [6]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 [7]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 [8]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:

     "[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]

   This is confirmed by anarchist accounts of the rising. As Peirats
   points out:

     "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]

   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
   enter the battle in a manner consistent with its revolutionary
   anarchist principles . . . The revolt which broke out this morning must
   acquire the characteristics of a popular act through the actions of the
   proletariat . . . We demand the right to intervene in this struggle and
   we will take this." 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 the
   "[i]mmediate opening of our union buildings and the concentration of
   the workers on those premises." [quoted by Peirats, The CNT in the
   Spanish Revolution, vol. 1, p. 85] 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., pp. 85-6]

   Juan Gomez Casas argues that:

     "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]

   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
   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. 86]

   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:

     "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]

   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:

     "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 [9]section 20) and so will do so here.

   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.

   Indeed, when these other historians do discuss the crushing of the
   Asturias they all stress the fact that the troops came from the sea.
   For example, Paul Preston notes that "[w]ith CEDA approval, Franco . .
   . insisted on the use of troops from Africa . . . they shipped Moorish
   mercenaries to Asturias." [The Coming of the Spanish Civil War, p. 177]
   Gabriel Jackson argues that the government "feared to send in the
   regular Army because of the strong possibility that the Spanish
   conscripts would refuse to fire on the revolutionaries -- or even
   desert to them. The War Minister . . . , acting on the advice of
   Generals Franco and Goded, sent in contingents of the Morrish regulares
   and of the Foreign Legions." These troops arrived "at the ports of
   Aviles and Gijon." [The Spanish Republic and the Civil War: 1931-1939,
   p. 157]

   Richard A. H. Robinson argues that it "was soon decided that the
   [Asturias] rebellion could only be crushed by experienced, professional
   troops. The other areas of Spain could not be denuded of their
   garrisons in case there were other revolutionary outbreaks. Franco
   therefore called upon Colonel Yague to lead a force of Moorish regulars
   to help re-conquer the province from the rebels." [The Origins of
   Franco's Spain, pp. 190-1] Stanley G. Payne gives a more detailed
   account of the state's attack:

     "Army reinforcements were soon being rushed toward the region . . .
     Eduardo Lopez Ochoa . . . head[ed] the main relief column . . . he
     began to make his way eastward [from Galicia] with a modest force of
     some 360 troops in trucks, half of whom had to be detached on the
     way to hold the route open. Meanwhile . . . in the main Asturian
     coastal city of Gijon . . . reinforcements first arrived by sea on
     the seventh, followed by larger units from the Moroccan Protectorate
     on the tenth." [Spain's First Democracy, p. 219]

   No mention of trains in these accounts, so indicating that Morrow's
   assertions are false. The main attack on Asturias, and so the
   transportation of troops and goods, was by sea, not by trains.

   In addition, these historians 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. Hence historian Paul Heywood:

     "[A]n important factor which contributed to the strikes' collapse
     and made the state's task easier was the underlying attitude of the
     Socialists. For all the talk of united action by the Left, the
     Socialists still wished to dominate any combined moves. Unwilling to
     cede its traditional hegemony, the PSOE rendered the Alianze obrera
     necessarily ineffective . . .

     "Thus, there was little genuine unity on the Spanish Left. Moreover,
     the strike was very poorly planned. Differences within the PSOE
     meant that there was no agreement even as to the programme of the
     strike. For the . . . leftists, it represented the initiation of a
     full-scale Socialist revolution; for . . . the centrists in the
     party, the aim of the strike was to force Alcala-Zamora to
     reconsider and invite the Socialists back into a coalition
     government with the Republicans."
     [Marxism and the Failure of Organised Socialism in Spain 1879-1936
     pp. 144-5]

   Significantly, Heywood argues that "[o]ne thing, however, did emerge
   from the October strike. The example of Asturias provided a pointed
   lesson for the Left: crucially, the key to the relative success of the
   insurrection there was the participation of the CNT in an effective
   Alianza obrera. Without the CNT, the Asturian rising would have been as
   short-lived and as easily defeated as those in Madrid and Barcelona."
   [Op. Cit., p. 145]

   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
   ("Arriving at the ports of Aviles and Gijon on October 8, these troops
   were able to overcome the resistance of the local fishermen and
   stevedores. The revolutionary committees here were Anarchist dominated.
   Though they had joined the rising and accepted the slogan UHP [Unity,
   Proletarian Brothers], the Socialists and Communists of Oviedo clearly
   distrusted them and had refused arms to their delegate the day before."
   [Gabriel Jackson, Op. Cit., p. 157]).

   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.

7. Were the Friends of Durruti Marxists?

   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 [10]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. [11]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:

     "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?

   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 [12]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:

     "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 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:

   "a) The management of the war
       "b) The supervision of revolutionary order
       "c) International affairs
       "d) Revolutionary propaganda.

     "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]

   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.

   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:

     "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]

   Camillo Berneri sums up the anarchist perspective clearly when he
   wrote:

     "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]

   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 [13]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:

     "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, p. 141]

   Thus we see that the CNT had its "juntas" (which means council or
   committee and so does not imply any authoritarianism) as well as
   "defence committees" which were elected by democratic vote in the union
   organisations decades before the FoD existed. The Defence Committees
   (or councils) were a CNT insurgent agency in existence well before July
   1936 and had, in fact, played a key role in many insurrections and
   strikes, including the events of July 1936. In other words, the "break"
   with anarchism Morrow presents was, in fact, an exact reproduction of
   the way the CNT had traditionally operated and acted -- it is the same
   program of a "workers defence council" and "union management of the
   economy" that the CNT had advocated prior to the outbreak of the Civil
   War. The only "break" that did occur post 19th of July was that of the
   CNT and FAI ignoring its politics and history in favour of
   "anti-fascist unity" and a UGT "Workers' Alliance" with all
   anti-fascist unions and parties (see [14]section 20).

   Moreover, the CNT insurrection of December 1933 had been co-ordinated
   by a National Revolutionary Committee [No Gods, No Masters, vol. 2, p.
   235]. D.A. Santillan argued that the "local Council of Economy will
   assume the mission of defence and raise voluntary corps for guard duty
   and if need be, for combat" in the "cases of emergency or danger of a
   counter-revolution." [After the Revolution, p. 80] During the war
   itself a CNT national plenum of regions, in September 1936, called for
   a National Defence Council, with majority union representation and
   based on Regional Defence Councils. The Defence Council of Aragon, set
   up soon after, was based on these ideas. The need for co-ordinated
   revolutionary defence and attack is just common sense -- and had been
   reflected in CNT theory, policy and structure for decades.

   An understanding of the basic ideas of anarchist theory on revolution
   combined with the awareness of the CNT's juntas (administrative
   councils or committees) had "defence committees" associated with them
   makes it extremely clear that rather than being a "conscious break with
   the anti-statism of traditional anarchism" the FoD's programme was, in
   fact, a conscious return to the anti-statism of traditional anarchism
   and the revolutionary program and vision of the pre-Civil War CNT.

   This is confirmed if we look at the activities of the CNT in Aragon
   where they formed the "Defence Council of Aragon" in September 1936. In
   the words of historian Antony Beevor, "[i]n late September delegates
   from the Aragonese collectives attended a conference at Bujaraloz, near
   where Durruti's column was based. They decided to establish a Defence
   Council of Aragon, and elected as president Joaquin Ascaso." [Op. Cit.,
   p. 96] In February 1937, the first congress of the regional federation
   of collectives was held at Caspe to co-ordinate the activities of the
   collectives -- an obvious example of a regional economic council
   desired by the FoD. Morrow does mention the Council of Aragon -- "the
   anarchist-controlled Council for the Defence of Aragon" [Op. Cit., p.
   111] -- however, he strangely fails to relate this fact to anarchist
   politics. After all, in Aragon the CNT-FAI remained true to anarchism,
   created a defence council and a federation of collectives. If Morrow
   had discussed the events in Aragon he would have had to draw the
   conclusion that the FoD were not a "conscious break with the
   traditional anti-statism of anarchism" but rather were an expression of
   it.

   This can be seen from the comments made after the end of the war by the
   Franco-Spanish Group of The Friends of Durruti. They clearly argued for
   a return to the principles of anarchism and the pre-war CNT. They
   argued not only for workers' self-organisation and self-management as
   the basis of the revolution but also to the pre-war CNT idea of a
   workers' alliance from the bottom up rather than a UGT-style one at the
   top (see [15]section 5). In their words:

     "A revolution requires the absolute domination of the workers'
     organisations as was the case in July, 1936, when the CNT-FAI were
     masters . . . We incline to the view that it is necessary to form a
     Revolutionary Alliance; a Workers' Front; where no one would be
     allowed to enter and take their place except on a revolutionary
     basis . . . " [The Friends of Durruti Accuse]

   As can be seen, rather than a "revolutionary government" the FoD were
   consistently arguing for a federation of workers' associations as the
   basis of the revolution. In this they were loyally following Bakunin's
   basic arguments and the ideas of anarchism. Rather than the FoD
   breaking with anarchism, it is clear that it was the leading committees
   of the CNT and FAI which actually broke with the politics of anarchism
   and the tactics, ideas and ideals of the CNT.

   Lastly there are the words of Jaime Balius, one of the FoD's main
   activists, who states in 1976 that:

     "We did not support the formation of Soviets; there were no grounds
     in Spain for calling for such. We stood for 'all power to the trade
     unions'. In no way were we politically orientated . . . Ours was
     solely an attempt to save the revolution; at the historical level it
     can be compared to Kronstadt because if there the sailors and
     workers called for 'all power to the Soviets', we were calling for
     all power to the unions." [quoted by Ronald Fraser, Blood of Spain,
     p. 381]

   "Political" here meaning "state-political" -- a common anarchist use of
   the word. According to Fraser, the "proposed revolutionary junta was to
   be composed of combatants from the barricades." [Ibid.] This echoes
   Bakunin's comment that the "Commune will be organised by the standing
   federation of the Barricades and by the creation of a Revolutionary
   Communal Council composed of one or two delegates from each barricade .
   . . vested with plenary but accountable and removable mandates." [Op.
   Cit., pp. 170-1]

   As can be seen, rather than calling for power to a party or looking to
   form a government (i.e. being "politically orientated") the FoD were
   calling for "all power to the unions." This meant, in the context of
   the CNT, all power to the union assemblies in the workplace. Decision
   making would flow from the bottom upwards rather than being delegated
   to a "revolutionary"
   government as in Trotskyism. To stress the point, the FoD did not
   represent a "break" with anarchism or the CNT tradition. To claim
   otherwise means to misunderstand anarchist politics and CNT history.

   Our analysis, we must note, also makes a mockery of Guillamon's claim
   that because the FoD thought that libertarian communism had to be
   "impose[d]" and "defended by force of arms" their position represented
   an "evolution within anarchist thought processes." [Op. Cit., p. 95] As
   has been made clear above, from Bakunin onwards revolutionary anarchism
   has been aware of the need for an insurrection to create an anarchist
   society by destroying both the state and capitalism (i.e. to "impose" a
   free society upon those who wish hierarchy to continue and are in a
   position of power) and for that revolution to be defended against
   attempts to defeat it. Similarly, his claim that the FoD's
   "revolutionary junta" was the equivalent of what "others call the
   vanguard or the revolutionary party" cannot be defended given our
   discussion above -- it is clear that the junta was not seen as a form
   of delegated power by rather as a means of defending the revolution
   like the CNT's defence committees and under the direct control of the
   union assemblies.

   It may be argued that the FoD did not actually mean this sort of
   structure. Indeed, their manifesto states that they are "introducing a
   slight variation in anarchism into our program. The establishment of a
   Revolutionary Junta." Surely this implies that they saw themselves as
   having moved away from anarchism and CNT policy? As can be seen from
   Balius' comments during and after the revolution, the FoD were arguing
   for "all power to the unions" and stating that "apolitical anarchism
   had failed." However, "apolitical" anarchism came about post-July 19th
   when the CNT-FAI (ignoring anarchist theory and CNT policy and history)
   ignored the state machine rather than destroying it and supplanting it
   with libertarian organs of self-management. The social revolution that
   spontaneously occurred after July 19th was essentially economic and
   social (i.e. "apolitical") and not "anti-political" (i.e. the
   destruction of the state machine). Such a revolution would soon come to
   grief on the shores of the (revitalised) state machine -- as the FoD
   correctly argued had happened.

   To state that they had introduced a variation into their anarchism
   makes sense post-July 1936. The "apolitical" line of the CNT-FAI had
   obviously failed and a new departure was required. While it is clear
   that the FoD's "new"
   position was nothing of the kind, it was elemental anarchist
   principles, it was "new" in respect to the policy the CNT ("anarchism")
   had conducted during the Civil War -- a policy they justified by
   selective use of anarchist theory and principles. In the face of this,
   the FoD could claim they were presenting a new variation in spite of
   its obvious similarities to pre-war CNT policies and anarchist theory.
   Thus the claim that the FoD saw their ideas as some sort of departure
   from traditional anarchism cannot be maintained, given the obvious
   links this "new" idea had with the past policies and structure of the
   CNT. As Guillamon makes it clear, the FoD made "their stand within the
   organisation and upon anarcho-syndicalist ideology" and "[a]t all times
   the Group articulated an anarcho-syndicalist ideology, although it also
   voiced radical criticism of the CNT and FAI leadership. But it is a
   huge leap from that to claiming that the Group espoused marxist
   positions." [Op. Cit., p. 61 and p. 95]

   One last comment. Morrow states that the "CNT leadership . . . expelled
   the Friends of Durruti" [Op. Cit., p. 189] This is not true. The CNT
   leadership did try to expel the FoD. However, as Balius points out, the
   "higher committees order[ed] our expulsion, but this was rejected by
   the rank and file in the trade union assemblies and at a plenum of FAI
   groups held in the Casa CNT-FAI." [quoted by Agustin Guillamon, Op.
   Cit., p. 73] Thus the CNT leadership could never get their desire
   ratified by any assembly of unions or FAI groups. Unfortunately, Morrow
   gets his facts wrong (and also presents a somewhat false impression of
   the relationship of the CNT leadership and the rank and file).

9. Were the Friends of Durruti influenced by Trotskyists?

   Morrow implies that the Bolshevik-Leninists "established close contacts
   with the anarchist workers, especially the 'Friends of Durruti'" [Op.
   Cit., p. 139] The truth, as usual, is somewhat different.

   To prove this we must again turn to Guillamon's work in which he
   dedicates a chapter to this issue. He brings this chapter by stating:

     "It requires only a cursory perusal of El Amigo del Pueblo or
     Balius's statements to establish that the Friends of Durruti were
     never marxists, nor influenced at all by the Trotskyists or the
     Bolshevik-Leninist Section. But there is a school of historians
     determined to maintain the opposite and hence the necessity for this
     chapter." [Op. Cit., p. 94]

   He stresses that the FoD "were not in any way beholden to Spanish
   Trotskyism is transparent from several documents" and notes that while
   the POUM and Trotskyists displayed "an interest" in "bringing the
   Friends of Durruti under their influence" this was "something in which
   they never succeeded." [Op. Cit., p. 96 and p. 110]

   Pre-May, 1937, Balius himself states that the FoD "had no contact with
   the POUM, nor with the Trotskyists." [Op. Cit., p. 104] Post-May, this
   had not changed as witness E. Wolf letter to Trotsky in July 1937 which
   stated that it "will be impossible to achieve any collaboration with
   them . . . Neither the POUMists nor the Friends would agree to the
   meeting [to discuss joint action]." [Op. Cit., pp. 97-8]

   In other words, the Friends of Durruti did not establish "close
   contacts" with the Bolshevik-Leninists after the May Days of 1937.
   While the Bolshevik-Leninists may have wished for such contacts, the
   FoD did not (they probably remembered their fellow anarchists and
   workers imprisoned and murdered when Trotsky was in power in Russia).
   They were, of course, contacts of a limited kind but no influence or
   significant co-operation. Little wonder Balius stated in 1946 that the
   "alleged influence of the POUM or the Trotskyists upon us is untrue."
   [quoted, Op. Cit., p. 104]

   It is hardly surprising that the FoD were not influenced by Trotskyism.
   After all, they were well aware of the policies Trotsky introduced when
   he was in power. Moreover, the program of the Bolshevik-Leninists was
   similar in rhetoric to the anarchist vision -- they differed on the
   question of whether they actually meant "all power to the working
   class" or not (see section [16]12 and [17]13). And, of course, the
   Trotskyists activities during the May Days amounted to little more that
   demanding that the workers' do what they were already doing (as can be
   seen from the leaflet they produced -- as George Orwell noted, "it
   merely demanded what was happening already" [Homage to Catalonia, p.
   221]). As usual, the "vanguard of the proletariat"
   were trying to catch up with the proletariat.

   In theory and practice the FoD were miles ahead of the
   Bolshevik-Leninists -- as to be expected, as the FoD were anarchists.

10. What does the Friends of Durruti's programme tell us about Trotskyism?

   Morrow states that the FoD's "slogans included the essential points of
   a revolutionary program: all power to the working class, and democratic
   organs of the workers, peasants and combatants, as the expression of
   the workers' power." [Op. Cit., p. 133] It is useful to compare
   Leninism to these points to see if that provides a revolutionary
   program.

   Firstly, as we argue in more detail in [18]section 11, Trotsky
   abolished the democratic organs of the Red Army. Lenin's rule also saw
   the elimination of the factory committee movement and its replacement
   with one-man management appointed from above (see [19]section 17 and
   Maurice Brinton's The Bolsheviks and Workers' Control for details).
   Both these events occurred before the start of the Russian Civil War in
   May 1918. Moreover, neither Lenin nor Trotsky considered workers'
   self-management of production as a key aspects of socialism. On this
   level, Leninism in power did not constitute a "revolutionary program."

   Secondly, Leninism does not call for "all power to the working class"
   or even "workers' power" to manage their own affairs. To quote Trotsky,
   in an article written in 1937, "the proletariat can take power only
   through its vanguard." The working classes' role is one of supporting
   the party:

     "Without the confidence of the class in the vanguard, without
     support of the vanguard by the class, there can be no talk of the
     conquest of power.

     "In this sense the proletarian revolution and dictatorship are the
     work of the whole class, but only under the leadership of the
     vanguard."

   Thus, rather than the working class as a whole seizing power, it is the
   "vanguard" which takes power -- "a revolutionary party, even after
   seizing power . . . is still by no means the sovereign ruler of
   society." [Stalinism and Bolshevism] So much for "workers' power"
   -- unless you equate that with the "power" to give your power, your
   control over your own affairs, to a minority who claim to represent
   you. Indeed, Trotsky even attacks the idea that workers' can achieve
   power directly via organs of self-management like workers' councils (or
   soviets):

     "Those who propose the abstraction of the Soviets from the party
     dictatorship should understand that only thanks to the party
     dictatorship were the Soviets able to lift themselves out of the mud
     of reformism and attain the state form of the proletariat." [Op.
     Cit.]

   In other words, the dictatorship of the proletariat is, in fact,
   expressed by "the party dictatorship." In this Trotsky follows Lenin
   who asserted that:

     "The very presentation of the question -- 'dictatorship of the Party
     or dictatorship of the class, dictatorship (Party) of the leaders or
     dictatorship (Party) of the masses?' -- is evidence of the most
     incredible and hopeless confusion of mind . . . [because] classes
     are usually . . . led by political parties. . . " [Left-wing
     Communism: An Infantile Disorder, pp. 25-6]

   As has been made clear above, the FoD being anarchists aimed for a
   society of generalised self-management, a system in which working
   people directly controlled their own affairs and so society. As these
   words by Lenin and Trotsky indicate they did not aim for such a
   society, a society based on "all power to the working class." Rather,
   they aimed for a society in which the workers would delegate their
   power into the hands of a few, the revolutionary party, who would
   exercise power on their behalf. The FoD meant exactly what they said
   when they argued for "all power to the working class" -- they did not
   mean this as a euphemism for party rule. In this they followed Bakunin:

     "[T]he federated Alliance of all labour associations . . . will
     constitute the Commune . . . there will be a federation of the
     standing barricades and a Revolutionary Communal Council will
     operate on the basis of one or two delegates from each barricade . .
     . these deputies being invested with binding mandates and
     accountable and revocable at all times. . . An appeal will be issued
     to all provinces, communes and associations inviting them to follow
     the example set . . . [and] to reorganise along revolutionary lines
     . . . and to then delegate deputies to an agreed place of assembly
     (all of those deputies invested with binding mandates and
     accountable and subject to recall), in order to found the federation
     of insurgent associations, communes and provinces . . . Thus it is
     through the very act of extrapolation and organisation of the
     Revolution with an eye to the mutual defences of insurgent areas
     that the . . . Revolution, founded upon . . . the ruins of States,
     will emerge triumphant. . .

     "Since it is the people which must make the revolution everywhere,
     and since the ultimate direction of it must at all times be vested
     in the people organised into a free federation of agricultural and
     industrial organisations . . . being organised from the bottom up
     through revolutionary delegation . . ."
     [No God, No Masters, vol. 1, pp. 155-6]

   And:

     "Not even as revolutionary transition will we countenance national
     Conventions, nor Constituent Assemblies, nor provisional
     governments, nor so-called revolutionary dictatorships: because we
     are persuaded that revolution s sincere, honest and real only among
     the masses and that, whenever it is concentrated in the hands of a
     few governing individuals, it inevitably and immediately turns into
     reaction." [Op. Cit., p. 160]

   As can be seen, Bakunin's vision is precisely, to use Morrow' words,
   "all power to the working class, and democratic organs of the workers,
   peasants and combatants, as the expression of the workers' power." Thus
   the Friends of Durruti's program is not a "break" with anarchism (as we
   discussed in more detail in [20]section 8) but rather in the tradition
   started by Bakunin -- in other words, an anarchist program. It is
   Leninism, as can be seen, which rejects this "revolutionary program" in
   favour of all power to the representatives of the working class (i.e.
   party) which it confuses with the working class as a whole.

   Given that Morrow asserts that "all power to the working class" was an
   "essential" point of "a revolutionary program" we can only conclude
   that Trotskyism does not provide a revolutionary program -- rather it
   provides a program based, at best, on representative government in
   which the workers' delegate their power to a minority or, at worse, on
   party dictatorship over the working class (the experience of Bolshevik
   Russia would suggest the former quickly becomes the latter, and is
   justified by Bolshevik ideology).

   By his own arguments, here as in so many other cases, Morrow indicates
   that Trotskyism is not a revolutionary movement or theory.

11. Why is Morrow's comments against the militarisation of the Militias ironic?

   Morrow denounces the Stalinist militarisation of the militias (their
   "campaign for wiping out the internal democratic life of the militias")
   as follows:

     "The Stalinists early sought to set an 'example' by handing their
     militias over to government control, helping to institute the
     salute, supremacy of officers behind the lines, etc. . .

     "The example was wasted on the CNT masses . . . The POUM reprinted
     for distribution in the militias the original Red Army Manual of
     Trotsky, providing for a democratic internal regime and political
     life in the army."
     [Op. Cit., p. 126]

   Morrow states that he supported the "democratic election of soldiers'
   committees in each unit, centralised in a national election of
   soldiers' delegates to a national council." Moreover, he attacks the
   POUM leadership because it "forbade election of soldiers' committees"
   and argued that the "simple, concrete slogan of elected soldier's
   committees was the only road for securing proletariat control of the
   army." He attacks the POUM because its "ten thousand militiamen were
   controlled bureaucratically by officials appointed by the Central
   Committee of the party, election of soldiers' committees being
   expressly forbidden." [Op. Cit., p. 127, p. 128 and pp. 136-7]

   Again, Morrow is correct. A revolutionary working class militia does
   require self-management, the election of delegates, soldiers' councils
   and so on. Bakunin, for example, argued that the fighters on the
   barricades would take a role in determining the development of the
   revolution as the "Commune will be organised by the standing federation
   of the Barricades . . . composed of one or two delegates from each
   barricade . . . vested with plenary but accountable and removable
   mandates." This would complement "the federative Alliance of all
   working men's [and women's] associations . . . which will constitute
   the Commune." [Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings, pp. 170-1] That is
   exactly why the CNT militia organised in this fashion (and, we must
   note, they were only applying the organisational principles of the CNT
   and FAI -- i.e. anarchism -- to the militias). The militia columns were
   organised in a libertarian fashion from the bottom up:

     "The establishment of war committees is acceptable to all confederal
     militias. We start from the individual and form groups of ten, which
     come to accommodations among themselves for small-scale operations.
     Ten such groups together make up one centuria, which appoints a
     delegate to represent it. Thirty centurias make up one column, which
     is directed by a war committee, on which the delegates from the
     centurias have their say. . . although every column retains its
     freedom of action, we arrive at co-ordination of forces, which is
     not the same thing as unity of command." [No Gods, No Masters, vol.
     2, pp. 256-7]

   In other words, Morrow is arguing for an anarchist solution to the
   problem of defending the revolution and organising those who were
   fighting fascism. We say anarchist for good reason. What is ironic
   about Morrow's comments and description of "workers' control of the
   army" is that these features were exactly those eliminated by Trotsky
   when he created the Red Army in 1918! Indeed, Trotsky acted in exactly
   the same way as Morrow attacks the Stalinists for acting (and they used
   many of the same arguments as Trotsky did to justify it).

   As Maurice Brinton correctly summarises:

     "Trotsky, appointed Commissar of Military Affairs after
     Brest-Litovsk, had rapidly been reorganising the Red Army. The death
     penalty for disobedience under fire had been restored. So, more
     gradually, had saluting, special forms of address, separate living
     quarters and other privileges for officers. Democratic forms of
     organisation, including the election of officers, had been quickly
     dispensed with." [The Bolsheviks and Workers' Control, p. 37]

   He notes that "[f]or years, Trotskyist literature has denounced these
   reactionary facets of the Red Army as examples of what happened to it
   'under Stalinism.'" [Op. Cit., p. 37f] This claim was, amazingly
   enough, also made by Trotsky himself. In 1935 he re-wrote history by
   arguing that "[i]n the fire of the cruel struggle [of the Civil War],
   there could not be even a question of a privileged position for
   officers: the very word was scrubbed out of the vocabulary." Only
   "after the victories had been won and the passage made to a peaceful
   situation" did "the military apparatus" try to "become the most
   influential and privileged part of the whole bureaucratic apparatus"
   with "the Stalinist bureaucracy . . . gradually over the succeeding ten
   to twelve years" ensuring for them "a superior position" and giving
   them "ranks and decorations." [How Did Stalin Defeat the Opposition?]

   In fact, "ranks and decorations" and "superior" positions were
   introduced by Trotsky before the outbreak of the Civil War in May 1918.
   Having been responsible for such developments you would think he would
   remember them!

   On March 28th, 1918, Trotsky gave a report to the Moscow City
   Conference of the Communist Party. In this report he stated that "the
   principle of election is politically purposeless and technically
   inexpedient, and it has been, in practice, abolished by decree" and
   that the Bolsheviks "fac[ed] the task of creating a regular Army." Why
   the change? Simply because the Bolshevik Party held power ("political
   power is in the hands of the same working class from whose ranks the
   Army is recruited"). Of course, power was actually held by the
   Bolshevik party, not the working class, but never fear:

     "Once we have established the Soviet regime, that is a system under
     which the government is headed by persons who have been directly
     elected by the Soviets of Workers', Peasants' and Soldiers'
     Deputies, there can be no antagonism between the government and the
     mass of the workers, just as there is no antagonism between the
     administration of the union and the general assembly of its members,
     and, therefore, there cannot be any grounds for fearing the
     appointment of members of the commanding staff by the organs of the
     Soviet Power." [Work, Discipline, Order]

   Of course, most workers' are well aware that the administration of a
   trade union usually works against them during periods of struggle.
   Indeed, so are most Trotskyists as they often denounce the betrayals by
   that administration. Thus Trotsky's own analogy indicates the fallacy
   of his argument. Elected officials do not necessary reflect the
   interests of those who elected them. That is why anarchists have always
   supported delegation rather than representation combined with
   decentralisation, strict accountability and the power of instant
   recall. In a highly centralised system (as created by the Bolsheviks
   and as exists in most social democratic trade unions) the ability to
   recall an administration is difficult as it requires the agreement of
   all the people. Thus there are quite a few grounds for fearing the
   appointment of commanders by the government -- no matter which party
   makes it up.

   If, as Morrow argues, the "simple, concrete slogan of elected soldier's
   committees was the only road for securing proletariat control of the
   army" then Trotsky's regime in the Red Army ensured the defeat of
   proletarian control of that organisation. The question Morrow raises of
   who would control the army, the working class or the bourgeois failed
   to realise the real question -- who was to control the army, the
   working class, the bourgeois or the state bureaucracy. Trotsky ensured
   that it would be the latter.

   Hence Morrow's own arguments indicate the anti-revolutionary nature of
   Trotskyism -- unless, of course, we decide to look only at what people
   say and not what they do.

   Of course some Trotskyists know what Trotsky actually did when he held
   power and try and present apologetics for his obvious destruction of
   soldiers' democracy. One argues that the "Red Army, more than any other
   institution of the civil war years, embodied the contradiction between
   the political consciousness and circumstantial coercion. On the one
   hand the creation of a Red Army was a retreat: it was a conscripted not
   a voluntary army; officers were appointed not elected . . . But the Red
   Army was also filled with a magnificent socialist consciousness." [John
   Rees, "In Defence of October", International Socialism, no. 52, pp.
   3-82, p. 46]

   This argument is somewhat weak for two reasons.

   Firstly, the regressive features of the Red Army appeared before the
   start of the Civil War. It was a political decision to organise in this
   way, a decision not justified at the time in terms of circumstantial
   necessity. Indeed, far from it (like most of the other Bolshevik
   policies of the period). Rather it was justified under the rather
   dubious rationale that workers did not need to fear the actions of a
   workers' state. Circumstances were not mentioned at all nor was the
   move considered as a retreat or as a defeat. It was not even considered
   as a matter of principle.

   This perspective was reiterated by Trotsky after the end of the Civil
   War. Writing in 1922, he argued that:

     "There was and could be no question of controlling troops by means
     of elected committees and commanders who were subordinate to these
     committees and might be replaced at any moment . . . [The old army]
     had carried out a social revolution within itself, casting aside the
     commanders from the landlord and bourgeois classes and establishing
     organs of revolutionary self-government, in the shape of the Soviets
     of Soldiers' Deputies. These organisational and political measures
     were correct and necessary from the standpoint of breaking up the
     old army. But a new army capable of fighting could certainly not
     grow directly out of them . . . The attempt made to apply our old
     organisational methods to the building of a Red Army threatened to
     undermine it from the very outset . . . the system of election could
     in no way secure competent, suitable and authoritative commanders
     for the revolutionary army. The Red Army was built from above, in
     accordance with the principles of the dictatorship of the working
     class. Commanders were selected and tested by the organs of the
     Soviet power and the Communist Party. Election of commanders by the
     units themselves -- which were politically ill-educated, being
     composed of recently mobilised young peasants -- would inevitably
     have been transformed into a game of chance, and would often, in
     fact, have created favourable circumstances for the machinations of
     various intriguers and adventurers. Similarly, the revolutionary
     army, as an army for action and not as an arena of propaganda, was
     incompatible with a regime of elected committees, which in fact
     could not but destroy all centralised control." [The Path of the Red
     Army]

   If a "circumstantial" factor exists in this rationale, it is the claim
   that the soldiers were "politically ill-educated." However, every mass
   movement or revolution starts with those involved being "politically
   ill-educated." The very process of struggle educates them politically.
   A key part of this radicalisation is practising self-management and
   self-organisation -- in other words, in participating in the decision
   making process of the struggle, by discussing ideas and actions, by
   hearing other viewpoints, electing and mandating delegates. To remove
   this ensures that those involved remain "politically ill-educated" and,
   ultimately, incapable of self-government. It also contains the
   rationale for continuing party dictatorship:

     "If some people . . . have assumed the right to violate everybody's
     freedom on the pretext of preparing the triumph of freedom, they
     will always find that the people are not yet sufficiently mature,
     that the dangers of reaction are ever-present, that the education of
     the people has not yet been completed. And with these excuses they
     will seek to perpetuate their own power." [Errico Malatesta, Life
     and Ideas, p. 52]

   In addition, Trotsky's rationale refutes any claim that Bolshevism is
   somehow "fundamentally" democratic. The ramifications of it were felt
   everywhere in the soviet system as the Bolsheviks ignored the "wrong"
   democratic decisions made by the working masses and replaced their
   democratic organisations with appointees from above. Indeed, Trotsky
   admits that the "Red Army was built from above, in accordance with the
   principles of the dictatorship of the working class." Which means, to
   state the obvious, appointment from above, the dismantling of
   self-government, and so on are "in accordance with the principles" of
   Trotskyism. These comments were not made in the heat of the civil war,
   but afterward during peacetime. Notice Trotsky admits that a "social
   revolution" had swept through the Tsarist army. His actions, he also
   admits, reversed that revolution and replaced its organs of
   "self-government" with ones identical to the old regime. When that
   happens it is usually called by its true name, namely
   counter-revolution.

   For a Trotskyist, therefore, to present themselves as a supporter of
   self-managed militias is the height of hypocrisy. The Stalinists
   repeated the same arguments used by Trotsky and acted in exactly the
   same way in their campaign against the CNT and POUM militias. Certain
   acts have certain ramifications, no matter who does them or under what
   government. In other words, abolishing democracy in the army will
   generate autocratic tendencies which will undermine socialistic ones no
   matter who does it. The same means cannot be used to serve different
   ends as there is an intrinsic relationship between the instruments used
   and the results obtained -- that is why the bourgeoisie do not
   encourage democracy in the army or the workplace! Just as the
   capitalist workplace is organised to produce proletarians and capital
   along with cloth and steel, the capitalist army is organised to protect
   and reinforce minority power. The army and the capitalist workplace are
   not simply means or neutral instruments. Rather they are social
   structures which generate, reinforce and protect specific social
   relations. This is what the Russian masses instinctively realised and
   conducted a social-revolution in both the army and workplace to
   transform these structures into ones which would enhance rather than
   crush freedom and working class autonomy. The Bolsheviks reversed these
   movements in favour of structures which reproduced capitalist social
   relationships and justified it in terms of "socialism." Unfortunately,
   capitalist means and organisations would only generate capitalist ends.

   It was for these reasons that the CNT and its militias were organised
   from the bottom up in a self-managed way. It was the only way
   socialists and a socialist society could be created -- that is why
   anarchists are anarchists, we recognise that a socialist (i.e.
   libertarian) society cannot be created by authoritarian organisations.
   As the justly famous Sonvillier Circular argued "[h]ow could one expect
   an egalitarian society to emerge out of an authoritarian organisation?
   It is impossible." [quoted by Brian Morris, Bakunin: The Philosophy of
   Freedom, p. 61] Just as the capitalist state cannot be utilised by the
   working class for its own ends, capitalist/statist organisational
   principles such as appointment, autocratic management, centralisation
   and delegation of power and so on cannot be utilised for social
   liberation. They are not designed to be used for that purpose (and,
   indeed, they were developed in the first place to stop it and enforce
   minority rule!).

   In addition, to abolish democracy on the pretext that people are not
   ready for it ensures that it will never exist. Anarchists, in contrast,
   argue that "[o]nly freedom or the struggle for freedom can be the
   school for freedom." [Malatesta, Op. Cit., p. 59]

   Secondly, how can a "socialist consciousness" be encouraged, or
   continue to exist, without socialist institutions to express it? Such a
   position is idealistic nonsense, expressing the wishful notion that the
   social relationships people experiences does not impact on those
   involved. In effect, Rees is arguing that as long as the leaders have
   the "right ideas"
   it does not matter how an organisation is structured. However, how
   people develop, the ideas they have in their heads, are influenced by
   the relations they create with each other -- autocratic organisations
   do not encourage self-management or socialism, they produce bureaucrats
   and subjects.

   An autocratic organisation cannot encourage a socialist consciousness
   by its institutional life, only in spite of it. For example, the
   capitalist workplace encourages a spirit of revolt and solidarity in
   those subject to its hierarchical management and this is expressed in
   direct action -- by resisting the authority of the boss. It only
   generates a socialist perspective via resistance to it. Similarly with
   the Red Army. Education programs to encourage reading and writing does
   not generate socialists, it generates soldiers who are literate. If
   these soldiers do not have the institutional means to manage their own
   affairs, a forum to discuss political and social issues, then they
   remain order takers and any socialist conscious will wither and die.

   The Red Army was based on the fallacy that the structure of an
   organisation is unimportant and it is the politics of those in charge
   that matter (Marxists make a similar claim for the state, so we should
   not be too surprised). However, it is no co-incidence that bourgeois
   structures are always hierarchical -- self-management is a politically
   educational experience which erodes the power of those in charge and
   transforms those who do it. It is to stop this development, to protect
   the power of the ruling few, that the bourgeois always turn to
   centralised, hierarchical structures -- they reinforce elite rule. You
   cannot use the same form of organisation and expect different results
   -- they are designed that way for a reason! To twitter on about the Red
   Army being "filled with a magnificent socialist consciousness" while
   justifying the elimination of the only means by which that
   consciousness could survive, prosper and grow indicates a complete lack
   of socialist politics and any understanding of materialist philosophy.

   Moreover, one of the basic principles of the anarchist militia was
   equality between all members. Delegates received the same pay, ate the
   same food, wore the same clothes as the rest of the unit. Not so in the
   Red Army. Trotsky thought, when he was in charge of it, that inequality
   was "in some cases . . . quite explicable and unavoidable" and that
   "[e]very Red Army warrior fully accepts that the commander of his unit
   should enjoy certain privileges as regards lodging, means of transport
   and even uniform." [More Equality!]

   Of course, Trotsky would think that, being the head commander of the
   Army. Unfortunately, because soldier democracy had been abolished by
   decree, we have no idea whether the rank and file of the Red Army
   agreed with him. For Trotsky, privilege "is, in itself, in certain
   cases, inevitable" but "[o]stentatious indulgence in privilege is not
   just evil, it is a crime." Hence his desire for "more" equality rather
   than equality -- to aim for "eliminating the most abnormal [!]
   phenomena, softening [!] the inequality that exists" rather than
   abolish it as they did in the CNT militias. [Op. Cit.]

   But, of course, such inequalities that existed in the Red Army are to
   be expected in an autocratically run organisation. The inequality
   inherent in hierarchy, the inequality in power between the order giver
   and order taker, will, sooner or later, be reflected in material
   inequality. As happened in the Red Army (and all across the "workers'
   state"
   ). All Trotsky wanted was for those in power to be respectable in their
   privilege rather than showing it off. The anarchist militias did not
   have this problem because being libertarian, delegates were subject to
   recall and power rested with the rank and file, not an elected
   government.

   As another irony of history, Morrow quotes a Bolshevik-Leninist leaflet
   (which "points the road") as demanding "[e]qual pay for officers and
   soldiers." [Op. Cit., p. 191] Obviously these good Trotskyists had no
   idea what their hero actually wrote on this subject or did when in
   power. We have to wonder how long their egalitarian demands would have
   survived once they had acquired power -- if the experience of Trotsky
   in power is anything to go by, not very long.

   Trotsky did not consider how the abolition of democracy and its
   replacement with an autocratic system would effect the morale or
   consciousness of the soldiers subject to it. He argued that in the Red
   Army "the best soldier does not mean at all the most submissive and
   uncomplaining." Rather, "the best soldier will nearly always be
   sharper, more observant and critical than the others. . . by his
   critical comments, based on facts accessible to all, he will pretty
   often undermine the prestige of the commanders and commissars in the
   eyes of the mass of the soldiers." However, not having a democratic
   army the soldiers could hardly express their opinion other than
   rebellion or by indiscipline. Trotsky, however, adds a comment that
   makes his praise of critical soldiers seem less than sincere. He states
   that "counter-revolutionary elements, agents of the enemy, make
   conscious and skilful use of the circumstances I have mentioned
   [presumably excessive privilege rather than critical soldiers, but who
   can tell] in order to stir up discontent and intensify antagonism
   between rank and file and the commanding personnel." [Op. Cit.] The
   question, of course, arises of who can tell the difference between a
   critical soldier and a "counter-revolutionary element"? Without a
   democratic organisation, soldier are dependent (as in any other
   hierarchy) on the power of the commanders, commissars and, in the Red
   Army, the Bolshevik Secret Police (the Cheka). In other words, members
   of the very class of autocrats their comments are directed against.

   Without democratic organisation, the Red Army could never be a means
   for creating a socialist society, only a means of reproducing
   autocratic organisation. The influence of the autocratic organisation
   created by Trotsky had a massive impact on the development of the
   Soviet State. According to Trotsky himself:

     "The demobilisation of the Red Army of five million played no small
     role in the formation of the bureaucracy. The victorious commanders
     assumed leading posts in the local Soviets, in economy, in
     education, and they persistently introduced everywhere that regime
     which had ensured success in the civil war. Thus on all sides the
     masses were pushed away gradually from actual participation in the
     leadership of the country." [The Revolution Betrayed]

   Obviously Trotsky had forgotten who created the regime in the Red Army
   in the first place! He also seems to have forgotten that after
   militarising the Red Army, he turned his power to militarising workers
   (starting with the railway workers). He also forgets that Lenin had
   been arguing that workers' must "unquestioningly obey the single will
   of the leaders of labour" from April 1918 along with granting
   "individual executives dictatorial power (or 'unlimited' powers)" and
   that "the appointment of individuals, dictators with unlimited powers"
   was, in fact, "in general compatible with the fundamental principles of
   Soviet government" simply because "the history of revolutionary
   movements" had "shown" that "the dictatorship of individuals was very
   often the expression, the vehicle, the channel of the dictatorship of
   revolutionary classes." He notes that "[u]ndoubtably, the dictatorship
   of individuals was compatible with bourgeois democracy." [The Immediate
   Tasks of the Soviet Government, p. 34 and p. 32]

   In other words, Lenin urged the creation of, and implemented, bourgeois
   forms of workplace management based on the appointment of managers from
   above. To indicate that this was not in contradiction with Soviet
   principles, he points to the example of bourgeois revolutions! As if
   bourgeois methods do not reflect bourgeois interests and goals. In
   addition, these "dictators"
   were given the same autocratic powers Trotsky claimed the
   demobilisation of the Red Army four years later had "persistently
   introduced everywhere." Yes, "on all sides the masses were pushed away
   gradually from actual participation in the leadership of the country"
   but the process had started immediately after the October Revolution
   and was urged and organised by Lenin and Trotsky before the Civil War
   had started.

   Lenin's support for appointment of ("dictatorial") managers from above
   makes Trotsky's 1922 comment that the "Red Army was built from above,
   in accordance with the principles of the dictatorship of the working
   class" take on a new light. [The Path of the Red Army] After all, Lenin
   argued for an economy system built from above via the appointment of
   managers before the start of the Civil War. The Red Army was created
   from above via the appointment of officers before the start of the
   Civil War. Things had certainly changed since Lenin had argued in The
   State and Revolution that "[a]ll officials, without exception, [would
   be] elected and subject to recall at any time." This would "serve as
   the bridge between capitalism and socialism." [The Essential Lenin, p.
   302] One major difference, given Trotsky's rationales, seems to be that
   the Bolsheviks were now in power and so election and recall without
   exception could be forgotten and replaced by appointment.

   In summary, Trotsky's argument against functional democracy in the Red
   Army could, and was, used to justify the suppression of any democratic
   decision or organisation of the working class the Bolshevik government
   disapproved of. He used the same argument, for example, to justify the
   undermining of the Factory Committee movement and the struggle for
   workers' control in favour of one-man management -- the form of
   management in the workplace was irrelevant as the workers' were now
   citizens of a workers' state and under a workers' government (see
   [21]section 17). Needless to say, a state which eliminates functional
   democracy in the grassroots will not stay democratic for long (and to
   remain the sovereign power in society, any state will have to eliminate
   it or, at the very least, bring it under central control -- as
   institutionalised in the USSR constitution of 1918).

   Instead of seeing socialism as a product of free association, of
   working class self-organisation from the bottom up by self-managed
   organisations, Trotsky saw it as a centralised, top-down system. Of
   course, being a democrat of sorts he saw the Bolshevik Government as
   being elected by the mass of the population (or, more correctly, he saw
   it being elected by the national congress of soviets). However, his
   vision of centralisation of power provided the rationale for destroying
   functional democracy in the grass-roots -- and without healthy roots,
   any plant will wither and die. Little wonder, then, that the Bolshevik
   experiment proved such a disaster -- yes, the civil war did not help
   but the logic of Bolshevism has started to undermine working class
   self-management before is started.

   Thus Trotsky's argument that the democratic nature of a workers' army
   or militia is irrelevant because a "workers' state"
   exists is flawed on many different levels. And the experience of
   Trotsky in power indicates well the poverty of Trotskyism and Morrow's
   criticism of the CNT -- his suggestion for a self-managed militia is
   pure anarchism with nothing to do with Leninism and the experience of
   Bolshevism in power.

12. What is ironic about Morrow's vision of revolution?

   Equally ironic as Morrow's comments concerning democratic militias (see
   [22]last section) is his argument that the revolution needed to "give
   the factory committees, militia committees, peasant committees, a
   democratic character, by having them elected by all workers in each
   unit; to bring together these elected delegates in village, city,
   regional councils . . . [and] a national congress." [Op. Cit., p. 100]

   Such a position is correct, such developments were required to ensure
   the success of the revolution. However, it is somewhat ironic that a
   Trotskyist would present them as somehow being opposed to anarchism
   when, in fact, they are pure anarchism. Indeed, anarchists were arguing
   in favour of workers' councils more than five decades before Lenin
   discovered the importance of the Russian Soviets in 1917. Moreover, as
   we will indicate, what is even more ironic is the fact that Trotskyism
   does not actually see these organs as an expression of working class
   self-management and power but rather as a means of the party to take
   power. In addition, we must also note that it was Lenin and Trotsky who
   helped undermine the Russian workers' factory committees, militia
   committees and so on in favour of party rule. We will discuss each of
   these ironies in turn.

   Firstly, as noted, such Morrow's stated position is exactly what
   Bakunin and the anarchist movement had been arguing since the 1860s. To
   quote Bakunin:

     "the federative alliance of all working men's associations . . .
     constitute the Commune . . . all provinces, communes and
     associations . . . by first reorganising on revolutionary lines . .
     . [will] constitute the federation of insurgent associations,
     communes and provinces . . . [and] organise a revolutionary force
     capable defeating reaction . . . [and for] self-defence . . . [The]
     revolution everywhere must be created by the people, and supreme
     control must always belong to the people organised into a free
     federation of agricultural and industrial associations . . .
     organised from the bottom upwards by means of revolutionary
     delegation. . . " [Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings, p. 170-2]

     "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." [Op. Cit., p. 206]

   Here is Kropotkin presenting the same vision:

     "independent Communes for the territorial organisation, and of
     federations of Trade Unions [i.e. workplace associations] for the
     organisation of men [and women] in accordance with their different
     functions. . . [and] free combines and societies . . . for the
     satisfaction of all possible and imaginable needs, economic,
     sanitary, and educational; for mutual protection, for the propaganda
     of ideas, for arts, for amusement, and so on." [Peter Kropotkin,
     Evolution and Environment, p. 79]

     "the complete independence of the Communes, the Federation of free
     communes and the social revolution in the communes, that is to say
     the formation of associated productive groups in place of the state
     organisation." [quoted by Camillo Berneri, Peter Kropotkin: His
     Federalist Ideas]

   Bakunin also mentions that those defending the revolution would have a
   say in the revolutionary structure -- the "Commune will be organised by
   the standing federation of the Barricades and by the creation of a
   Revolutionary Council composed of . . . delegates from each barricade .
   . . vested with plenary but accountable and removable mandates." [Op.
   Cit., p. 171] This obviously parallels the democratic nature of the CNT
   militias.

   Interestingly enough, Marx commented that "odd barricades, these
   barricades of the Alliance [Bakunin's anarchist organisation], where
   instead of fighting they spend their time writing mandates." [Marx,
   Engels and Lenin, Anarchism and Anarcho-Syndicalism, p. 111] Obviously
   the importance of militia self-management was as lost on him as it was
   on Lenin and Trotsky -- under Marx's state would its defenders just be
   cannon-fodder, obeying their government and officers without the
   ability to help determine the revolution they were fighting for?
   Apparently so. Moreover, Marx quotes Bakunin's support for "responsible
   and recallable delegates, vested with their imperative mandates"
   without commenting on the fact Bakunin predicts those features of the
   Paris Commune Marx praised in his Civil War in France by a number of
   years. Looks like Morrow is not the first Marxist to appropriate
   anarchist ideas without crediting their source.

   As can be seen, Morrow's suggestion on how to push the Spanish
   Revolution forward just repeats the ideas of anarchism. Any one
   familiar with anarchist theory would not be surprised by this as they
   would know that we have seen a free federation of workplace and
   communal associations as the basis of a revolution and, therefore, a
   free society since the time of Proudhon. Thus Morrow's "Trotskyist"
   vision of a federation of workers' council actually reproduces basic
   anarchist ideas, ideas which pre-date Lenin's support for soviets as
   the basis of his "workers' state" by over half a century (we will
   indicate the fundamental difference between the anarchist vision and
   the Trotskyist in due course).

   As an aside, these quotes by Bakunin and Kropotkin make a mockery of
   Lenin's assertion that anarchists do not analysis "what to put in the
   place of what has been destroyed [i.e. the old state machine] and how"
   [Essential Works of Lenin, p. 362] Anarchists have always suggested a
   clear answer to what we should "replace" the state with -- namely free
   federations of working class organisations created in the struggle
   against capital and state. To state otherwise is to either be ignorant
   of anarchist theory or seek to deceive.

   Some anarchists like Bakunin and the anarcho-syndicalists and
   collectivists saw these organisations being based primarily on
   libertarian labour unions complemented by whatever organisations were
   created in the process of revolution ("The future society must be
   nothing else than the universalisation of the organisation that the
   International has formed for itself" -- "The Sonvillier Circular"
   echoing Bakunin, quoted by Brian Morris, Bakunin: The Philosophy of
   Freedom, p. 61] Others like Kropotkin and anarcho-communists saw it as
   a free federation of organisations created by the process of revolution
   itself. While anarchists did not present a blueprint of what would
   occur after the revolution (and rightly so) they did provide a general
   outline in terms of a decentralised, free federation of self-managed
   workers' associations as well as linking these future forms of working
   class self-government with the forms generated in the current class
   struggle in the here and now.

   Similarly, Lenin's other assertion that anarchists do not study "the
   concrete lessons of previous proletarian revolutions" [Ibid.] is
   equally baseless, as any one reading, say, Kropotkin's work would soon
   realise (for example, The Great French Revolution, Modern Science and
   Anarchism or his pamphlet "Revolutionary Government"). Starting with
   Bakunin, anarchists analysed the experiences of the Paris Commune and
   the class struggle itself to generalise political conclusions from them
   (for example, the vision of a free society as a federation of workers'
   associations is clearly a product of analysing the class struggle and
   looking at the failures of the Commune). Given that Lenin states in the
   same work that "anarchists had tried to claim the Paris Commune as
   their 'own'" [p. 350] suggests that anarchists had studied the Paris
   Commune and he was aware of that fact. Of course, Lenin states that we
   had "failed to give . . . a true solution" to its lessons -- given that
   the solution anarchists proposed was a federation of workers councils
   to smash the state and defend the revolution his comments seem strange
   as this, according to The State and Revolution, is the "Marxist"
   solution as well (in fact, as we will soon see, Lenin played lip
   service to this and instead saw the solution as government by his party
   rather than the masses as a whole).

   Thus, Morrow's vision of what was required for a successful revolution
   parallels that of anarchism. We shall now discuss where and how they
   differ.

   The essential difference between the anarchist and Trotskyist vision of
   workers' councils as the basis of a revolution is what role these
   councils should play. For anarchists, these federations of self-managed
   assemblies is the actual framework of the revolution (and the free
   society it is trying to create). As Murray Bookchin puts it:

     "There can be no separation of the revolutionary process from the
     revolutionary goal. A society based on self-administration must be
     achieved by means of self-administration . . . Assembly and
     community must arise from within the revolutionary process itself;
     indeed, the revolutionary process must be the formation of assembly
     and community, and with it, the destruction of power. Assembly and
     community must become 'fighting words,' not distinct panaceas. They
     must be created as modes of struggle against the existing society,
     not as theoretical or programmatic abstractions. . . The factory
     committees . . . must be managed directly by workers' assemblies in
     the factories. . . neighbourhood committees, councils and boards
     must be rooted completely in the neighbourhood assemble. They must
     be answerable at every point to the assembly, they and their work
     must be under continual review by the assembly; and finally, their
     members must be subject to immediate recall by the assembly. The
     specific gravity of society, in short, must be shifted to its base
     -- the armed people in permanent assembly." [Post-Scarcity
     Anarchism, pp. 167-9]

   Thus the anarchist social revolution sees workers' councils as organs
   of working class self-management, the means by which they control their
   own lives and create a new society based on their needs, visions,
   dreams and hopes. They are not seen as means by which others, the
   revolutionary party, seized power on behalf of the people as
   Trotskyists do.

   Harsh words? No, as can be seen from Morrow who is quite clear on the
   role of working class organisation -- it is seen purely as the means by
   which the party can take power. As he argues, there is "no magic in the
   soviet form: it is merely the most accurate, most quickly reflecting
   and responsively changing form of political representation of the
   masses. . . It would provide the arena in which the revolutionary party
   can win the support of the working class." [Op. Cit., p. 136]

   He states that initially the "reformist majority in the executive
   committee would decline the assumption of state power. But the workers
   could still find in the soviets their natural organs of struggle until
   the genuinely revolutionary elements in the various parties banded
   together to win a revolutionary majority in the congress and establish
   a workers' state." In other words, the "workers' state, the
   dictatorship of the proletariat . . . can only be brought into
   existence by the direct, political intervention of the masses, through
   the factory and village councils (soviets) at that point where a
   majority in the soviets is wielded by the workers' party or parties
   which are determined to overthrow the bourgeois state. Such was the
   basic theoretical contribution of Lenin." [Op. Cit., p. 100 and p. 113]

   From an anarchist perspective, this indicates well the fundamental
   difference between anarchism and Trotskyism. For anarchists, the
   existence of an "executive committee" indicates that the workers'
   council do not, in fact, have power in society -- rather it is the
   minority in the executive committee who have been delegated power.
   Rather than govern themselves and society directly, workers are turned
   into voters implementing the decisions their leaders have made on their
   behalf. If revolutionary bodies like workers' councils did create a
   "workers' state"
   (as Morrow recommends) then their power would be transferred and
   centralised into the hands of a so-called "revolutionary" government.
   In this, Morrow follows his guru Trotsky:

     "the proletariat can take power only through its vanguard. In itself
     the necessity for state power arises from an insufficient cultural
     level of the masses and their heterogeneity. In the revolutionary
     vanguard, organised in a party, is crystallised the aspirations of
     the masses to obtain their freedom. Without the confidence of the
     class in the vanguard, without support of the vanguard by the class,
     there can be no talk of the conquest of power.

     "In this sense the proletarian revolution and dictatorship are the
     work of the whole class, but only under the leadership of the
     vanguard."
     [Trotsky, Stalinism and Bolshevism]

   Thus, rather than the working class as a whole "seizing power", it is
   the "vanguard" which takes power -- "a revolutionary party, even after
   seizing power . . . is still by no means the sovereign ruler of
   society." [Ibid.] He mocks the anarchist idea that a socialist
   revolution should be based on the self-management of workers within
   their own autonomous class organisations:

     "Those who propose the abstraction of Soviets to the party
     dictatorship should understand that only thanks to the party
     dictatorship were the Soviets able to lift themselves out of the mud
     of reformism and attain the state form of the proletariat."
     [Trotsky, Op. Cit., p. 18]

   In this he followed comments made when he was in power. In 1920 he
   argued that "[w]e have more than once been accused of having
   substituted for the dictatorships of the Soviets the dictatorship of
   the party. Yet it can be said with complete justice that the
   dictatorship of the Soviets became possible only be means of the
   dictatorship of the party. It is thanks to the . . . party . . . [that]
   the Soviets . . . [became] transformed from shapeless parliaments of
   labour into the apparatus of the supremacy of labour. In this
   'substitution' of the power of the party for the power of the working
   class these is nothing accidental, and in reality there is no
   substitution at all. The Communists express the fundamental interests
   of the working class." [Terrorism and Communism, p. 109] Any claims
   that Trotsky's infamously authoritarian (indeed dictatorial) politics
   were a temporary aberration caused by the necessities of the Russian
   Civil War are refuted by these quotes -- 17 years later he was still
   arguing the same point.

   He had the same vision of party dictatorship being the basis of a
   revolution in 1924. Commenting on the Bolshevik Party conference of
   April 1917, he states that "whole of . . . Conference was devoted to
   the following fundamental question: Are we heading toward the conquest
   of power in the name of the socialist revolution or are we helping
   (anybody and everybody) to complete the democratic revolution? . . .
   Lenin's position was this: . . . the capture of the soviet majority;
   the overthrow of the Provisional Government; the seizure of power
   through the soviets." Note, through the soviets not by the soviets thus
   indicating the fact the Party would hold the real power, not the
   soviets of workers' delegates. Moreover, he states that "to prepare the
   insurrection and to carry it out under cover of preparing for the
   Second Soviet Congress and under the slogan of defending it, was of
   inestimable advantage to us." He continued by noting that it was "one
   thing to prepare an armed insurrection under the naked slogan of the
   seizure of power by the party, and quite another thing to prepare and
   then carry out an insurrection under the slogan of defending the rights
   of the Congress of Soviets." The Soviet Congress just provided "the
   legal cover" for the Bolshevik plans rather than a desire to see the
   Soviets actually start managing society. [The Lessons of October]

   We are not denying that Trotskyists do aim to gain a majority within
   working class conferences. That is clear. Anarchists also seek to gain
   the support of the mass of the population. It is what they do next that
   counts. Trotskyists seek to create a government above these
   organisations and dominate the executive committees that requires. Thus
   power in society shifts to the top, to the leaders of the centralised
   party in charge of the centralised state. The workers' become mere
   electors rather than actual controllers of the revolution. Anarchists,
   in contrast, seek to dissolve power back into the hands of society and
   empower the individual by giving them a direct say in the revolution
   through their workplace, community and militia assemblies and their
   councils and conferences.

   Trotskyists, therefore, advocate workers councils because they see them
   as the means the vanguard party can take power. Rather than seeing
   socialism or "workers' power"
   as a society in which everyone would directly control their own
   affairs, Trotskyists see it in terms of working class people delegating
   their power into the hands of a government. Needless to say, the two
   things are not identical and, in practice, the government soon turns
   from being the people's servant into its master.

   It is clear that Morrow always discusses workers councils in terms of
   the strategy and program of the party, not the value that workers
   councils have as organs of direct workers control of society. He
   clearly advocates workers councils because he sees them as the best way
   for the vanguard party to rally workers around its leadership and
   organise the seizure of state power. At no time does he see then as
   means by which working class people can govern themselves directly --
   quite the reverse.

   The danger of such an approach is obvious. The government will soon
   become isolated from the mass of the population and, due to the
   centralised nature of the state, difficult to hold accountable.
   Moreover, given the dominant role of the party in the new state and the
   perspective that it is the workers' vanguard, it becomes increasingly
   likely that it will place its power before that of those it claims to
   represent.

   Certainly Trotsky's role in the Russian revolution tells us that the
   power of the party was more important to him than democratic control by
   workers through mass bodies. When the workers and sailors of the
   Kronstadt navy base rebelled in 1921, in solidarity with striking
   workers in Petrograd, they were demanding freedom of the press for
   socialist and anarchist groups and new elections to the soviets. But
   the reaction of the Bolshevik leadership was to crush the Kronstadt
   dissent in blood. Trotsky's attitude towards workers democracy was
   clearly expressed at the time:

     "They [the dissent Bolsheviks of the Workers' Opposition] have
     placed the workers' right to elect representatives above the Party.
     As if the Party were not entitled to assert its dictatorship even if
     that dictatorship temporarily clashed with the passing moods of the
     worker's democracy!"

   He spoke of the "revolutionary historic birthright of the Party" and
   that it "is obliged to maintain its dictatorship . . . regardless of
   temporary vacillations even in the working class . . . The dictatorship
   does not base itself at every given moment on the formal principle of a
   workers' democracy." [quoted by M. Brinton, Op. Cit., p. 78]

   This perspective naturally follows from Trotsky's vanguardist politics.
   For Leninists, the party is the bearer of "socialist consciousness"
   and, according to Lenin in What is to be Done?, workers, by their own
   efforts, can only achieve a "trade union" consciousness and, indeed,
   "there can be no talk of an independent ideology being developed by the
   masses of workers in the process of their struggle" and so "the only
   choice is: either bourgeois or socialist ideology" (the later being
   developed not by workers but by the "bourgeois intelligentsia").
   [Essential Works of Lenin, p. 82 and p. 74] To weaken or question the
   party means to weaken or question the socialist nature of the
   revolution and so weaken the "dictatorship of the proletariat." Thus we
   have the paradoxical situation of the "proletarian dictatorship"
   repressing workers, eliminating democracy and maintaining itself
   against the "passing moods" of the workers (which means rejecting what
   democracy is all about). Hence Lenin's comment at a conference of the
   Cheka (his political police) in 1920:

     "Without revolutionary coercion directed against the avowed enemies
     of the workers and peasants, it is impossible to break down the
     resistance of these exploiters. On the other hand, revolutionary
     coercion is bound to be employed towards the wavering and unstable
     elements among the masses themselves." [Collected Works, vol. 24, p.
     170]

   Significantly, of the 17 000 camp detainees on whom statistical
   information was available on 1 November 1920, peasants and workers
   constituted the largest groups, at 39% and 34% respectively. Similarly,
   of the 40 913 prisoners held in December 1921 (of whom 44% had been
   committed by the Cheka) nearly 84% were illiterate or minimally
   educated, clearly, therefore, either peasants of workers. [George
   Leggett, The Cheka: Lenin's Political Police, p. 178] Needless to say,
   Lenin failed to mention this aspect of his system in The State and
   Revolution (a failure shared by Morrow and later Trotskyists).

   It is hard to combine these facts and Lenin's and Trotsky's comments
   with the claim that the "workers' state" is an instrument of class rule
   -- after all, Lenin is acknowledging that coercion will be exercised
   against members of the working class as well. The question of course
   arises -- who decides what a "wavering" or "unstable" element is? Given
   their comments on the role of the party and the need for the party to
   assume power, it will mean in practice whoever rejects the government's
   decisions (for example, strikers, local soviets who reject central
   decrees and instructions, workers who vote for anarchists or parties
   other than the Bolshevik party in elections to soviets, unions and so
   on, socialists and anarchists, etc.). Given a hierarchical system,
   Lenin's comment is simply a justification for state repression of its
   enemies (including elements within or even the whole working class).

   It could be argued, however, that workers could use the soviets to
   recall the government. However, this fails for two reasons (we will
   ignore the question of the interests of the bureaucratic machine which
   will inevitably surround a centralised body -- see [23]section H.3.9
   for further discussion).

   Firstly, the Leninist state will be highly centralised, with power
   flowing from the top-down. This means that in order to revoke the
   government, all the soviets in all parts of the country must, at the
   same time, recall their delegates and organise a national congress of
   soviets (which, we stress, is not in permanent session). The local
   soviets are bound to carry out the commands of the central government
   (to quote the Soviet constitution of 1918 -- they are to "carry out all
   orders of the respective higher organs of the soviet power"). Any
   independence on their part would be considered "wavering" or an
   expression of "unstable" natures and so subject to "revolutionary
   coercion". In a highly centralised system, the means of accountability
   is reduced to the usual bourgeois level -- vote in the general election
   every few years (which, in any case, can be annulled by the government
   to ensure that the soviets do not go back into the "mud" via the
   "passing moods" caused by the "insufficient cultural level of the
   masses"). In other words, the soviet form may be the "most accurate,
   most quickly reflecting and responsively changing form of political
   representation of the masses" (to use Morrow's words) but only before
   they become transformed into state organs.

   Secondly, "revolutionary coercion" against "wavering" elements does not
   happen in isolation. It will encourage critical workers to keep quiet
   in case they, too, are deemed "unstable" and become subject to
   "revolutionary" coercion. As a government policy it can have no other
   effect than deterring democracy.

   Thus Trotskyist politics provides the rationale for eliminating even
   the limited role of soviets for electing representatives they hold in
   that ideology.

   Morrow argues that "[o]ne must never forget . . . that soviets do not
   begin as organs of state power" rather they start as "organs defending
   the workers' daily interests" and include "powerful strike committees."
   [Op. Cit., p. 136] That is true, initially workers' councils are
   expressions of working class power and are organs of working class
   self-management and self-activity. They are subject to direct control
   from below and unite from the bottom up. However, once they are turned
   into "organs of state power" their role (to re-quote the Soviet
   constitution of 1918) becomes that of "carry[ing] out all orders of the
   respective higher organs of the soviet power." Soviet power is replaced
   by party power and they become a shell of their former selves --
   essentially rubber-stamps for the decisions of the party central
   committee.

   Ironically, Morrow quotes the main theoretician of the Spanish
   Socialist Party as stating "the organ of the proletarian dictatorship
   will be the Socialist Party" and states that they "were saying
   precisely what the anarchist leaders had been accusing both communists
   and revolutionary socialists of meaning by the proletarian
   dictatorship." [Op. Cit., p. 99 and p. 100] This is hardly surprising,
   as this was what the likes of Lenin and Trotsky had been arguing. As
   well as the quotes we have provided above, we may add Trotsky's comment
   that the "fundamental instrument of proletarian revolution is the
   party." [Lessons of October] And the resolution of the Second World
   Congress of the Communist International which stated that "[e]very
   class struggle is a political struggle. The goal of this struggle . . .
   is the conquest of political power. Political power cannot be seized,
   organised and operated except through a political party." [cited by
   Duncan Hallas, The Comintern, p. 35] In addition, we may quote Lenin's
   opinion that:

     "The very presentation of the question -- 'dictatorship of the Party
     or dictatorship of the class, dictatorship (Party) of the leaders or
     dictatorship (Party) of the masses?' -- is evidence of the most
     incredible and hopeless confusion of mind . . . [because] classes
     are usually . . . led by political parties. . . "

   And:

     "To go so far in this matter as to draw a contrast in general
     between the dictatorship of the masses and the dictatorship of the
     leaders, is ridiculously absurd and stupid." [Left-wing Communism:
     An Infantile Disorder, pp. 25-6 and p. 27]

   As Lenin and Trotsky constantly argued, proletarian dictatorship was
   impossible without the political party of the workers (whatever its
   name). Indeed, to even discuss any difference between the dictatorship
   of the class and that of the party just indicated a confused mind.
   Hence Morrow's comments are incredulous, particularly as he himself
   stresses that the soviet form is useful purely as a means of gaining
   support for the revolutionary party which would take over the executive
   of the workers' councils. He clearly is aware that the party is the
   essential organ of proletarian rule from a Leninist perspective --
   without the dictatorship of the party, Trotsky argues, the soviets fall
   back into the mud. Trotsky, indeed, stressed this need for the
   dictatorship of the party rather than of the proletariat in a letter
   written in 1937:

     "The revolutionary dictatorship of a proletarian party is for me not
     a thing that one can freely accept or reject: It is an objective
     necessity imposed upon us by the social realities -- the class
     struggle, the heterogeneity of the revolutionary class, the
     necessity for a selected vanguard in order to assure the victory.
     The dictatorship of a party belongs to the barbarian prehistory as
     does the state itself, but we can not jump over this chapter, which
     can open (not at one stroke) genuine human history. . . The
     revolutionary party (vanguard) which renounces its own dictatorship
     surrenders the masses to the counter-revolution . . . Abstractly
     speaking, it would be very well if the party dictatorship could be
     replaced by the 'dictatorship' of the whole toiling people without
     any party, but this presupposes such a high level of political
     development among the masses that it can never be achieved under
     capitalist conditions. The reason for the revolution comes from the
     circumstance that capitalism does not permit the material and the
     moral development of the masses." [Trotsky, Writings 1936-37, pp.
     513-4]

   The net result of Bolshevik politics in Russia was that Lenin and
   Trotsky undermined the self-management of working class bodies during
   the Russian Revolution and before the Civil War started in May 1918. We
   have already chronicled Trotsky's elimination of democracy and equality
   in the Red Army (see [24]section 11). A similar fate befell the factory
   committees (see [25]section 17) and soviet democracy (as noted above).
   The logic of Bolshevism is such that at no point did Lenin describe the
   suppression of soviet democracy and workers' control as a defeat
   (indeed, as far as workers' control went Lenin quickly moved to a
   position favouring one-man management). We discuss the Russian
   Revolution in more detail in the appendix on [26]"What happened during
   the Russian Revolution?" and so will not do so here.

   All in all, while Morrow's rhetoric on the nature of the social
   revolution may sound anarchist, there are important differences between
   the two visions. While Trotskyists support workers' councils on purely
   instrumentalist grounds as the best means of gaining support for their
   party's assumption of governmental power, anarchists see workers'
   councils as the means by which people can revolutionise society and
   themselves by practising self-management in all aspects of their lives.
   The difference is important and its ramifications signify why the
   Russian Revolution became the "dictatorship over the proletariat"
   Bakunin predicted. His words still ring true:

     "[b]y popular government they [the Marxists] mean government of the
     people by a small under of representatives elected by the people. .
     . [That is,] government of the vast majority of the people by a
     privileged minority. But this minority, the Marxists say, will
     consist of workers. Yes, perhaps, of former workers, who, as soon as
     they become rulers or representatives of the people will cease to be
     workers and will begin to look upon the whole workers' world from
     the heights of the state. They will no longer represent the people
     but themselves and their own pretensions to govern the people."
     [Statism and Anarchy, p. 178]

   It was for this reason that he argued the anarchists do "not accept,
   even in the process of revolutionary transition, either constituent
   assemblies, provisional governments or so-called revolutionary
   dictatorships; because we are convinced that revolution is only
   sincere, honest and real in the hands of the masses, and that when it
   is concentrated in those of a few ruling individuals it inevitably and
   immediately becomes reaction." [Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings, p.
   237] The history of the Russian Revolution proved him right. Hence
   anarchist support for popular assemblies and federations of workers'
   councils as the framework of the social revolution rather than as a
   means to elect a "revolutionary" government.

   One last point. We must point out that Morrow's follows Lenin in
   favouring executive committees associated with workers' councils. In
   this he actually ignores Marx's (and Lenin's, in State and Revolution)
   comments that the Paris Commune was "to be a working, not a
   parliamentary, body, executive and legislative at the same time."
   [Selected Writings, p. 287] The existence of executive committees was
   coded into the Soviet Union's 1918 Constitution. This suggests two
   things. Firstly, Leninism and Trotskyism differ on fundamental points
   with Marx and so the claim that Leninism equals Marxism is difficult to
   support (the existence of libertarian Marxists like Anton Pannekoek and
   other council communists also disprove such claims). Secondly, it
   indicates that Lenin's claims in State and Revolution were ignored once
   the Bolsheviks took power so indicating that use of that work to prove
   the democratic nature of Bolshevism is flawed.

   Moreover, Marx's support of the fusion of executive and legislative
   powers is not as revolutionary as some imagine. For anarchists, as
   Bookchin argues, "[i]n point of fact, the consolidation of 'executive
   and legislative' functions in a single body was regressive. It simply
   identified the process of policy-making, a function that rightly should
   belong to the people in assembly, with the technical execution of these
   policies, a function that should be left to strictly administrative
   bodies subject to rotation, recall, limitations of tenure . . .
   Accordingly, the melding of policy formation with administration placed
   the institutional emphasis of classical [Marxist] socialism on
   centralised bodies, indeed, by an ironical twist of historical events,
   bestowing the privilege of formulating policy on the 'higher bodies' of
   socialist hierarchies and their execution precisely on the more popular
   'revolutionary committees' below." [Toward an Ecological Society, pp.
   215-6]

13. Why do anarchists reject the Marxist "workers' state"?

   Morrow asserts two "fundamental" tenets of "anarchism" in his book [Op.
   Cit., pp. 101-2]. Unfortunately for him, his claims are somewhat at
   odds with reality. Anarchism, as we will prove in [27]section 14, does
   not hold one of the positions Morrow states it does. The first "tenet"
   of anarchism he fails to discuss at all and so the reader cannot
   understand why anarchists think as they do. We discuss this "tenet"
   here.

   The first tenet is that anarchism "has consistently refused to
   recognise the distinction between a bourgeois and a workers' state.
   Even in the days of Lenin and Trotsky, anarchism denounced the Soviet
   Union as an exploiters' regime." [Op. Cit., p. 101] It is due to this,
   he argues, the CNT co-operated with the bourgeois state:

     "The false anarchist teachings on the nature of the state . . .
     should logically have led them [the CNT] to refuse governmental
     participation in any event . . . the anarchists were in the
     intolerable position of objecting to the necessary administrative
     co-ordination and centralisation of the work they had already begun.
     Their anti-statism 'as such' had to be thrown off. What did remain,
     to wreck disaster in the end, was their failure to recognise the
     distinction between a workers' and a bourgeois state." [Op. Cit., p.
     101]

   Needless to say, Morrow does not bother to explain why anarchists
   consider the bourgeois and workers' state to be similar. If he did then
   perhaps his readers would agree with the anarchists on this matter.
   However, before discussing that we have to address a misrepresentation
   of Morrow's. Rather than the expression of anarchist politics, the
   actions of the CNT were in direct opposition to them. As we showed in
   the [28]section 12, anarchists see a social revolution in terms of
   creating federations of workers associations (i.e. workers' councils).
   It was this vision that had created the structure of the CNT (as
   Bakunin had argued, "the organisation of the trade sections and their
   representation in the Chambers of Labour . . . bear in themselves the
   living seeds of the new society which is to replace the old one. They
   are creating not only the ideas, but also the facts of the future
   itself" [Bakunin on Anarchism, p. 255]).

   Thus, the social revolution would see the workers' organisation (be
   they labour unions or spontaneously created organs) "tak[ing] the
   revolution into its own hands . . . an earnest international
   organisation of workers' associations . . . [would] replac[e] this
   departing political world of States and bourgeoisie." [The Basic
   Bakunin, p. 110] This is precisely what the CNT did not do -- rather it
   decided against following anarchist theory and instead decided to
   co-operate with other parties and unions in the "Central Committee of
   Anti-Fascist Militias" (at least temporarily until the CNT stronghold
   in Saragossa was liberated by CNT militias). In effect, it created a
   UGT-like "Alliance" with other anti-fascist parties and unions and
   rejected its pre-war policy of "unity from below." The CNT and FAI
   leadership decided not to talk of libertarian communism but only of the
   fight against fascism. A greater mistake they could not have made.

   An anarchist approach in the aftermath of the fascist uprising would
   have meant replacing the Generalitat with a federal assembly of
   delegates from workplace and local community assemblies (a Defence
   Council, to use a CNT expression). Only popular assemblies (not
   political parties) would be represented (parties would have an
   influence only in proportion to their influence in the basic
   assemblies). All the CNT would have had do was to call a Regional
   Congress of unions and invite the UGT, independent unions and
   unorganised workplaces to send delegates to create the framework of
   this system. This, we must stress, was not done. We will discuss why in
   [29]section 20 and so will refrain from doing so here. However, because
   the CNT in effect "postponed"
   the political aspects of the social revolution (namely, to quote
   Kropotkin, to "smash the State and replace it with the Federation [of
   Communes]" [No Gods, No Masters, vol. 1, p. 259]) the natural result
   would be exactly as Morrow explains:

     "But isn't it a far cry from the failure to create the organs to
     overthrow the bourgeoisie, to the acceptance of the role of class
     collaboration with the bourgeoisie? Not at all . . . Without
     developing soviets -- workers' councils -- it was inevitable that
     even the anarchists and the POUM would drift into governmental
     collaboration with the bourgeoisie." [Op. Cit., pp. 88-9]

   As Kropotkin predicted, "there can be no half-way house: either the
   Commune is to be absolutely free to endow itself with whatever
   institutions it wishes and introduce all reforms and revolutions it may
   deem necessary, or else it will remain . . . a mere subsidiary of the
   State, chained in its every movement." [Op. Cit., p. 259] Without an
   alternative means of co-ordinating the struggle, the CNT would, as
   Morrow argued, have little choice but to collaborate with the state.
   However, rather than being a product of anarchist theory, as Morrow
   states, this came about by ignoring that theory (see [30]section 20).

   This can be seen from the false alternative used to justify the CNT's
   and FAI's actions -- namely, "either libertarian communism, which means
   anarchist dictatorship, or democracy, which means collaboration." The
   creation of libertarian communism is done from below by those subject
   to capitalist and statist hierarchy overthrowing those with power over
   them by smashing the state machine and replacing it with self-managed
   organisations as well as expropriating capital and placing it under
   workers' self-management. As Murray Bookchin argues:

     "Underlying all [the] errors [of the CNT], at least in theoretical
     terms, was the CNT-FAI's absurd notion that if it assumed power in
     the areas it controlled, it was establishing a 'State.' As long as
     the institutions of power consisted of armed workers and peasants as
     distinguished from a professional bureaucracy, police force, army,
     and cabal of politicians and judges, they were no[t] a State . . .
     These institutions, in fact comprised a revolutionary people in arms
     . . . not a professional apparatus that could be regarded as a State
     in any meaningful sense of the term. . . That the 'taking of power'
     by an armed people in militias, libertarian unions and federations,
     peasant communes and industrial collectives could be viewed as an
     'anarchist dictatorship' reveals the incredible confusion that
     filled the minds of the 'influential militants.'" ["Looking Back at
     Spain," pp. 53-96, The Radical Papers, pp. 86-7]

   This perspective explains why anarchists do not see any fundamental
   difference between a so-called "workers' state" and the existing state.
   For anarchists, the state is based fundamentally on hierarchical power
   -- the delegation of power into the hands of a few, of a government, of
   an "executive" committee. Unlike Lenin, who stressed the "bodies of
   armed men" aspect of the state, anarchists consider the real question
   as one of who will tell these "bodies of armed men" what to do. Will it
   be the people as a whole (as expressed through their self-managed
   organisations) or will be it a government (perhaps elected by
   representative organisations)?

   If it was simply a question of consolidating a revolution and its
   self-defence then there would be no argument:

     "But perhaps the truth is simply this: . . . [some] take the
     expression 'dictatorship of the proletariat' to mean simply the
     revolutionary action of the workers in taking possession of the land
     and the instruments of labour, and trying to build a society and
     organise a way of life in which there will be no place for a class
     that exploits and oppresses the producers.

     "Thus constructed, the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' would be
     the effective power of all workers trying to bring down capitalist
     society and would thus turn into Anarchy as soon as resistance from
     reactionaries would have ceased and no one can any longer seek to
     compel the masses by violence to obey and work for him. In which
     case, the discrepancy between us would be nothing more than a
     question of semantics. Dictatorship of the proletariat would signify
     the dictatorship of everyone, which is to say, it would be a
     dictatorship no longer, just as government by everybody is no longer
     a government in the authoritarian, historical and practical sense of
     the word.

     "But the real supporters of 'dictatorship of the proletariat' do not
     take that line, as they are making quite plain in Russia. Of course,
     the proletariat has a hand in this, just as the people has a part to
     play in democratic regimes, that is to say, to conceal the reality
     of things. In reality, what we have is the dictatorship of one
     party, or rather, of one' party's leaders: a genuine dictatorship,
     with its decrees, its penal sanctions, its henchmen and above all
     its armed forces, which are at present [1919] also deployed in the
     defence of the revolution against its external enemies, but which
     will tomorrow be used to impose the dictator's will upon the
     workers, to apply a break on revolution, to consolidate the new
     interests in the process of emerging and protect a new privileged
     class against the masses."
     [Malatesta, No Gods, No Masters, vol. 2, pp. 38-9]

   Maurice Brinton sums up the issue well when he argued that "workers'
   power" "cannot be identified or equated with the power of the Party --
   as it repeatedly was by the Bolsheviks . . . What 'taking power' really
   implies is that the vast majority of the working class at last realises
   its ability to manage both production and society -- and organises to
   this end." [The Bolsheviks and Workers' Control, p. xiv]

   The question is, therefore, one of who "seizes power" -- will it be the
   mass of the population or will it be a party claiming to represent the
   mass of the population. The difference is vital -- and anyone who
   confuses the issue (like Lenin) does so either out of stupidity or
   vested interests.

   If it is the mass of people then they have to express themselves and
   their power (i.e. the power to manage their own affairs). That requires
   that individuals -- no matter where they are, be it in the workplace,
   community or on the front line -- are part of self-managed
   organisations. Only by self-management in functional groups can working
   class people be said to controlling their own lives and determining
   their own fate. Such a system of popular assemblies and their means of
   defence would not be a state in the anarchist sense of the word.

   As we argued in [31]section 12, the Trotskyist vision of revolution,
   while seeming in some ways similar to that of anarchists, differ on
   this question. For Trotskyists, the party takes power, not the mass of
   the population directly. Only if you view "proletarian"
   seizure of power in terms of electing a political party to government
   could you see the elimination of functional democracy in the armed
   forces and the workplaces as no threat to working class power. Given
   Trotsky's actual elimination of democracy in the Red Army and Navy plus
   his comments on one-man management (and their justifications -- see
   sections [32]11 and [33]17) it is clear that Trotskyists consider the
   workers' state in terms of party government, not self-management, not
   functional direct democracy.

   Yes, the Trotskyists do claim that it is the workers, via their
   soviets, who will elect the government and hold it accountable but such
   a position fails to realise that a social revolution can only be
   created from below, by the direct action of the mass of the population.
   By delegating power into the hands of a few, the revolution is
   distorted. The initiative and power no longer rests in the hands of the
   mass of the population and so they can no longer take part in the
   constructive work of the revolution and so it will not reflect their
   interests and needs. As power flows from the top-down, bureaucratic
   distortions are inevitable.

   Moreover, the government will inevitably clash with its subjects and
   Trotskyist theory provides the justification for the government
   imposing its wishes and negating workers' democracy (see [34]section 12
   for evidence for this claim). Moreover, in the centralised state
   desired by Trotskyists democratic accountability will inevitably suffer
   as power flows to the top:

     "The power of the local soviets passed into the hands of the
     [National] Executive Committee, the power of the Executive Committee
     passed into the hands of the Council of People's Commissars, and
     finally, the power of the Council of People's Commissars passed into
     the hands of the Political Bureau of the Communist Party." [Murray
     Bookchin, Post-Scarcity Anarchism, p. 152]

   Little wonder, then, these CNT aphorisms:

     "power corrupts both those who exercise it and those over whom it is
     exercised; those who think they can conquer the State in order to
     destroy it are unaware that the State overcomes all its conquerors.
     . . dictatorship of the proletariat is dictatorship without the
     proletariat and against them." [Peter Marshall, Demanding the
     Impossible, p. 456]

   That, in a nut shell, why anarchists consider the workers' state as no
   real change from the bourgeois state. Rather than creating a system in
   which working class people directly manage their own affairs, the
   workers' state, like any other state, involves the delegation of that
   power into the hands of a few. Given that state institutions generate
   specific social relations, specific relations of authority (namely
   those order giver and order taker) they cannot help becoming separated
   from society, becoming a new class based on the state's bureaucratic
   machine. Any state structure (particularly a highly centralised one, as
   desired by Leninists) has a certain independence from society and so
   serves the interests of those within the State institutions rather than
   the people as a whole.

   Perhaps a Leninist will point to The State and Revolution as evidence
   that Lenin desired a state based round the soviets -- workers' council
   -- and so our comments are unjustified. However, as Marx said, judge
   people by what they do, not what they say. The first act of the October
   Revolution was to form an executive power over the soviets (although,
   of course, in theory accountable to their national congress). In The
   State and Revolution Lenin praised Marx's comment that the Paris
   Commune was both administrative and executive. The "workers' state"
   created by Lenin did not follow that model (as Russian
   anarcho-syndicalists argued in August 1918, "the Soviet of People's
   Commissars [i]s an organ which does not stem from the soviet structure
   but only interferes with its work" [The Anarchists in the Russian
   Revolution, p. 118]).

   Thus the Bolshevik state was not based around soviet self-management
   nor the fusion of executive and administrative in their hands but
   rather the use of the soviets to elect a government (a separate
   executive) which had the real power. The issue is quite simple --
   either "All power to the Soviets" means just that or it means "All
   power to the government elected by the Soviets". The two are not the
   same as the first, for the obvious reason that in the second the
   soviets become simply ratification machines for the government and not
   organs in which the working masses can run their own affairs. We must
   also point out that the other promises made in Lenin's book went the
   same way as his support for the combining administration and executive
   tasks in the Paris Commune -- and, we stress, all before the Civil War
   started in May 1918 (the usual Trotskyist defence of such betrayals is
   blame the Civil War which is hard to do as it had not started yet).

   So it is unsurprising that Morrow does not explain why anarchists
   reject the "dictatorship of the proletariat"
   -- to do so would be to show that Trotskyism is not the revolutionary
   movement for workers' liberty it likes to claim it is. Moreover, it
   would involve giving an objective account of anarchist theory and
   admitting that the CNT did not follow its teachings.

14. What is wrong with Morrow's "fundamental tenet" of anarchism?

   According to Morrow the "second fundamental tenet in anarchist
   teaching" is, apparently, the following:

     "Since Bakunin, the anarchists had accused Marxists of
     over-estimating the importance of state power, and had characterised
     this as merely the reflection of the petty-bourgeois intellectuals'
     pre-occupation with lucrative administrative posts. Anarchism calls
     upon workers to turn their backs on the state and seek control of
     the factories as the real source of power. The ultimate sources of
     power (property relations) being secured, the state power will
     collapse, never to be replaced."

   He then sums up by stating the Spanish anarchists "thus failed to
   understand that it was only the collapse of state power . . . which had
   enabled them to seize the factories." [Op. Cit., p. 102]

   It would be interesting to discover in what work of Bakunin, or any
   anarchist, such a position could be found. Morrow gives us no
   references to help us in our quest -- hardly surprising as no anarchist
   (Spanish or otherwise) ever argued this point before July 1936.
   However, in September 1936, we discover the CNT arguing that the
   "withering away of the State is socialism's ultimate objective. Facts
   have demonstrated that in practice it is achieved by liquidation of the
   bourgeois State, brought to a state of asphyxiation by economic
   expropriation." [No Gods, No Masters, vol. 2, p. 261] This, we must
   note, was the same month the CNT decided to join the Catalan
   Government! So much for the state having withered away.

   However, will soon be made clear, such comments were a revision of
   anarchist theory brought about by the apparent victory of the CNT on
   July 19th, 1936 (just as other revisions occurred to justify CNT
   participation in the state). In other words, Morrow's "second
   fundamental tenet" does not exist in anarchist theory. To prove this,
   we will quote Bakunin and a few other famous anarchists as well as
   giving an overview of some of the insurrections organised by the CNT
   before 1936. We start with Bakunin, Kropotkin and Malatesta.

   Given that Bakunin thought that it was the "power of the State" which
   "sustains the privileged classes" against the "legitimate indignation
   of the masses of the people" it is hard to know what Morrow is talking
   about. [The Political Philosophy of Bakunin, p. 196] Given this
   perspective, it naturally follows that to abolish capitalism, to allow
   the seizure of factories by the workers, the state had to be abolished
   (or "destroyed"). Equally clear is that the "natural and necessary
   consequence of this destruction will be . . . [among others, the]
   dissolution of army, magistracy, bureaucracy, police and priesthood. .
   . confiscation of all productive capital and means of production on
   behalf of workers' associations, who are to put them to use . . . the
   federative Alliance of all working men's associations . . . will
   constitute the Commune." [Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings p. 253 and
   p. 170]

   Thus, the state has to be abolished in order to ensure that workers'
   can take over the means of production, so abolishing capitalism. This
   is the direct opposite of Morrow's claim that "[s]ince Bakunin"
   anarchism had "call[ed] upon the workers to turn their backs to the
   state and seek control of the factories as the real source of power."
   While control of the economy by workers is an important, indeed a key,
   aspect of a social revolution it is not a sufficient one for
   anarchists. It must be combined with the destruction of the state (as
   Bakunin argued, "[n]o revolution could succeed . . . today unless it
   was simultaneously a political and a social revolution" [No Gods, No
   Masters, vol. 1, p. 141]). As the power of the state "sustains" the
   capitalists it clearly follows that the capitalist only has his
   property because the state protects his property claims -- without the
   state, workers' would seize the means of production. Which means,
   contra Morrow, Bakunin was aware that in order for workers' to take
   over their workplaces the state had to be destroyed as it was by means
   of the state that capitalist property rights are enforced.

   And, just to stress the obvious, you cannot "turn your backs on the
   state" while dissolving the state bureaucracy, the army, police and so
   on. This is clear for Bakunin. He argued that "[l]iberty can only be
   created by liberty, by an insurrection of all the people and the
   voluntary organisation of the workers from below upward." And the
   nature of this workers' organisation? Workers' councils -- the
   "proletariat . . . must enter the International [Workers' Association]
   en masse, form[ing] factory, artisan, and agrarian sections, and unite
   them into local federations." [Statism and Anarchy, p. 179 and p. 49]

   Similarly, we discover Kropotkin arguing that "expropriation" would
   occur at the same time as "the capitalists' power to resist [had] been
   smashed" and that "the authorities" will be "overthrown." [No Gods, No
   Masters, vol. 1, p. 232 and p. 233] He also recognised the need for
   self-defence, arguing that the revolution must "withstand both the
   attempts to form a government that would seek to strangle it and any
   onslaughts which may emanate from without." [Op. Cit., p. 232] He
   argued the Commune "must smash the State and replace it with the
   Federation and it will act accordingly." [Op. Cit., p. 259] You cannot
   do all this by "turning your backs" on the state. To smash the state
   you need to face it and fight it -- there is no other way.

   Elsewhere he argued that the commune of the future would base itself on
   "the principles of anarchist communism" and "entirely abolish . . .
   property, government, and the state." They will "proclaim and establish
   their independence by direct socialist revolutionary action, abolishing
   private property" when "governments are swept away by the people . . .
   the insurgent people will not wait until some new government decrees,
   in its marvellous wisdom, a few economic reforms." Rather, they "will
   take possession on the spot and establish their rights by utilising it
   without delay. They will organise themselves in the workshops to
   continue the work, but what they will produce will be what is wanted by
   the masses, not what gives the highest profit to employers. . . they
   will organise themselves to turn to immediate use the wealth stored up
   in the towns; they will take possession of it as if it had never been
   stolen from them by the middle class." [The Commune of Paris] Note that
   Kropotkin explicitly states that only after "governments are swept
   away" would the "insurgent people . . . organise themselves in the
   workshops."

   As Malatesta noted, the anarchist principles formulated in 1872 at the
   Congress of St Imier (under the influence of Bakunin, obviously) stated
   that "[d]estruction of all political power is the first duty of the
   proletariat" who must "establish solidarity in revolutionary action
   outside the framework of bourgeois politics." He adds, "[n]eedless to
   say, for the delegates of St. Imier as for us and for all anarchists,
   the abolition of political power is not possible without the
   simultaneous destruction of economic privilege." [Life and Ideas, pp.
   157-8]

   Malatesta himself always stressed that revolution required "the
   insurrectionary act which sweeps away the material obstacles, the armed
   forces of the government." He argued that "[o]nce the government has
   been overthrown . . . it will be the task of the people . . . to
   provide for the satisfaction of immediate needs and to prepare for the
   future by destroying privileges and harmful institutions." [Op. Cit.,
   p. 163 and p. 161] In other words, the revolution needs to smash the
   state and at the same time abolish capitalism by expropriation by the
   workers.

   Thus anarchism is clear on that you need to destroy the state in order
   to expropriate capital. Morrow's assertions on this are clearly false.
   Rather than urging "workers to turn their backs on the state and seek
   control of the factories as the real source of power" anarchism calls
   upon workers to "overthrow," "smash," "sweep away," "destroy",
   "dissolve" the state and its bureaucratic machinery via an
   "insurrectionary act" and expropriate capital at the same time -- in
   other words, a popular uprising probably combined with a general strike
   ("an excellent means for starting the social revolution," in
   Malatesta's words, but not in itself enough to made "armed insurrection
   unnecessary" [Errico Malatesta, The Anarchist Reader, pp. 224-5]).

   That, in itself, indicates that Morrow's "fundamental tenet" of
   anarchism does not, in fact, actually exist. In addition, if we look at
   the history of the CNT during the 1930s we discover that the union
   organised numerous insurrections which did not, in fact, involve
   workers "turning their backs on the state" but rather attacking the
   state. For example, in the spontaneous revolt of CNT miners in January
   1932, the workers "seized town halls, raised the black-and-red flags of
   the CNT, and declared communismo liberatario." In Tarassa, the same
   year, the workers again "seiz[ed] town halls" and the town "swept by
   street fighting." The revolt in January 1933 began with "assaults by
   Anarchist action groups . . . on Barcelona's military barracks . . .
   Serious fighting occurred in working-class barrios and the outlying
   areas of Barcelona . . . Uprising occurred in Tarassa,
   Sardanola-Ripollet, Lerida, in several pueblos in Valencia province,
   and in Andalusia." In Casas Viejas, as we discussed in [35]section 1,
   the CNT members surrounded and attacked the barracks of the Civil
   Guard. In December 1933, the workers "reared barricades, attacked
   public buildings, and engaged in heavy street fighting . . . many
   villages declared libertarian communism." [Murray Bookchin, The Spanish
   Anarchists, p. 225, p. 226, p. 227 and p. 238]

   Moreover, "[w]herever possible . . . insurrections had carried out
   industrial and agrarian take-overs and established committees for
   workers' and peasant's control, libertarian systems of logistics and
   distribution -- in short, a miniature society 'organised on the lines
   set down by Kropotkin.'" [Bookchin, Op. Cit., p. 239]

   Now, does all that really sound like workers turning their backs on the
   state and only seizing control of their factories?

   Perhaps it will be argued that Morrow is referring to after the
   insurrection (although he clearly is not). What about the defence of
   the revolution? Anarchists have always been clear on this too -- the
   revolution would be defended by the people in arms. We have discussed
   this issue above (in sections [36]1 and [37]8 in particular) so we do
   not need to discuss it in much detail here. We will just provide
   another quote by Bakunin (although written in 1865, Bakunin made the
   same points over and over again until his death in 1876):

     "While it [the revolution] will be carried out locally everywhere,
     the revolution will of necessity take a federalist format.
     Immediately after established government has been overthrown,
     communes will have to reorganise themselves along revolutionary
     lines . . . In order to defend the revolution, their volunteers will
     at the same time form a communal militia. But no commune can defend
     itself in isolation. So it will be necessary for each of them to
     radiate outwards, to raise all its neighbouring communes in revolt .
     . . and to federate with them for common defence." [No Gods, No
     Masters, vol. 1, p. 142]

   This was essentially the position agreed by the CNT in May 1936:

     "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]

   Like the CNT with its "Defence Committees" the defence of the
   revolution would rest with the commune and its federation. Thus
   Morrow's "fundamental tenet" of anarchism does not exist. We have never
   urged the ignoring of the state nor the idea that seizing economic
   power will eliminate political power by itself. Nor is anarchism
   against the defence of a revolution. The position of the CNT in May
   1936 was identical to that of Bakunin in 1865. The question is, of
   course, how do you organise a revolution and its defence -- is it by
   the whole people or is it by a party representing that people.
   Anarchists argue for the former, Trotskyists the latter. Needless to
   say, a state structure (i.e. a centralised, hierarchical structure
   based on the delegation of power) is required only when a revolution is
   seen as rule by a party -- little wonder anarchists reject the concept
   of a "workers' state" as a contradiction in terms.

   The question of July 1936 however rears its head. If anarchism does
   stand for insurrection, workers councils and so on, then why did the
   CNT ignore the state? Surely that suggests anarchism is, as Morrow
   claims, flawed? No, it does not -- as we argue in some detail in
   [38]section 20 this confuses mistakes by anarchists with errors in
   anarchist theory. The CNT-FAI did not pursue anarchist theory and so
   July 1936 does not invalidate anarchism. As Bakunin argued, "[n]o
   revolution could succeed . . . unless it was simultaneously a political
   and a social revolution." [No Gods, No Masters, vol. 1, p. 141] The
   revolution of July 1936 was a social revolution (it expropriated
   capital and revolutionised social relationships across society) but it
   was not a political revolution -- in other words, it did not destroy
   the state. The CNT refused to do this because of the danger of fascism
   and fear of isolation (see [39]section 20). Little wonder the social
   revolution was defeated -- the CNT did not apply basic anarchist
   theory. To dismiss anarchist ideas because they were not applied seems
   somewhat strange.

   To finish this section we must indicate that Morrow's statement
   concerning anarchists "turning our backs"
   to the state and concentrating on property actually contradicts both
   Engels and Lenin.

   As Lenin notes in The State and Revolution, "Marx agreed with Proudhon
   on the necessity of 'smashing' the present state machine. . . [there
   is] similarity between Marxism and anarchism (Proudhon and Bakunin) . .
   . on this point" and that anarchists advocate "the destruction of the
   state machine." [Essential Works of Lenin, p. 310 and p. 358] You can
   hardly smash the state or destroy the state machine by "turning your
   back"
   to it. Similarly, Engels argued (although distorting his thought
   somewhat) that Bakunin saw "the state as the main evil to be abolished
   . . . [and] maintains that it is the state which has created capital,
   that the capitalist has his capital only by the grace of the state . .
   . [Hence] it is above all the state which must be done away with . . .
   organise, and when ALL workers are won over . . . abolish the state and
   replace it with the organisation of the International." [The
   Marx-Engels Reader, pp. 728-9] You cannot "abolish" and "replace" the
   state by ignoring it ("turning your back to it"). We must also stress
   that Engels comments disprove Lenin's assertion that anarchists "have
   absolutely no clear idea of what the proletariat will put in its [the
   states] place." [Op. Cit., p. 358] We have always been clear, namely a
   federation of workers' associations (this was the organisation of the
   First International). In other, more modern, words, a system of
   workers' councils -- a position Marxists only embraced six decades
   later when Lenin advocated them as the basis of his "workers' state."

   Thus Morrow's comments against anarchism are in contradiction to usual
   Marxist claims against anarchism (namely, that we seek to smash the
   state but do not understand that the workers' state is necessary to
   abolish capitalism). Indeed, Engels attributed the opposite idea to
   Bakunin that Morrow implies anarchists think with regards to property
   -- namely the idea that the capitalist has his property because of the
   state. Morrow's "fundamental tenet" of anarchism not only does not
   exist in anarchist theory, it does not even exist in the Marxist
   critique of that theory! It is impressive enough to assign a false
   doctrine to your enemies, it takes real ability to make a claim which
   contradicts your own theory's assertions!

15. Did Spanish Anarchism aim for the creation of "collectives" before the
revolution?

   The formation of the worker-managed enterprises called "collectives" in
   the Spanish revolution of 1936 has sometimes led people (particularly
   Marxists) to misconceptions about anarcho-syndicalist and
   communist-anarchist theory. These comments by a Marxist-Leninist are
   typical:

     "Spanish anarchists believed that a system of autonomous
     collectives, with the weakest possible connections between them, was
     the alternative to capitalism and also to the Marxist view of
     society running the entire economy as one whole."

   And:

     "The anarchist theory led to the ordinary anarchist considering each
     factory as owned simply by the workers that laboured there, and not
     by the working class as a whole." [Joseph Green, "The Black Autonomy
     Collective and the Spanish Civil War", Communist Voice no. 10, Vol.
     2, no. 5, Oct. 1, 1996]

   This assertion is sometimes voiced by Libertarian Marxists of the
   council communist tendency (who should know better):

     "At the time of the Civil War, a popular idea amongst the Spanish
     working class and peasants was that each factory, area of land,
     etc., should be owned collectively by its workers, and that these
     'collectives' should be linked with each other on a 'federal' basis
     - that is, without any superior central authority.

     "This basic idea had been propagated by anarchists in Spain for more
     than 50 years. When the Civil War began, peasants and working class
     people in those parts of the country which had not immediately
     fallen under fascist control seized the opportunity to turn
     anarchist ideal into reality."
     ["Anarchism and the Spanish 'Revolution'", Subversion no. 18]

   Trotskyist Felix Morrow also presents a similar analysis when he states
   that the POUM "recorded the tendency of CNT unions to treat
   collectivised property as their own. It never attacked the
   anarcho-syndicalist theories which created the tendency." [Op. Cit., p.
   104]

   However, the truth of the matter is somewhat different.

   Firstly, as will soon become clear, CNT policy and anarchist theory was
   not in favour of workers' owning their individual workplaces. Instead
   both argued for socialisation of the means of life by a system of
   federations of workers' assemblies. Individual workplaces would be
   managed by their workers but they would not exist in isolation or
   independently of the others -- they would be members of various
   federations (minimally an industrial one and one which united all
   workplaces regardless of industry in a geographical area). These would
   facilitate co-ordination and co-operation between self-managed
   workplaces. The workplace would, indeed, be autonomous but such
   autonomy did not negate the need for federal organs of co-ordination
   nor did federation negate that autonomy (as we will discuss later in
   [40]section 18, autonomy means the ability to make agreements with
   others and so joining a federation is an expression of autonomy and not
   necessarily its abandonment, it depends on the nature of the
   federation).

   Secondly, rather than being the product of "more than 50 years" of
   anarchist propaganda or of "anarcho-syndicalist theories", the
   "collectives" instituted during the Civil War were seen by the CNT as
   merely a temporary stop-gap. They had not been advocated in the CNT's
   pre-Civil War program, but came into existence precisely because the
   CNT was unable to carry out its libertarian communist program, which
   would have required setting up workers congresses and federal councils
   to establish co-ordination and aid the planning of common activities
   between the self-managed workplaces. In other words, the idea of
   self-managed workplaces was seen as one step in a process of
   socialisation, the basic building block of a federal structure of
   workers' councils. They were not seen as an end in themselves no matter
   how important they were as the base of a socialised economy.

   Thus the CNT had never proposed that factories or other facilities
   would be owned by the people who happened to work there. The CNT's
   program called for the construction of "libertarian communism." This
   was the CNT's agreed goal, recognising it must be freely created from
   below. In addition, the Spanish Anarchists argued for "free
   experimentation, free show of initiative and suggestions, as well as
   the freedom of organisation," recognising that "[i]n each locality the
   degree of [libertarian] communism, collectivism or mutualism will
   depend on conditions prevailing. Why dictate rules? We who make freedom
   our banner, cannot deny it in economy." [D. A. de Santillan, After the
   Revolution, p. 97] In other words, the CNT recognised that libertarian
   communism would not be created overnight and different areas will
   develop at different speeds and in different directions depending on
   the material circumstances they faced and what their population
   desired.

   However, libertarian communism was the CNTs declared goal. This meant
   that the CNT aimed for a situation where the economy as a whole would
   be socialised and not an mutualist economy consisting independent
   co-operatives owned and controlled by their workers (with the producers
   operating totally independently of each other on the basis of market
   exchange). Instead, workers would manage their workplace directly, but
   would not own it -- rather ownership would rest with society as a whole
   but the day-to-day management of the means of production would be
   delegated to those who did the actual work. Councils of workers'
   delegates, mandated by and accountable to workplace assemblies, would
   be created to co-ordinate activity at all levels of the economy.

   A few quotes will be needed to show that this was, in fact, the
   position of the Spanish Anarchists. According to Issac Puente, the
   "national federations will hold as common property all the roads,
   railways, buildings, equipment, machinery and workshops." The village
   commune "will federate with its counterparts in other localities and
   with the national industrial federations." [Libertarian Communism, p.
   29 and p. 26] In D. A. de Santillan's vision, libertarian communism
   would see workers' councils overseeing 18 industrial sectors. There
   would also be "councils of the economy" for local, regional and
   national levels (ultimately, international as well). [Op. Cit., pp.
   50-1 and pp. 80-7] These councils would be "constitute[d] by
   delegations or through assemblies" and "receives [their] orientation
   from below and operates in accordance with the resolutions" of their
   appropriate "assemblies." [Op. Cit., p. 83 and p. 86]

   The CNT's national conference in Saragossa during May 1936 stressed
   this vision. Its resolution declared that the revolution would abolish
   "private property, the State, the principle of authority, and . . .
   classes." It argued that "the economic plan of organisation, throughout
   national production, will adjust to the strictest principles of social
   economy, directly administered by the producers through their various
   organs of production, designated in general assemblies of the various
   organisations, and always controlled by them." In urban areas, "the
   workshop or factory council" would make "pacts with other labour
   centres" via "Councils of Statistics and Production" which are the
   "organ of relations of Union to Union (association of producers)", in
   other words, workers' councils. These would "federate among themselves,
   forming a network of constant and close relations among all the
   producers of the Iberian Confederation." In rural areas, "the producers
   of the Commune" would create a "Council of Cultivation" which would
   "establish the same network of relations as the Workshop, Factory
   Councils and those of Production and Statistics, complementing the free
   federation represented by the Commune."

   The resolution argues that "[b]oth the Associations of industrial
   producers and Associations of agricultural producers will federate
   nationally" and "Communes will federate on a county and regional basis
   . . . Together these Communes will constitute an Iberian Confederation
   of Autonomous Libertarian Communes." Being anarchists, the CNT stressed
   that "[n]one of these organs will have executive or bureaucratic
   character" and their members "will carry out their mission as
   producers, meeting after the work day to discuss questions of details
   which don't require the decision of the communal assemblies." The
   assemblies themselves "will meet as often as needed by the interests of
   the Commune. . . When problems are dealt with which affect a country or
   province, it must be the Federations which deliberate, and in the
   meetings and assemblies all Communities will be represented and the
   delegates will bring points of view previously agreed upon" by the
   Commune assembly. [quoted by Robert Alexander, The Anarchists in the
   Spanish Revolution, vol. 1, p. 59, p. 60 and p. 62]

   Joan Ferrer, a bookkeeper who was the secretary of the CNT commercial
   workers union in Barcelona, explained this vision:

     "It was our idea in the CNT that everything should start from the
     worker, not -- as with the Communists -- that everything should be
     run by the state. To this end we wanted to set up industrial
     federations -- textiles, metal-working, department stores, etc. --
     which would be represented on an overall Economics Council which
     would direct the economy. Everything, including economic planning,
     would thus remain in the hands of the workers." [quoted by Ronald
     Fraser, Blood of Spain, p. 180]

   However, social revolution is a dynamic process and things rarely
   develop exactly as predicted or hoped in pre-revolutionary times. The
   "collectives" in Spain are an example of this. Although the regional
   union conferences in Catalonia had put off overthrowing the government
   in July of 1936, workers began taking over the management of industries
   as soon as the street-fighting had died down. The initiative for this
   did not come from the higher bodies -- the regional and national
   committees -- but from the rank-and-file activists in the local unions.
   In some cases this happened because the top management of the
   enterprise had fled and it was necessary for the workers to take over
   if production was to continue. But in many cases the local union
   militants decided to take advantage of the situation to end wage labour
   by creating self-managed workplaces.

   As to be expected of a real movement, mistakes were made by those
   involved and the development of the movement reflected the real
   problems the workers faced and their general level of consciousness and
   what they wanted. This is natural and to denounce such developments in
   favour of ideal solutions means to misunderstand the dynamic of a
   revolutionary situation. In the words of Malatesta:

     "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." [Life and Ideas, p. 36]

   This was the situation in revolutionary Spain. Moreover, the situation
   was complicated by the continued existence of the bourgeois state. As
   Gaston Leval, in his justly famous study of the collectives, states "it
   was not . . . true socialisation, but . . . a self-management
   straddling capitalism and socialism, which we maintain would not have
   occurred had the Revolution been able to extend itself fully under the
   direction of our syndicates." [Gaston Leval, Collectives in the Spanish
   Revolution, p. 227-8] Leval in fact terms it "a form of workers
   neo-capitalism" but such a description is inaccurate (and unfortunate)
   simply because wage labour had been abolished and so it was not a form
   of capitalism -- rather it was a form of mutualism, of workers'
   co-operatives exchanging the product of their labour on the market.

   However, Leval basic argument was correct -- due to the fact the
   political aspect of the revolution (the abolition of the state) had
   been "postponed" until after the defeat of fascism, the economic
   aspects of the revolution would also remain incomplete. The unions that
   had seized workplaces were confronted with a dilemma. They had control
   of their individual workplaces, but the original libertarian plan for
   economic co-ordination was precluded by the continued existence of the
   State. It was in this context of a partial revolution, under attack by
   the counter-revolution, that the idea of "collectives" was first put
   forward to solve some of the problems facing the workers and their
   self-managed workplaces. Unfortunately, this very "solution" caused
   problems of its own. For example, Gaston Leval indicates that the
   collectivisation decree of October 1936 "legalising collectivisation",
   "distorted everything right from the start" [Op. Cit., p. 227] and did
   not allow the collectives to develop beyond a mutualist condition into
   full libertarian communism. It basically legalised the existing
   situation while hindering its development towards libertarian communism
   by undermining union control.

   This dilemma of self-managed individual workplaces and lack of
   federations to co-ordinate them was debated at a CNT union plenary in
   September of 1936. The idea of converting the worker-managed workplaces
   into co-operatives, operating in a market economy, had never been
   advocated by the Spanish anarchists before the Civil War, but was now
   seen by some as a temporary stop-gap that would solve the immediate
   question of what to do with the workplaces that had been seized by the
   workers. It was at this meeting that the term "collective"
   was first adopted to describe this solution. This concept of
   "collectivisation" was suggested by Joan Fabregas, a Catalan
   nationalist of middle class origin who had joined the CNT after July of
   1936. As one CNT militant recalled:

     "Up to that moment, I had never heard of collectivisation as a
     solution for industry -- the department stores were being run by the
     union. What the new system meant was that each collectivised firm
     would retain its individual character, but with the ultimate
     objective of federating all enterprises within the same industry."
     [quoted by Ronald Fraser, Blood of Spain, p. 212]

   However, a number of unions went beyond "collectivisation" and took
   over all the facilities in their industries, eliminating competition
   between separate firms. The many small barber and beauty shops in
   Barcelona were shut down and replaced with large neighbourhood
   haircutting centres, run through the assemblies of the CNT barbers'
   union. The CNT bakers union did something similar. The CNT Wood
   Industry Union shut down the many small cabinet-making shops, where
   conditions were often dangerous and unhealthy. They were replaced with
   two large factories, which included new facilities for the benefit of
   the workforce, such as a large swimming pool.

   The union ran the entire industry, from the felling of timber in the
   Val d'Aran to the furniture showrooms in Barcelona. The railway,
   maritime shipping and water, gas and electric industry unions also
   pursued this strategy of industrial unification, as did the textile
   union in the industrial town of Badalona, outside Barcelona. This was
   considered to be a step in the direction of eventual socialisation.

   At the Catalan union plenary of September, 1936, "the bigger, more
   powerful unions, like the woodworkers, the transport workers, the
   public entertainment union, all of which had already socialised [i.e.
   unified their industries under union management], wanted to extend
   their solution to the rest of industry. The smaller, weaker unions
   wanted to form co-operatives. . ." [Fraser, Op. Cit., p. 212]

   The collectives came out of this conflict and discussion as a sort of
   "middle ground" -- however, it should be stressed that it did not stop
   many unions from ignoring the Catalan's governments' attempt to
   legalise (and so control) the collectives (the so-called
   "collectivisation" decree) as far as they could. As Albert Perez-Baro,
   a Catalan Civil Servant noted, "the CNT . . . pursued its own,
   unilateral objectives which were different. Syndical collectivisation
   or syndicalised collectives, I would call those objectives; that's to
   say, collectives run by their respective unions . . . The CNT's policy
   was thus not the same as that pursued by the decree." [quoted by
   Fraser, Op. Cit., pp. 212-3] Indeed, Abad de Santillan stated later
   that he "was an enemy of the decree because I considered it premature .
   . . When I became [economics] councillor [of the Generalitat for the
   CNT], I had no intention of taking into account of carrying out the
   decree; I intended to allow our great people to carry on the task as
   they saw fit, according to their own aspiration." [quoted, Op. Cit., p.
   212f]

   Therefore, when Leninist Joseph Green argues the initial
   collectivisation of workplaces "was the masses starting to take things
   into their own hands, and they showed that they could continue
   production in their workplaces . . . The taking over of the individual
   workplaces and communities is one step in a revolutionary process. But
   there is yet more that must be done -- the workplaces and communities
   must be integrated into an overall economy" he is just showing his
   ignorance. The CNT, despite Green's assertions to the contrary, were
   well aware that the initial collectivisations were just one step in the
   revolution and were acting appropriately. It takes some gall (or
   extreme ignorance) to claim that CNT theory, policy and actions were,
   in fact, the exact opposite of what they were. Similarly, when he
   argues "[h]ow did the anarchists relate the various workplace
   collectives to each other in Barcelona? . . . they made use of a
   patchwork system including a Central Labour Bank, an Economic Council,
   credit . . ." he strangely fails to mention the socialisation attempts
   made by many CNT industrial unions during the revolution, attempts
   which reflected pre-war CNT policy. But such facts would get in the way
   of a political diatribe and so are ignored. [Green, Op. Cit.]

   Green continues his inaccurate diatribe by arguing that:

     "The problem is that, saddled with their false theory, they could
     not understand the real nature of the economic steps taken in the
     collectives, and thus they could not deal with the economic
     relations that arose among the collectives." [Op. Cit.]

   However, the only thing false about this is the false assertions
   concerning anarchist theory. As is crystal clear from our comments
   above, the Spanish anarchists (like all anarchists) were well aware of
   the need for economic relations between collectives (self-managed
   workplaces) before the revolution and acted to create them during it.
   These were the industrial federations and federations of rural
   communities/collectives predicted in anarchist and CNT theory and
   actually created, in part at least, during the revolution itself.

   Thus Green's "critique"
   of anarchism is, in fact, exactly what anarchist theory actually argues
   and what the Spanish anarchists themselves argued and tried to
   implement in all industries. Of course, there are fundamental
   differences between the anarchist vision of socialisation and the
   Leninist vision of Nationalisation but this does not mean that
   anarchism is blind to the necessity of integrating workplaces and
   communities into a coherent system of federations of workers' councils
   (as proven above). However, such federation has two sources -- it is
   either imposed from above or agreed to from below. Anarchists choose
   the former as the latter negates any claim that a revolution is a
   popular, mass movement from below (and, incidentally, the Leninist
   claim that the "workers' state" is simply a tool of the workers to
   defeat capitalist oppression).

   The actual process in Spain towards industrial federations and so
   socialisation was dependent on the wishes of the workers involved -- as
   would be expected in a true social revolution. For example, the
   department stores were collectivised and an attempt to federate the
   stores failed. The works councils opposed it, considering the
   enterprises as their own and were unwilling to join a federation -- the
   general assemblies of the collectives agreed. Joan Ferrer, the
   secretary of the CNT commercial union, considered it natural as "[o]nly
   a few months before, the traditional relationship between employer and
   worker had been overthrown. Now the workers were being asked to make a
   new leap -- to the concept of collective ownership. It was asking a lot
   to expect the latter to happen overnight." [quoted by Fraser, Op. Cit.,
   p. 220]

   However, before Leninists like Green rush in and assert that this
   proves that "anarchist theory led to the ordinary anarchist considering
   each factory as owned simply by the workers that laboured there" we
   should point out two things. Firstly, it was the "ordinary anarchists"
   who were trying to organise socialisation (i.e. CNT members and
   militants). Secondly, the Russian Revolution also saw workers taking
   over their workplaces and treating them as their own property.
   Leninists like Green would have a fit if we took these examples to
   "prove" that Leninism "led to the ordinary Bolshevik worker considering
   each factory as owned simply by the workers that laboured there" (which
   was what the Mensheviks did argue in 1917 when Martov "blamed the
   Bolsheviks for creating the local, particularistic attitudes prevailing
   among the masses." [Samuel Farber, Before Stalinism, p. 72]). In other
   words, such events are a natural part of the process of a revolution
   and are to be expected regardless of the dominant theory in that
   revolution.

   To summarise.

   The Spanish revolution does confirm anarchist theory and in no way
   contradicts it. While many of the aspects of the collectives were in
   accord with pre-war CNT policy and anarchist theory, other aspects of
   them were in contradiction to them. This was seen by the militants of
   the CNT and FAI who worked to transform these spontaneously created
   organs of economic self-management into parts of a socialised economy
   as required for libertarian communism. Such a transformation flowed
   from below and was not imposed from above, as would be expected in a
   libertarian social revolution.

   As can be seen, the standard Marxist account of the collectives and its
   relationship to anarchist theory and CNT policy is simply wrong.

16. How does the development of the collectives indicate the differences between
Bolshevism and anarchism?

   As argued in the [41]last section, the collectives formed during the
   Spanish Revolution reflected certain aspects of anarchist theory but
   not others. They were a compromise solution brought upon by the
   development of the revolution and did not, as such, reflect CNT or
   anarchist theory or vision bar being self-managed by their workers. The
   militants of the CNT and FAI tried to convince their members to
   federate together and truly socialise the economy, with various degrees
   of success. A similar process occurred during the Russian Revolution of
   1917. There workers created factory committees which tried to introduce
   workers' self-management of production. The differences in outcome in
   these two experiences and the actions of the Bolsheviks and anarchists
   indicate well the fundamental differences between the two philosophies.
   In this section we discuss the contrasting solutions pursued by the CNT
   and the Bolsheviks in their respective revolutions.

   The simple fact is that revolutions are complex and dynamic processes
   which involve many contradictory developments. The question is how do
   you push them forward -- either from below or from above. Both the
   Spanish and the Russian revolution were marked by "localism" -- when
   the workers in a factory consider it their own property and ignore
   wider issues and organisation.

   Lenin and the Bolsheviks "solved" the problem of localism by
   eliminating workers' self-management in favour of one-man management
   appointed from above. Attempts by the workers and factory committees
   themselves to combat localism were stopped by the Bolshevik dominated
   trade unions which "prevented the convocation of a planned All-Russian
   Congress of Factory Committees" in November 1917 when "called upon" by
   the Bolsheviks "to render a special serve to the nascent Soviet State
   and to discipline the Factory Committees." [I. Deutscher, quoted by
   Maurice Brinton, The Bolsheviks and Workers' Control, p. 19] Instead,
   the Bolsheviks built from the top-down their system of "unified
   administration" based on converting the Tsarist system of central
   bodies which governed and regulated certain industries during the war.
   [Brinton, Op. Cit., p. 36] The CNT, in comparison, tried to solve the
   problem of localism by a process of discussion and debate from below.
   Both were aware of the fact the revolution was progressing in ways
   different from their desired goal but their solution reflected their
   different politics -- libertarian in the case of the CNT, authoritarian
   in the case of Bolshevism.

   Therefore, the actual economic aspects of the Spanish revolution
   reflected the various degrees of political development in each
   workplace and industry. Some industries socialised according to the
   CNT's pre-war vision of libertarian communism, others remained at the
   level of self-managed workplaces in spite of the theories of the union
   and anarchists. This was the case with other aspects of the
   collectives. As Vernon Richards points out, "[i]n some factories . . .
   the profits or income were shared out among the workers . . . As a
   result, wages fluctuated in different factories and even within the
   same industry . . . But fortunately . . . the injustice of this form of
   collectivisation was recognised and combated by the CNT syndicates from
   the beginning." [Lessons of the Spanish Revolution, pp. 106-7]

   Thus the collectives, rather than expressing the economic vision of
   communist-anarchism or anarcho-syndicalism, came into existence
   precisely because the CNT was unable to carry out its libertarian
   communist program, which would have required setting up workers
   congresses and co-ordinating councils to establish common ownership and
   society wide self-management. To assert that the collectives were an
   exact reflection of anarchist or anarcho-syndicalist theory is,
   therefore, incorrect. Rather, they reflected certain aspects of that
   theory (such as workers' self-management in the workplace) while others
   (industrial federations to co-ordinate economic activity, for example)
   were only partially meet. This, we must stress, is to be expected as a
   revolution is a process and not an event. As Kropotkin argued:

     "It is a whole insurrectionary period of three, four, perhaps five
     years that we must traverse to accomplish our revolution in the
     property system and in social organisation." [Words of a Rebel, p.
     72]

   Thus the divergence of the actual revolution from the program of the
   CNT was to be expected and so did not represent a failure or a feature
   of anarchist or anarcho-syndicalist theory as Morrow and other Marxists
   assert. Rather, it expresses the nature of a social revolution, a
   movement from below which, by its very nature, reflects real needs and
   problems and subject to change via discussion and debate. Bakunin's
   comments stress this aspect of the revolution:

     "I do not say that the peasants [and workers], freely organised from
     the bottom up, will miraculously create an ideal organisation,
     confirming in all respects to our dreams. But I am convinced that
     what they construct will be living and vibrant, a thousands times
     better and more just than any existing organisation. Moreover, this
     . . . organisation, being on the one hand open to revolutionary
     propaganda . . . , and on the other, not petrified by the
     intervention of the State . . . will develop and perfect itself
     through free experimentation as fully as one can reasonably expect
     in our times.

     "With the abolition of the State, the spontaneous self-organisation
     of popular life . . . will revert to the communes. The development
     of each commune will take its point of departure the actual
     condition of its civilisation . . ."
     [Bakunin on Anarchism, p. 207]

   To impose an "ideal" solution would destroy a revolution -- the actions
   and decisions (including what others may consider mistakes) of a free
   people are infinitely more productive and useful than the decisions and
   decrees of the best central committee. Moreover, a centralised system
   by necessity is an imposed system (as it excludes by its very nature
   the participation of the mass of the people in determining their own
   fate). As Bakunin argued, "Collectivism could be imposed only on
   slaves, and this kind of collectivism would then be the negation of
   humanity. In a free community, collectivism can come about only through
   the pressure of circumstances, not by imposition from above but by a
   free spontaneous movement from below." [Op. Cit., p. 200] Thus
   socialisation must proceed from below, reflecting the real development
   and desires of those involved. To "speed-up" the process via
   centralisation can only result in replacing socialisation with
   nationalisation and the elimination of workers' self-management with
   hierarchical management. Workers' again would be reduced to the level
   of order-takers, with control over their workplaces resting not in
   their hands but in those of the state.

   Lenin argued that "Communism requires and presupposes the greatest
   possible centralisation of large-scale production throughout the
   country. The all-Russian centre, therefore, should definitely be given
   the right of direct control over all the enterprises of the given
   branch of industry. The regional centres define their functions
   depending on local conditions of life, etc., in accordance with the
   general production directions and decisions of the centre." He
   continued by explicitly arguing that "[t]o deprive the all-Russia
   centre of the right to direct control over all the enterprises of the
   given industry . . . would be regional anarcho-syndicalism, and not
   communism." [Marx, Engels and Lenin, Anarchism and Anarcho-Syndicalism,
   p. 292]

   We expect that Morrow would subscribe to this "solution"
   to the problems of a social revolution generates. However, such a
   system has its own problems.

   First is the basic fallacy that the centre will not start to view the
   whole economy as its property (and being centralised, such a body would
   be difficult to effectively control). Indeed, Stalin's power was
   derived from the state bureaucracy which ran the economy in its own
   interests. Not that it suddenly arose with Stalin. It was a feature of
   the Soviet system from the start. Samuel Farber, for example, notes
   that, "in practice, [the] hypercentralisation [pursued by the
   Bolsheviks from early 1918 onwards] turned into infighting and
   scrambles for control among competing bureaucracies" and he points to
   the "not untypical example of a small condensed milk plant with few
   than 15 workers that became the object of a drawn-out competition among
   six organisations including the Supreme Council of National Economy,
   the Council of People's Commissars of the Northern Region, the Vologda
   Council of People's Commissars, and the Petrograd Food Commissariat."
   [Op. Cit., p. 73] In other words, centralised bodies are not immune to
   viewing resources as their own property (and compared to an individual
   workplace, the state's power to enforce its viewpoint against the rest
   of society is considerably stronger).

   Secondly, to eliminate the dangers of workers' self-management
   generating "propertarian"
   notions, the workers' have to have their control over their workplace
   reduced, if not eliminated. This, by necessity, generates bourgeois
   social relationships and, equally, appointment of managers from above
   (which the Bolsheviks did embrace). Indeed, by 1920 Lenin was boasting
   that in 1918 he had "pointed out the necessity of recognising the
   dictatorial authority of single individuals for the pursue of carrying
   out the Soviet idea" and even claimed that at that stage "there were no
   disputes in connection with the question" of one-man management.
   [quoted by Brinton, Op. Cit., p. 65] While the first claim is true
   (Lenin argued for one-man management appointed from above before the
   start of the Civil War in May 1918) the latter one is not true
   (excluding anarchists and anarcho-syndicalists, there were also the
   dissent Left-Communists in the Bolshevik party itself).

   Thirdly, a centralised body effectively excludes the mass participation
   of the mass of workers -- power rests in the hands of a few people
   which, by its nature, generates bureaucratic rule. This can be seen
   from the example of Lenin's Russia. The central bodies the Bolsheviks
   created had little knowledge of the local situation and often gave
   orders that contradicted each other or had little bearing to reality,
   so encouraging factories to ignore the centre. In other words the
   government's attempts to centralise actually led to localism (as well
   as economic mismanagement)! Perhaps this was what Green means when he
   argues for a "new centralism" which would be "compatible with and
   requiring the initiative of the workers at the base" [Green Op. Cit.]--
   that is, the initiative of the workers to ignore the central bodies and
   keep the economy going in spite of the "new centralism"?

   The simple fact is, a socialist society must be created from below, by
   the working class itself. If the workers do not know how to create the
   necessary conditions for a socialist organisation of labour, no one
   else can do it for them or compel them to do it. If the state is used
   to combat "localism" and such things then it obviously cannot be in the
   hands of the workers' themselves. Socialism can only be created by
   workers' own actions and organisations otherwise it will not be set up
   at all -- something else will be, namely state capitalism.

   Thus, a close look at Lenin's "solution"
   indicates that Trotskyist claim that their state is the "tool of the
   majority in their fight against exploitation by the few" (to use Joseph
   Green's words) is refuted by their assertion that this state will also
   bring the economy under centralised control and by the actions of the
   Bolsheviks themselves.

   Why is this? Simply because if the mass of collectives are not
   interested in equality and mutual aid in society as a whole then how
   can the government actually be the "tool"
   of the majority when it imposes such "mutual aid" and "equality" upon
   the collectives? In other words, the interests of the government
   replace those of the majority. After all, if workers did favour mutual
   aid and equality then they would federate themselves to achieve it.
   (which the collectives were actually doing all across Spain, we must
   note). If they do not do this then how can the "workers' state" be said
   to be simply their tool when it has to impose the appropriate economic
   structure upon them? The government is elected by the whole people, so
   it will be claimed, and so must be their tool. This is obviously flawed
   -- "if," argued Malatesta, "you consider these worthy electors as
   unable to look after their own interests themselves, how is it that
   they will know how to choose for themselves the shepherds who must
   guide them? And how will they be able to solve this problem of social
   alchemy, of producing a genius from the votes of a mass of fools? And
   what will happen to the minorities which are still the most
   intelligent, most active and radical part of a society?" [Malatesta,
   Anarchy, p. 53]

   What does all this mean? Simply that Trotskyists recognise, implicitly
   at least, that the workers' state is not, in fact, the simple tool of
   the workers. Rather, it is the means by which "socialism"
   will be imposed upon the workers by the party. If workers do not
   practice mutual aid and federation in their day-to-day running of their
   lives, then how can the state impose it if it is simply their tool? It
   suggests what is desired "by all of the working people as a whole"
   (nearly always a euphemism for the party in Trotskyist ideology) is
   different that what they actually want (as expressed by their actions).
   In other words, a conflict exists between the workers' and the
   so-called "workers' state" -- in Russia, the party imposed its concept
   of the interests of the working class, even against the working class
   itself.

   Rather than indicate some kind of failure of anarchist theory, the
   experience of workers' self-management in both Spain and Russia
   indicate the authoritarian core of Trotskyist ideology. If workers do
   not practice mutual aid or federation then a state claiming to
   represent them, to be simply their tool, cannot force them to do so
   without exposing itself as being an alien body with power over the
   workers.

   For these reasons Bakunin was correct to argue that anarchists have "no
   faith except in freedom. Both [Marxists and anarchists], equally
   supporters of science which is to destroy superstition and replace
   belief, differ in the former wishing to impose it, and the latter
   striving to propagate it; so human groups, convinced of its truth, may
   organise and federate spontaneously, freely, from the bottom up, by
   their own momentum according to their real interests, but never
   according to any plan laid down in advance and imposed upon the
   ignorant masses by some superior intellects." Anarchists, he continues,
   "think that there is much more practical and intellectual common sense
   in the instinctive aspirations and in the real needs of the mass of the
   people than in the profound intelligence of all these doctors and
   teachers of mankind who, after so many fruitless attempts to make
   humanity happy, still aspire to add their own efforts." [Michael
   Bakunin: Selected Writings, p. 198]

   In summary, the problem of "localism" and any other problems faced by a
   social revolution will be solved in the interests of the working class
   only if working class people solve them themselves. For this to happen
   it requires working class people to manage their own affairs directly
   and that implies self-managed organising from the bottom up (i.e.
   anarchism) rather than delegating power to a minority at the top, to a
   "revolutionary" party or government. This applies economically,
   socially and politically. As Bakunin argued, the "revolution should not
   only be made for the people's sake; it should also be made by the
   people." [No Gods, No Masters, vol. 1, p. 141]

   Thus the actual experience of the collectives and their development,
   rather than refuting anarchism, indicates well that it is the only real
   form of socialism. Attempts to nationalise the means of production
   inevitably disempower workers and eliminate meaningful workers'
   self-management or control. It does not eliminate wage labour but
   rather changes the name of the boss. Socialism can only be built from
   below. If it is not, as the Russian experience indicated, then state
   capitalism will be the inevitable outcome.

17. Why is Morrow's support for "proletarian methods of production" ironic?

   Morrow states "[i]n the midst of civil war the factory committees are
   demonstrating the superiority of proletarian methods of production."
   [Op. Cit., p. 53] This is ironic as the Bolsheviks in power fought
   against the factory committees and their attempts to introduce the kind
   of workers' self-management Morrow praises in Spain (see Maurice
   Brinton's The Bolsheviks and Workers' Control for details). Moreover,
   rather than seeing workers' self-management as "proletarian methods of
   production" Lenin and Trotsky thought that how a workplace was managed
   was irrelevant under socialism. Trotsky argued that "[i]t would be a
   most crying error to confuse the question as to the supremacy of the
   proletariat with the question of boards of workers at the head of
   factories. The dictatorship of the proletariat is expressed in the
   abolition of private property in the means of production, in the
   supremacy of the collective will of the workers [a euphemism for the
   Party -- M.B.] and not at all in the form in which individual economic
   organisations are administered." Indeed, "I consider if the civil war
   had not plundered our economic organs of all that was strongest, most
   independent, most endowed with initiative, we should undoubtedly have
   entered the path of one-man management in the sphere of economic
   administration much sooner and much less painfully." [quoted by Maurice
   Brinton, Op. Cit., p. 66 and pp. 66-7]

   In other words, Trotsky both in theory and in practice opposed
   "proletarian methods of production" -- and if the regime introduced by
   Trotsky and Lenin in Russia was not based on "proletarian methods of
   production" then what methods was it based on? One-man management with
   "the appointment of individuals, dictators with unlimited powers" by
   the government and "the people unquestioningly obey[ing] the single
   will of the leaders of labour." [The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet
   Government, p. 32 and p. 34] In other words, the usual bourgeois
   methods of production with the workers' doing what the boss tells them.
   At no time did the Bolsheviks support the kind of workers'
   self-management introduced by the anarchist influenced workers of Spain
   -- indeed they hindered it and replaced it with one-man management at
   the first opportunity (see Maurice Brinton's classic The Bolsheviks and
   Workers' Control for details).

   To point out the obvious, bourgeois methods of production means
   bourgeois social relations and relations of production. In other words,
   Morrow comments allows us to see that Lenin and Trotsky's regime was
   not proletarian at the point of production. How ironic. And if it was
   not proletarian at the point of production (i.e. at the source of
   economic power) how could it remain proletarian at the political level?
   Unsurprisingly, it did not -- party power soon replaced workers' power
   and the state bureaucracy replaced the party.

   Yet again Morrow's book exposes the anti-revolutionary politics of
   Trotskyism by allowing anarchists to show the divergence between the
   rhetoric of that movement and what it did when it was in power. Morrow,
   faced with a workers' movement influenced by anarchism, inadvertently
   indicates the poverty of Trotskyism when he praises the accomplishments
   of that movement. The reality of Leninism in power was that it
   eliminated the very things Morrow praises -- such as "proletarian
   methods of production," democratic militias, workers' councils and so
   on. Needless to say, the irony of Morrow's work is lost on most of the
   Trotskyists who read it.

18. Were the federations of collectives an "abandonment" of anarchist ideas?

   From our discussion in [42]section 15, it is clear that anarchism does
   not deny the need for co-ordination and joint activity, for federations
   of self-managed workplaces, industries and rural collectives at all
   levels of society. Far from it. As proven in sections [43]12 and
   [44]15, such federations are a basic idea of anarchism. In anarchy
   co-ordination flows from below and not imposed by a few from above.
   Unfortunately Marxists cannot tell the difference between solidarity
   from below and unity imposed from above. Morrow, for example, argues
   that "the anarchist majority in the Council of Aragon led in practice
   to the abandonment of the anarchist theory of the autonomy of economic
   administration. The Council acted as a centralising agency." [Op. Cit.,
   pp. 205-6]

   Of course it does nothing of the kind. Yes, anarchists are in favour of
   autonomy -- including the autonomy of economic administration. We are
   also in favour of federalism to co-ordinate join activity and promote
   co-operation on a wide-scale (what Morrow would, inaccuracy, call
   "centralism"
   or "centralisation"). Rather than seeing such agreements of joint
   activity as the "abandonment" of autonomy, we see it as an expression
   of that autonomy. It would be a strange form of "freedom" that
   suggested making arrangements and agreements with others meant a
   restriction of your liberty. For example, no one would argue that to
   arrange to meet your friend at a certain place and time meant the
   elimination of your autonomy even though it obviously reduces your
   "liberty" to be somewhere else at the same time.

   Similarly, when an individual joins a group and takes part in its
   collective decisions and abides by their decisions, this does not
   represent the abandonment of their autonomy. Rather, it is an
   expression of their freedom. If we took Morrow's comment seriously then
   anarchists would be against all forms of organisation and association
   as they would mean the "abandonment of autonomy" (of course some
   Marxists do make that claim, but such a position indicates an
   essentially negative viewpoint of liberty, a position they normally
   reject). In reality, of course, anarchists are aware that freedom is
   impossible outside of association. Within an association absolute
   "autonomy"
   cannot exist, but such "autonomy" would restrict freedom to such a
   degree that it would be so self-defeating as to make a mockery of the
   concept of autonomy and no sane person would seek it.

   Of course anarchists are aware that even the best association could
   turn into a bureaucracy that does restrict freedom. Any organisation
   could transform from being an expression of liberty into a bureaucratic
   structure which restricts liberty because power concentrates at the
   top, into the hands of an elite. That is why we propose specific forms
   of organisation, ones based on self-management, decentralisation and
   federalism which promote decision-making from the bottom-up and ensure
   that the organisation remains in the hands of its members and its
   policies are agreements between them rather than ones imposed upon
   them. For this reason the basic building block of the federation is the
   autonomous group assembly. It is this body which decides on its own
   issues and mandates delegates to reach agreements within the federal
   structure, leaving to itself the power to countermand the agreements
   its delegates make. In this way autonomy is combined with co-ordination
   in an organisation that is structured to accurately reflect the needs
   and interests of its members by leaving power in their hands. In the
   words of Murray Bookchin, anarchists "do not deny the need for
   co-ordination between groups, for discipline, for meticulous planning,
   and for unity in action. But [we] believe that co-ordination,
   discipline, planning, and unity in action must be achieved voluntarily,
   by means of self-discipline nourished by conviction and understanding,
   not by coercion and a mindless, unquestioning obedience to orders from
   above." [Post-Scarcity Anarchism, p. 215]

   Therefore, anarchist support for "the autonomy of economic
   administration" does not imply the lack of co-operation and
   co-ordination, of joint agreements and federal structures which may, to
   the uninformed like Morrow, seem to imply the "abandonment" of
   autonomy. As Kropotkin argued, the commune "cannot any longer
   acknowledge any superior: that, above it, there cannot be anything,
   save the interests of the Federation, freely embraced by itself in
   concert with other Communes." [No Gods, No Masters, vol. 1, p. 259]
   This vision was stressed in the CNT's Saragossa resolution on
   Libertarian Communism made in May, 1936, which stated that the "the
   foundation of this administration will be the commune. These communes
   are to be autonomous and will be federated at regional and national
   levels to achieve their general goals. The right to autonomy does not
   preclude the duty to implement agreements regarding collective
   benefits." [quoted by Jose Peirats, The CNT in the Spanish Revolution,
   p. 106] Hence anarchists do not see making collective decisions and
   working in a federation as an abandonment of autonomy or a violation of
   anarchist theory.

   The reason for this is simple. To exercise your autonomy by joining
   self-managing organisations and, therefore, agreeing to abide by the
   decisions you help make is not a denial of that autonomy (unlike
   joining a hierarchical structure, we must stress). That is why
   anarchists have always stressed the importance of the nature of the
   associations people join as well as their voluntary nature -- as
   Kropotkin argued, the "communes of the next revolution will not only
   break down the state and substitute free federation for parliamentary
   rule; they will part with parliamentary rule within the commune itself
   . . . They will be anarchist within the commune as they will be
   anarchist outside it." [The Commune of Paris] Moreover, within the
   federal structures anarchists envision, the actual day-to-day running
   of the association would be autonomous. There would be little or no
   need for the federation to interfere with the mundane decisions a group
   has to make day in, day out. As the Saragossa resolution makes clear:

     "[The] commune . . . will undertake to adhere to whatever general
     norms may be agreed by majority vote after free debate . . . The
     inhabitants of a commune are to debate among themselves their
     internal problems . . . Federations are to deliberate over major
     problems affecting a country or province and all communes are to be
     represented at their reunions and assemblies, thereby enabling their
     delegates to convey the democratic viewpoint of their respective
     communes . . . every commune which is implicated will have its right
     to have its say . . . On matters of a regional nature, it is the
     duty of the regional federation to implement agreements . . . So the
     starting point is the individual, moving on through the commune, to
     the federation and right on up finally to the confederation."
     [quoted by Jose Peirats, Op. Cit., pp. 106-7]

   Since the Council of Aragon and the Federation of Collectives were
   based on a federal structure, regular meetings of mandated delegates
   and decision-making from the bottom up, it would be wrong to call them
   a "centralising agency" or an "abandonment" of the principle of
   "autonomy." Rather, they were expressions of that autonomy based around
   a federal and not centralised organisation. The autonomy of the
   collective, of its mass assembly, was not restricted by the federation
   nor did the federation interfere with the day to day running of the
   collectives which made it up. The structure was a federation of
   autonomous collectives. The role of the Council was to co-ordinate the
   decisions of the federation delegate meetings -- in other words, purely
   administrative implementation of collective agreements. To confuse this
   with centralisation is a mistake common to Marxists, but it is still a
   confusion.

   To summarise, what Morrow claims is an "abandonment" of anarchism is,
   in fact, an expression of anarchist ideas. The Council of Aragon and
   the Aragon Federation of Collectives were following the CNT's vision of
   libertarian communism and not abandoning it, as Morrow claims. As
   anyone with even a basic understanding of anarchism would know.

19. Did the experience of the rural collectives refute anarchism?

   Some Leninists attack the rural collectives on similar lines as they
   attack the urban ones (as being independent identities and without
   co-ordination -- see [45]section 15 for details). They argue that
   "anarchist theory" resulted in them considering themselves as being
   independent bodies and so they ignored wider social issues and
   organisation. This meant that anarchist goals could not be achieved:

     "Let's evaluate the Spanish collectives according to one of the
     basic goals set by the anarchists themselves. This was to ensure
     equality among the toilers. They believed that the autonomous
     collectives would rapidly equalise conditions among themselves
     through 'mutual aid' and solidarity. This did not happen . . .
     conditions varied greatly among the Spanish collectives, with
     peasants at some agricultural collectives making three times that of
     peasants at other collectives." [Joseph Green, Op. Cit.]

   Of course, Green fails to mention that in the presumably "centralised"
   system created by the Bolsheviks, the official rationing system had a
   differentiation of eight to one under the class ration of May 1918. By
   1921, this, apparently, had fallen to around four to one (which is
   still higher than the rural collectives) but, in fact, remained at
   eight to one due to workers in selected defence-industry factories
   getting the naval ration which was approximately double that of the top
   civilian workers' ration. [Mary McAuley, Bread and Justice: State and
   Society in Petrograd 1917-1922, pp. 292-3] This, we note, ignores the
   various privileges associated with state office and Communist Party
   membership which would increase differentials even more (and such
   inequality extended into other fields, Lenin for example warned in 1921
   against "giving non-Party workers a false sense of having some increase
   in their rights" [Marx, Engels and Lenin, Op. Cit., p. 325]). The
   various resolutions made by workers for equality in rations were
   ignored by the government (all this long before, to use Green's words
   "their party degenerated into Stalinist revisionism").

   So, if equality is important, then the decentralised rural collectives
   were far more successful in achieving it than the "centralised"
   system under Lenin (as to be expected, as the rank-and-file were in
   control, not a few at the top).

   Needless to the collectives could not unify history instantly. Some
   towns and workplaces started off on a more favourable position than
   others. Green quotes an academic (David Miller) on this:

     "Such variations no doubt reflected historical inequalities of
     wealth, but at the same time the redistributive impact of the
     [anarchist] federation had clearly been slight."

   Note that Green implicitly acknowledges that the collectives did form a
   federation. This makes a mockery of his claims that earlier claims that
   the anarchists "believed that the village communities would enter the
   realm of a future liberated society if only they became autonomous
   collectives. They didn't see the collectives as only one step, and they
   didn't see the need for the collectives to be integrated into a broader
   social control of all production." [Op. Cit.] As proven above, such
   assertions are either the product of ignorance or a conscious lie. We
   quoted numerous Spanish anarchist documents that stated the exact
   opposite to Green's assertions. The Spanish anarchists were well aware
   of the need for self-managed communities to federate. Indeed, the
   federation of collectives fits exactly pre-war CNT policy and anarchist
   theory (see sections [46]15 and [47]18 for details). To re-quote a
   Spanish Anarchist pamphlet, the village commune "will federate with its
   counterparts in other localities and with the national industrial
   federations." [Issac Puente, Libertarian Communism, p. 26] Thus what
   Green asserts the CNT and FAI did not see the need of, they in fact did
   see the need for and argued for their creation before the Civil War and
   actually created during it! Green's comments indicate a certain amount
   of "doublethink"
   -- he maintains that the anarchists rejected federations while
   acknowledging they did federate.

   However, historical differences are the product of centuries and so it
   will take some time to overcome them, particularly when such changes
   are not imposed by a central government. In addition, the collectives
   were not allowed to operate freely and were soon being hindered (if not
   physically attacked) by the state within a year. Green dismisses this
   recognition of reality by arguing "one could argue that the collectives
   didn't have much time to develop, being in existence for only two and a
   half years at most, with the anarchists only having one year of
   reasonably unhindered work, but one could certainly not argue that this
   experience confirmed anarchist theory." However, his argument is deeply
   flawed for many reasons.

   Firstly, we have to point out that Green quotes Miller who is using
   data from collectives in Castille. Green, however, was apparently
   discussing the collectives of Aragon and the Levante and their
   respective federations (as was Miller). To state the obvious, it is
   hard to evaluate the activities of the Aragon or Levante federation
   using data from collectives in the Castille federation. Moreover, in
   order to evaluate the redistributive activities of the federations you
   need to look at the differentials before and after the federation was
   created. The data Miller uses does not do that and so the lack of
   success of the federation cannot be evaluated using Green's source.
   Thus Green uses data which is, frankly, a joke to dismiss anarchism.
   This says a lot about the quality of his critique.

   As far as the Castille federation goes, Robert Alexander notes
   "[a]nother feature of the work of regional federation was that of
   aiding the less fortunate collectives. Thus, within a year, it spent 2
   000 000 pesetas on providing chemical fertilisers and machines to
   poorer collectives, the money from this being provided by the sale of
   products of the wealthier ones." [The Anarchists in the Spanish Civil
   War, vol. 1, p. 438] He also quotes an article from an anarchist paper
   which states "there does not yet exist sufficient solidarity" between
   rich and poor collectives and that notes "the difficulties which the
   State has put in the way of the development of the collectives." [Op.
   Cit., p. 439] Thus the CNT was open about the difficulties it was
   experiencing in the collectives and the problems facing it.

   Secondly, the collectives may have been in existence for about one year
   before the Stalinists attacked but their federations had not. The
   Castille federation was born in April, 1937 (the general secretary
   stated in July of that year "[w]e have fought terrible battles with the
   Communists" [Op. Cit., p. 446]). The Aragon federation was created in
   February 1937 (the Council of Aragon was created in October 1936) and
   the Communists under Lister attacked in August 1937. The Levante
   federation was formed a few weeks after the start of the war and the
   attacks against them started in March 1937. The longest period of free
   development, therefore, was only seven months and not a year. Thus the
   federations of collectives -- the means seen by anarchist theory to
   co-ordinate economic and social activities and promote equality --
   existed for only a few months before they were physically attacked by
   the state. Green expects miracles if he thinks history can be nullified
   in half a year.

   Thirdly, anarchists do not think communist-anarchism, in all its many
   aspects, is possible overnight. Anarchists are well aware, to quote
   Kropotkin, the "revolution may assume a variety of characters and
   differing degrees of intensity among different peoples." [No Gods, No
   Masters, vol. 1, p. 231] Also, as noted above, we are well aware that a
   revolution is a process ("By revolution we do not mean just the
   insurrectionary act" [Malatesta, Life and Ideas, p. 156]) which will
   take some time to fully develop once the state has been destroyed and
   capital expropriated. Green's assertion that the Spanish Revolution
   refutes anarchist theory is clearly a false one.

   Green argues that a "vast organisational task faces the oppressed
   masses who are rising up to eliminate the old exploiting system, but
   anarchist theory just brushes aside this problem -- co-ordination
   between collective would supposedly be easily accomplished by 'mutual
   aid' or 'voluntary co-operation' or, if absolutely need be, by the
   weakest possible federation." [Op. Cit.] As can be seen from our
   discussion, such a claim is a false one. Anarchists are well aware of
   difficulties involved in a revolution. That is why we stress that
   revolution must come from below, by the actions of the oppressed
   themselves -- it is far too complex to left to a few party leaders to
   decree the abolition of capitalism. Moreover, as proven above anarchist
   theory and practice is well aware of the need for organisation,
   co-operation and co-ordination. We obviously do not "brush it aside."
   This can be seen from Green's reference to "the weakest possible
   federation." This obviously is a cover just in case the reader is
   familiar with anarchist theory and history and knows that anarchists
   support the federation of workers' associations and communes as the
   organisational framework of a revolution and of the free society.

   This distorted vision of anarchism even extents to other aspects of the
   revolution. Green decides to attack the relative lack of international
   links the Spanish anarchist movement had in 1936. He blames this on
   anarchist theory and states "again the localist anarchist outlook would
   go against such preparations. True, the anarchists had had their own
   International association in the 1870s, separate from the original
   First International and the Marxists. It had flopped so badly that the
   anarchists never tried to resuscitate it and seem to prefer to forget
   about it. Given anarchist localism, it is not surprising that this
   International doesn't even seem to be been missed by current-day
   anarchists." [Op. Cit.]

   Actually, the anarchist International came out of the First
   International and was made up of the libertarian wing of that
   association. Moreover, in 1936 the CNT was a member of the
   International Workers' Association founded in 1922 in Berlin. The IWA
   was small, but this was due to state and Fascist repression. For
   example, the German FAUD, the Italian USI and the FORA in Argentina had
   all been destroyed by fascist governments. However, those sections
   which did exist (such as the Swedish SAC and French CGTSR) did send aid
   to Spain and spread CNT and FAI news and appeals (as did anarchist
   groups across the world). The IWA still exists today, with sections in
   over a dozen countries (including the CNT in Spain). In addition, the
   International Anarchist Federation also exists, having done so for a
   number of decades, and also has sections in numerous countries. In
   other words, Green either knows nothing about anarchist history and
   theory or he does and is lying.

   He attacks the lack of CNT support for Moroccan independence during the
   war and states "[t]hey just didn't seem that concerned with the issue
   during the Civil War." Actually, many anarchists did raise this
   important issue. Just one example, Camillo Berneri argued that "we must
   intensify our propaganda in favour of Morocco autonomy." ["What can we
   do?", Cienfuegos Press Anarchist Review, no. 4, p. 51] Thus to state
   "the anarchists . . . didn't seem that concerned" is simply false. Many
   anarchists were and publicly argued for it. Trapped as a minority force
   in the government, the CNT could not push through this position.

   Green also points out that inequality existed between men and woman. He
   even quotes the anarchist women's organisation Mujeres Libres to prove
   his point. He then notes what the Bolsheviks did to combat sexism,
   "[a]mong the methods of influence was mobilising the local population
   around social measures promulgated throughout the country. The banner
   of the struggle was not autonomy, but class-wide effort." Two points,
   Mujeres Libres was a nation wide organisation which aimed to end sexism
   by collective action inside and outside the anarchist movement by
   organising women to achieve their own liberation (see Martha
   Ackelsberg's , Free Women of Spain for more details). Thus its aims and
   mode of struggle was "class-wide" -- as anyone familiar with that
   organisation and its activities would know. Secondly, why is equality
   between men and women important? Because inequality reduces the freedom
   of women to control their own lives, in a word, it hinders they
   autonomy. Any campaign against sexism is based on the banner of
   autonomy -- that Green decides to forget this suggests a lot about his
   politics.

   Thus Green gets it wrong again and again. Such is the quality of most
   Leninist accounts of the Spanish revolution.

20. Does the experience of the Spanish Revolution indicate the failure of
anarchism or the failure of anarchists?

   Marxists usually point to the events in Catalonia after July 19th,
   1936, as evidence that anarchism is a flawed theory. They bemoan the
   fact that, when given the chance, the anarchists did not "seize power"
   and create a "dictatorship of the proletariat." To re-quote Trotsky:

     "A revolutionary party, even having seized power (of which the
     anarchist leaders were incapable in spite of the heroism of the
     anarchist workers), is still by no means the sovereign ruler of
     society." [Stalinism and Bolshevism]

   However, as we argued in [48]section 12, the Trotskyist "definition" of
   "workers' power" and "proletarian dictatorship" is, in fact, party
   power, party dictatorship and party sovereignty -- not working class
   self-management. Indeed, in a letter written in 1937, Trotsky clarified
   what he meant: "Because the leaders of the CNT renounced dictatorship
   for themselves they left the place open for the Stalinist
   dictatorship." [our emphasis, Writings 1936-7, p. 514]

   Hence the usual Trotskyist lament concerning the CNT is that the
   anarchist leaders did not seize power themselves and create the
   so-called "dictatorship of the proletariat" (i.e. the dictatorship of
   those claiming to represent the proletariat). A strange definition of
   "workers' power," we must admit. The "leaders" of the CNT and FAI quite
   rightly rejected such a position -- unfortunately they also rejected
   the anarchist position at the same time, as we will see.

   Trotsky states that the "leaders of the CNT . . . explained their open
   betrayal of the theory of anarchism by the pressure of 'exceptional
   circumstances' . . . Naturally, civil war is not a peaceful and
   ordinary but an 'exceptional circumstance.' Every serious revolutionary
   organisation, however, prepares precisely for 'exceptional
   circumstances.'" ["Stalinism and Bolshevism", Op. Cit., p. 16]

   Trotsky is, for once, correct. We will ignore the obvious fact that his
   own (and every other Leninist) account of the degeneration of the
   Russian Revolution into Stalinism is a variation of the "exceptional
   circumstances" excuse and turn to his essential point. In order to
   evaluate anarchism and the actions of the CNT we have to evaluate all
   the revolutionary situations it found itself in, not just July, 1936 in
   Catalonia. This is something Trotsky and his followers seldom do -- for
   reasons that will become clear.

   Obviously space considerations does not allow us to discuss every
   revolutionary situation anarchism faced. We will, therefore,
   concentrate on the Russian Revolution and the activities of the CNT in
   Spain in the 1930s. These examples will indicate that rather than
   signifying the failure of anarchism, the actions of the CNT during the
   Civil War indicate the failure of anarchists to apply anarchist theory
   and so signifies a betrayal of anarchism. In other words, that
   anarchism is a valid form of revolutionary politics.

   If we look at the Russian Revolution, we see anarchist theory gain its
   most wide scale influence in those parts of the Ukraine protected by
   the Makhnovist army. The Makhnovists fought against White
   (pro-Tsarist), Red and Ukrainian Nationalists in favour of a system of
   "free soviets" in which the "working people themselves must freely
   choose their own soviets, which are to carry out the will and desires
   of the working people themselves. that is to say, administrative, not
   ruling councils." As for the economy, the "land, the factories, the
   workshops, the mines, the railroads and the other wealth of the people
   must belong to the working people themselves, to those who work in
   them, that is to say, they must be socialised." ["Some Makhnovist
   Proclamations", contained in Peter Arshinov, The History of the
   Makhnovist Movement, p. 273]

   To ensure this end, the Makhnovists refused to set up governments in
   the towns and cities they liberated, instead urging the creation of
   free soviets so that the working people could govern themselves. Taking
   the example of Aleksandrovsk, once they had liberated the city the
   Makhnovists "immediately invited the working population to participate
   in a general conference . . . it was proposed that the workers organise
   the life of the city and the functioning of the factories with their
   own forces and their own organisations . . . The first conference was
   followed by a second. The problems of organising life according to
   principles of self-management by workers were examined and discussed
   with animation by the masses of workers, who all welcomed this ideas
   with the greatest enthusiasm . . . Railroad workers took the first step
   . . . They formed a committee charged with organising the railway
   network of the region . . . From this point, the proletariat of
   Aleksandrovsk began systematically to the problem of creating organs of
   self-management." [Op. Cit., p. 149]

   They also organised free agricultural communes which "[a]dmittedly . .
   . were not numerous, and included only a minority of the population . .
   . But what was most precious was that these communes were formed by the
   poor peasants themselves. The Makhnovists never exerted any pressure on
   the peasants, confining themselves to propagating the idea of free
   communes." [Op. Cit., p. 87] Makhno played an important role in
   abolishing the holdings of the landed gentry. The local soviet and
   their district and regional congresses equalised the use of the land
   between all sections of the peasant community. [Op. Cit., pp. 53-4]

   Moreover, the Makhnovists took the time and energy to involve the whole
   population in discussing the development of the revolution, the
   activities of the army and social policy. They organised numerous
   conferences of workers', soldiers' and peasants' delegates to discuss
   political and social issues. They organised a regional congress of
   peasants and workers when they had liberated Aleksandrovsk. When the
   Makhnovists tried to convene the third regional congress of peasants,
   workers and insurgents in April 1919 and an extraordinary congress of
   several regions in June 1919 (including Red Army soldiers) the
   Bolsheviks viewed them as counter-revolutionary, tried to ban them and
   declared their organisers and delegates outside the law. For example,
   Trotsky issued order 1824 which stated the June 1919 congress was
   forbidden, that to inform the population of it was an act of high
   treason and all delegates should be arrested immediately as were all
   the spreading the call. [Op. Cit., p. 98-105 and p. 122-31]

   The Makhnovists replied by holding the conferences anyway and asking
   "[c]an there exist laws made by a few people who call themselves
   revolutionaries, which permit them to outlaw a whole people who are
   more revolutionary than they are themselves?" and "[w]hose interests
   should the revolution defend: those of the Party or those of the people
   who set the revolution in motion with their blood?" Makhno himself
   stated that he "consider[ed] it an inviolable right of the workers and
   peasants, a right won by the revolution, to call conferences on their
   own account, to discuss their affairs." [Op. Cit., p. 103 and p. 129]
   These actions by the Bolsheviks should make the reader ponder if the
   elimination of workers' democracy during the civil war can fully be
   explained by the objective conditions facing Lenin's government or
   whether Leninist ideology played an important role in it. As Arshinov
   argues, "[w]hoever studies the Russian Revolution should learn it
   [Trotsky's order no. 1824] by heart." [Op. Cit., p. 123] Obviously the
   Bolsheviks considered that soviet system was threatened if soviet
   conferences were called and the "dictatorship of the proletariat"
   was undermined if the proletariat took part in such events.

   In addition, the Makhnovists "full applied the revolutionary principles
   of freedom of speech, of thought, of the press, and of political
   association. In all cities and towns occupied by the Makhnovists, they
   began by lifting all the prohibitions and repealing all the
   restrictions imposed on the press and on political organisations by one
   or another power." Indeed, the "only restriction that the Makhnovists
   considered necessary to impose on the Bolsheviks, the left
   Socialist-Revolutionaries and other statists was a prohibition on the
   formation of those 'revolutionary committees' which sought to impose a
   dictatorship over the people." [Op. Cit., p. 153 and p. 154]

   The army itself, in stark contrast to the Red Army, was fundamentally
   democratic (although, of course, the horrific nature of the civil war
   did result in a few deviations from the ideal -- however, compared to
   the regime imposed on the Red Army by Trotsky, the Makhnovists were
   much more democratic movement). Arshinov proves a good summary:

     "The Makhnovist insurrectionary army was organised according to
     three fundamental principles: voluntary enlistment, the electoral
     principle, and self-discipline.

     "Voluntary enlistment meant that the army was composed only of
     revolutionary fighters who entered it of their own free will.

     "The electoral principle meant that the commanders of all units of
     the army, including the staff, as well as all the men who held other
     positions in the army, were either elected or accepted by the
     insurgents of the unit in question or by the whole army.

     "Self-discipline meant that all the rules of discipline were drawn
     up by commissions of insurgents, then approved by general assemblies
     of the various units; once approved, they were rigorously observed
     on the individual responsibility of each insurgent and each
     commander."
     [Op. Cit., p. 96]

   Thus the Makhnovists indicate the validity of anarchist theory. They
   organised the self-defence of their region, refused to form of a
   "revolutionary" government and so the life of the region, its social
   and revolutionary development followed the path of self-activity of the
   working people who did not allow any authorities to tell them what to
   do. They respected freedom of association, speech, press and so on
   while actively encouraging workers' and peasants' self-management and
   self-organisation.

   Moving to the Spanish movement, the various revolts and uprisings
   organised by the CNT and FAI that occurred before 1936 were marked by a
   similar revolutionary developments as the Makhnovists. We discuss the
   actual events of the revolts in 1932 and 1933 in more detail in
   [49]section 14 and so will not repeat ourselves here. However, all were
   marked by the anarchist movement attacking town halls, army barracks
   and other sources of state authority and urging the troops to revolt
   and side with the masses (the anarchists paid a lot of attention to
   this issue -- like the French syndicalists they produced
   anti-militarist propaganda arguing that soldiers should side with their
   class and refuse orders to fire on strikers and to join popular
   revolts). The revolts also saw workers taking over their workplaces and
   the land, trying to abolish capitalism while trying to abolish the
   state. In summary, they were insurrections which combined political
   goals (the abolition of the state) and social ones (expropriation of
   capital and the creation of self-managed workplaces and communes).

   The events in Asturias in October 1934 gives a more detailed account of
   nature of these insurrections. The anarchist role in this revolt has
   not been as widely known as it should be and this is an ideal
   opportunity to discuss it. Combined with the other insurrections of the
   1930s it clearly indicates that anarchism is a valid form of
   revolutionary theory.

   While the CNT was the minority union in Asturias, it had a considerable
   influence of its own (the CNT had over 22 000 affiliates in the area
   and the UGT had 40 000). The CNT had some miners in their union (the
   majority were in the UGT) but most of their membership was above
   ground, particularly in the towns of Aviles and Gijon. The regional
   federation of the CNT had joined the Socialist Party dominated "Alianza
   Obrera,"
   unlike the other regional federations of the CNT.

   When the revolt started, the workers organised attacks on barracks,
   town halls and other sources of state authority (just as the CNT
   revolts of 1932 and 1933 had). Bookchin indicates that "[s]tructurely,
   the insurrection was managed by hundreds of small revolutionary
   committees whose delegates were drawn from unions, parties, the FAI and
   even anti-Stalinist Communist groups. Rarely, if at all, were there
   large councils (or 'soviets') composed of delegates from factories."
   [The Spanish Anarchists, p. 249] This, incidentally, indicates that
   Morrow's claims that in Asturias "the Workers' Alliances were most
   nearly like soviets, and had been functioning for a year under
   socialist and Communist Left leadership" are false. [Op. Cit., p. 31]
   The claims that the Asturias uprising had established soviets was
   simply Communist and government propaganda.

   In fact, the Socialists "generally functioned through tightly knit
   committees, commonly highly centralised and with strong bureaucratic
   proclivities. In Asturias, the UGT tried to perpetuate this form
   wherever possible . . . But the mountainous terrain of Asturias made
   such committees difficult to co-ordinate, so that each one became an
   isolated miniature central committee of its own, often retaining its
   traditional authoritarian character." The anarchists, on the other
   hand, "favoured looser structures, often quasi-councils composed of
   factory workers and assemblies composed of peasants. The ambience of
   these fairly decentralised structures, their improvisatory character
   and libertarian spirit, fostered an almost festive atmosphere in
   Anarchist-held areas." [Op. Cit., p. 249] Bookchin quotes an account
   which compares anarchist La Felguera with Marxist Sama, towns of equal
   size and separated only by the Nalon river:

     "[The October Insurrection] triumphed immediately in the
     metallurgical and in the mining town. . . . Sama was organised along
     military lines. Dictatorship of the proletariat, red army, Central
     Committee, discipline. authority . . . La Felguera opted for
     communismo libertario: the people in arms, liberty to come and go,
     respect for the technicians of the Duro-Felguera metallurgical
     plant, public deliberations of all issues, abolition of money, the
     rational distribution of food and clothing. Enthusiasm and gaiety in
     La Felguera; the sullenness of the barracks in Sama. The bridges [of
     Sama] were held by a corp of guards complete with officers and all.
     No one could enter or leave Sama without a safe-conduct pass, or
     walk through the streets without passwords. All of this was
     ridiculously useless, because the government troops were far away
     and the Sama bourgeoisie disarmed and neutralised . . . The workers
     of Sama who did not adhere to the Marxist religion preferred to go
     to La Felguera, where at least they could breathe. Side by side
     there were two concepts of socialism: the authoritarian and the
     libertarian; on each bank of the Nalon, two populations of brothers
     began a new life: with dictatorship in Sama; with liberty in La
     Felguera." [Op. Cit., pp. 249-50]

   Bookchin notes that "[i]n contrast to the severely delimited Marxist
   committee in Sama, La Felguera workers met in popular assembly, where
   they socialised the industrial city's economy. The population was
   divided into wards, each of which elected delegates to supply and
   distribution committees. . . The La Felguera commune . . . proved to be
   so successful, indeed so admirable, that surrounding communities
   invited the La Felguera Anarchists to advice them on reorganising their
   own social order. Rarely were comparable institutions created by the
   Socialists and, where they did emerge, it was on the insistence of the
   rank-and-file workers." [Op. Cit., p. 250]

   In other words, the Asturias uprising saw anarchists yet again applying
   their ideas with great success in a revolutionary situation. As
   Bookchin argues:

     "Almost alone, the Anarchists were to create viable revolutionary
     institutions structured around workers' control of industry and
     peasants' control of land. That these institutions were to be
     duplicated by Socialist workers and peasants was due in small
     measure to Anarchist example rather than Socialist precept. To the
     degree that the Asturian miners and industrial workers in various
     communities established direct control over the local economy and
     structured their committees along libertarian lines, these
     achievements were due to Anarchist precedents and long years of
     propaganda and education." [Op. Cit., p. 250-1]

   Unlike their Socialist and Communist allies, the anarchists in Asturias
   took the Alianza's slogan "Unity, Proletarian Brothers" seriously. A
   key factor in the defeat of the uprising (beyond its isolation due to
   socialist incompetence elsewhere -- see [50]section 6) was the fact
   that "[s]o far as the Aviles and Gijon Anarchists were concerned . . .
   their Socialist and Communist 'brothers' were to honour the slogan only
   in the breach. When Anarchist delegates from the seaports arrived in
   Oviedo on October 7, pleading for arms to resist the imminent landings
   of government troops, their requests were totally ignored by Socialists
   and Communists who, as [historian Gabriel] Jackson notes, 'clearly
   mistrusted them.' The Oviedo Committee was to pay a bitter price for
   its refusal. The next day, when Anarchist resistance, hampered by the
   pitiful supply of weapons, failed to prevent the government from
   landing its troops, the way into Asturias lay open. The two seaports
   became the principal military bases for launching the savage repression
   of the Asturian insurrection that occupied so much of October and
   claimed thousands of lives." [Murray Bookchin, Op. Cit., p. 248]

   Therefore, to state as Morrow does that before July 1936, "anarchism
   had never been tested on a grand scale" and now "leading great masses,
   it was to have a definite test" is simply wrong. [Op. Cit., p. 101]
   Anarchism had had numerous definite tests before involving "great
   masses," both in Spain and elsewhere. The revolts of the 1930s, the
   Makhnovists in the Ukraine, the factory occupations in Italy in 1920
   (see [51]section A.5.5) and in numerous other revolutionary and near
   revolutionary situations anarchism had been tested and had passed those
   tests. Defeat came about by the actions of the Marxists (in the case of
   Asturias and Italy) or by superior force (as in the 1932 and 1933
   Spanish insurrections and the Ukraine) not because of anarchist theory
   or activities. At no time did they collaborate with the bourgeois state
   or compromise their politics. By concentrating on July 1936, Marxists
   effectively distort the history of anarchism -- a bit like arguing the
   actions of the Social Democratic Party in crushing the German
   discredits Marxism while ignoring the actions and politics of the
   council communists during it or the Russian Revolution.

   But the question remains, why did the CNT and FAI make such a mess
   (politically at least) of the Spanish Revolution of 1936? However, even
   this question is unfair as the example of the Aragon Defence Council
   and Federation of Collectives indicate that anarchists did apply their
   ideas successfully in certain areas during that revolution.

   Morrow is aware of that example, as he argues that the "Catalonian
   [i.e. CNT] militia marched into Aragon as an army of social liberation
   . . . Arriving in a village, the militia committees sponsor the
   election of a village anti-fascist committee . . . [which] organises
   production on a new basis" and "[e]very village wrested from the
   fascists was transformed into a forest of revolution." Its "municipal
   councils were elected directly by the communities. The Council of
   Aragon was at first largely anarchist." He notes that "[l]ibertarian
   principles were attempted in the field of money and wages" yet he fails
   to mention the obvious application of libertarian principles in the
   field of politics with the state abolished and replaced by a federation
   of workers' associations. To do so would be to invalidate his basic
   thesis against anarchism and so it goes unmentioned, hoping the reader
   will not notice this confirmation of anarchist politics in practice.
   [Op. Cit., p. 53, p. 204 and p. 205]

   So, from the experience of the Ukraine, the previous revolts in 1932,
   1933 and 1934 and the example of the Council of Aragon it appears clear
   that rather than exposing anarchist theory (as Marxists claim), the
   example of July 1936 in Catalonia is an aberration. Anarchist politics
   had been confirmed as a valid revolutionary theory many times before
   and, indeed, shown themselves as the only one to ensure a free society.
   However, why did this aberration occur?

   Most opponents of anarchism provide a rather (in)famous quote from FAI
   militant Juan Garcia Oliver, describing the crucial decision made in
   Catalonia in July of '36 to co-operate with Companys' government to
   explain the failure of the CNT to "seize power":

     "The CNT and FAI decided on collaboration and democracy, eschewing
     revolutionary totalitarianism . . . by the anarchist and Confederal
     dictatorship." [quoted by Stuart Christie, We, the Anarchists!, p.
     105]

   In this statement Garcia Oliver describes the capitalist state as
   "democracy" and refers to the alternative of the directly democratic
   CNT unions taking power as "totalitarianism" and "dictatorship."
   Marxists tend to think this statement tells us something about the
   CNT's original program in the period leading up to the crisis of July
   1936. As proven above, any such assertion would be false (see also
   [52]section 8). In fact this statement was made in December of 1937,
   many months after Garcia Oliver and other influential CNT activists had
   embarked upon collaboration in the government ministries and Republican
   army command. The quote is taken from a report by the CNT leadership,
   presented by Garcia Oliver and Mariano Vazquez (CNT National Secretary
   in 1937) at the congress of the International Workers Association
   (IWA). The CNT was aware that government participation was in violation
   of the principles of the IWA and the report was intended to provide a
   rationalisation. That report is an indication of just how far Garcia
   Oliver and other influential CNT radicals had been corrupted by the
   experience of government collaboration.

   Garcia Oliver's position in July of 1936 had been entirely different.
   He had been one of the militants to argue in favour of overthrowing the
   Companys government in Catalonia in the crucial union assemblies of
   July 20-21. As Juan Gomez Casas argues:

     "The position supported by Juan Garcia Oliver [in July of '36] has
     been described as `anarchist dictatorship' Actually, though, Oliver
     was advocating application of the goals of the Saragossa Congress in
     Barcelona and Catalonia at a time in history when, in his opinion,
     libertarian communism was a real possibility. It would always
     signify dissolution of the old parties dedicated to the idea of
     [state] 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 popular masses.' In addition, the
     masses would have complete freedom of expression in the unions and
     in the economic organisations of the revolution as well as in their
     political organisations." [Anarchist Organisation: The History of
     the FAI, p. 188f]

   Those libertarians who defended government participation in Spain
   argued that a non-hierarchical re-organisation of society in Catalonia
   in July of '36 could only have been imposed by force, against the
   opposition of the parties and sectors of society that have a vested
   interest in existing inequalities. They argued that this would have
   been a "dictatorship," no better than the alternative of government
   collaboration.

   If this argument were valid, then it logically means that anarchism
   itself would be impossible, for there will always be sectors of society
   -- bosses, judges, politicians, etc. -- who will oppose social
   re-organisation on a libertarian basis. As Malatesta once argued, some
   people "seem almost to believe that after having brought down
   government and private property we would allow both to be quietly built
   up again, because of a respect for the freedom of those who might feel
   the need to be rulers and property owners. A truly curious way of
   interpreting our ideas!" [Anarchy, p. 41] It is doubtful he would have
   predicted that certain anarchists would be included in such believers!

   Neither anarchism nor the CNT program called for suppressing other
   viewpoints. The various viewpoints that existed among the workforce and
   population would be reflected in the deliberations and debates of the
   workplace and community assemblies as well as in the various local and
   regional congresses and conference and on their co-ordinating Councils.
   The various political groups would be free to organise, publish their
   periodicals and seek influence in the various self-managed assemblies
   and structures that existed. The CNT would be dominant because it had
   overwhelming support among the workers of Catalonia (and would have
   remained dominant as long as that continued).

   What is essential to a state is that its authority and armed power be
   top-down, separate and distinct from the population. Otherwise it could
   not function to protect the power of a boss class. When a population in
   society directly and democratically controls the armed force (in fact,
   effectively is the armed force as in the case of the CNT militias),
   directly manages its own fairs in decentralised, federal organisations
   based on self-management from the bottom upwards and manages the
   economy, this is not a "state" in the historical sense. Thus the CNT
   would not in any real sense had "seized power" in Catalonia, rather it
   would have allowed the mass of people, previously disempowered by the
   state, to take control of their own lives -- both individually and
   collectively -- by smashing the state and replacing it by a free
   federation of workers' associations.

   What this means is that a non-hierarchical society must be imposed by
   the working class against the opposition of those who would lose power.
   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, in other words!
   Revolutions, above all else, must be libertarian in respect to the
   oppressed (indeed, they are acts of liberation in which the oppressed
   end their oppression by their own direct action). 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.

   So the dilemma of "anarchist dictatorship" or "collaboration" was a
   false one and 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 (and so on) assemblies, as should be the
   case! "Collaboration" yes, but within the rank and file and within
   organisations organised in a libertarian manner. Anarchism does not
   respect the "freedom" to be a capitalist, boss or politician.

   Instead of this "collaboration" from the bottom up, the CNT and FAI
   committees favoured "collaboration" from the top down. In this they
   followed the example of the UGT and its "Workers' Alliances"
   rather than their own activities previous to the military revolt. Why?
   Why did the CNT and FAI in Catalonia reject their previous political
   perspective and reject the basis ideas of anarchism? As shown above,
   the CNT and FAI has successfully applied their ideas in many
   insurrections before hand. Why the change of direction? There were two
   main reasons.

   Firstly, while a majority in Catalonia and certain other parts of
   Spain, the CNT and FAI were a minority in such areas as Castille and
   Asturias. To combat fascism required the combined forces of all parties
   and unions and by collaborating with a UGT-like "Anti-Fascist Alliance"
   in Catalonia, it was believed that such alliances could be formed
   elsewhere, with equality for the CNT ensured by the Catalan CNT's
   decision of equal representation for minority organisations in the
   Catalan Anti-Fascist Committee. This would, hopefully, also ensure aid
   to CNT militias via the government's vast gold reserves and stop
   foreign intervention by Britain and other countries to protect their
   interests if libertarian communism was declared.

   However, as Vernon Richards argues:

     "This argument contains . . . two fundamental mistakes, which many
     of the leaders of the CNT-FAI have since recognised, but for which
     there can be no excuse, since they were not mistakes of judgement
     but the deliberate abandonment of the principles of the CNT.
     Firstly, that an armed struggle against fascism or any other form of
     reaction could be waged more successfully within the framework of
     the State and subordinating all else, including the transformation
     of the economic and social structure of the country, to winning the
     war. Secondly, that it was essential, and possible, to collaborate
     with political parties -- that is politicians -- honestly and
     sincerely, and at a time when power was in the hands of the two
     workers organisations. . .

     "All the initiative . . . was in the hands of the workers. The
     politicians were like generals without armies floundering in a
     desert of futility. Collaboration with them could not, by any
     stretch of the imagination, strengthen resistance to Franco. On the
     contrary, it was clear that collaboration with political parties
     meant the recreation of governmental institutions and the
     transferring of initiative from the armed workers to a central body
     with executive powers. By removing the initiative from the workers,
     the responsibility for the conduct of the struggle and its
     objectives were also transferred to a governing hierarchy, and this
     could not have other than an adverse effect on the morale of the
     revolutionary fighters."
     [Lessons of the Spanish Revolution, p. 42]

   In addition, in failing to take the initiative to unite the working
   class independently of the Republican state at the crucial moment, in
   July of '36, the CNT of Catalonia was in effect abandoning the only
   feasible alternative to the Popular Front strategy. Without a
   libertarian system of popular self-management, the CNT and FAI had no
   alternative but to join the bourgeois state. For a revolution to be
   successful, as Bakunin and Kropotkin argued, it needs to create
   libertarian organisations (such as workers' associations, free communes
   and their federations) which can effectively replace the state and the
   market, that is to create a widespread libertarian organisation for
   social and economic decision making through which working class people
   can start to set their own agendas. Only by going this can the state
   and capitalism be effectively smashed. If this is not done and the
   state is ignored rather than smashed, it continue and get stronger as
   it will be the only medium that exists for wide scale decision making.
   This will result in revolutionaries having to work within it, trying to
   influence it since no other means exist to reach collective decisions.

   The failure to smash the state, this first betrayal of anarchist
   principles, led to all the rest, and so the defeat of the revolution.
   Not destroying the state meant that the revolution could never be fully
   successful economically as politics and economics are bound together so
   closely. Only under the political conditions of anarchism can its
   economic conditions flourish and vice versa.

   The CNT had never considered a "strategy" of collaboration with the
   Popular Front prior to July of '36. In the months leading up to the
   July explosion, the CNT had consistently criticised the Popular Front
   strategy as a fake unity of leaders over the workers, a strategy that
   would subordinate the working class to capitalist legality. However, in
   July of '36, the CNT conferences in Catalonia had not seen clearly that
   their "temporary" participation in the Anti-Fascist Militia Committee
   would drag them inexorably into a practice of collaboration with the
   Popular Front. As Christie argues, "the Militias Committee was a
   compromise, an artificial political solution . . . It . . . drew the
   CNT-FAI leadership inexorably into the State apparatus, until them its
   principle enemy, and led to the steady erosion of anarchist influence
   and credibility." [Op. Cit., p. 105]

   Secondly, the fear of fascism played a key role. After all, this was
   1936. The CNT and FAI had seen their comrades in Italy and Germany
   being crushed by fascist dictatorships, sent to concentration camps and
   so on. In Spain, Franco's forces were slaughtering union and political
   militants and members by the tens of thousands (soon to reach hundreds
   of thousands by the end of the war and beyond). The insurrection had
   not been initiated by the people themselves (as had the previous
   revolts in the 1930s) and this also had a psychological impact on the
   decision making process. The anarchists were, therefore, in a position
   of being caught between two evils -- fascism and the bourgeois state,
   elements of which had fought with them on the streets. To pursue
   anarchist politics at such a time, it was argued, could have resulted
   in the CNT fighting on two fronts -- against the fascists and also
   against the Republican government. Such a situation would have been
   unbearable and so it was better to accept collaboration than aid
   Fascism by dividing the forces of the anti-fascist camp.

   However, such a perspective failed to appreciate the depth of hatred
   the politicians and bourgeois had for the CNT. Indeed, by their actions
   it would appear they preferred fascism to the social revolution. So, in
   the name of "anti-fascist" unity, the CNT worked with parties and
   classes which hated both them and the revolution. In the words of Sam
   Dolgoff "both before and after July 19th, an unwavering determination
   to crush the revolutionary movement was the leitmotif behind the
   policies of the Republican government; irrespective of the party in
   power." [The Anarchist Collectives, p. 40]

   Rather than eliminate a civil war developing within the civil war, the
   policy of the CNT just postponed it -- until such time as the state was
   stronger than the working class. The Republican government was quite
   happy to attack the gains of the revolution, physically attacking rural
   and urban collectives, union halls, assassinating CNT and FAI members
   of so on. The difference was the CNT's act only postponed such conflict
   until the balance of power had shifted back towards the status quo.

   Moreover, the fact that the bourgeois republic was fighting fascism
   could have meant that it would have tolerated the CNT social revolution
   rather than fight it (and so weakening its own fight against Franco).
   However, such an argument remains moot.

   It is clear that anti-fascism destroyed the revolution, not fascism. As
   a Scottish anarchist in Barcelona during the revolution argued,
   "Fascism is not something new, some new force of evil opposed to
   society, but is only the old enemy, Capitalism, under a new and fearful
   sounding name . . . Anti-Fascism is the new slogan by which the working
   class is being betrayed." [Ethal McDonald, Workers Free Press, Oct.
   1937] This was also argued by the Friends of Durruti who stated that
   "[d]emocracy defeated the Spanish people, not Fascism." [The Friends of
   Durruti Accuse]

   The majority at the July 20-21 conferences went along with proposal of
   postponing the social revolution, of starting the work of creating
   libertarian communism, and smashing the state and replacing it with a
   federation of workers' assemblies. Most of the CNT militants there saw
   it as a temporary expedient, until the rest of Spain was freed from
   Franco's forces (in particular, Aragon and Saragossa). Companys' (the
   head of the Catalan government) had proposed the creation of a body
   containing representatives of all anti-fascist parties and unions
   called the "Central Committee of Anti-Fascist Militias," sponsored by
   his government. The CNT meeting agreed to this proposal, though only on
   condition that the CNT be given the majority on it. A sizeable minority
   of delegates were apparently disgusted by this decision. The delegation
   from Bajo Llobregat County (an industrial area south of Barcelona)
   walked out saying they would never go along with government
   collaboration.

   Therefore, the decision to postpone the revolution and so to ignore the
   state rather than smashing was a product of isolation and the fear of a
   fascist victory. However, while "isolation" may explain the Catalan
   militants' fears and so decisions, it does not justify their decision.
   If the CNT of Catalonia had given Companys the boot and set up a
   federation of workplace and community assemblies in Catalonia, uniting
   the rank-and-file of the other unions with the CNT, this would have
   strengthened the resolve of workers in other parts of Spain, and it
   might have also inspired workers in nearby countries to move in a
   similar direction.

   Isolation, the uneven support for a libertarian revolution across Spain
   and the dangers of fascism were real problems, but they do not excuse
   the libertarian movement for its mistakes. On the contrary, in
   following the course of action advised by leaders like Horacio Prieto
   and Abad Diego de Santillan, the CNT only weakened the revolution and
   helped to discredit libertarian socialism. After all, as Bakunin and
   Kropotkin continually stressed, revolutions break out in specific areas
   and then spread outward -- isolation is a feature of revolution which
   can only be overcome by action, by showing a practical example which
   others can follow.

   Most of the CNT militants at the July 20th meeting saw the compromise
   as a temporary expedient, until the rest of Spain was freed from
   Franco's forces (in particular, Aragon and Saragossa). As the official
   account states, "[t]he situation was considered and it was unanimously
   decided not to mention Libertarian Communism until such time as we had
   captured that part of Spain that was in the hands of the rebels."
   [quoted by Christie, Op. Cit., p. 102] However, the membership of the
   CNT decided themselves to start the social revolution ("very rapidly
   collectives . . . began to spring up. It did not happen on instructions
   from the CNT leadership . . . the initiative came from CNT militants"
   [Ronald Fraser, Blood of Spain, p. 349]). The social revolution began
   anyway, from below, but without the key political aspect (abolition of
   the state) and so was fatally compromised from the beginning.

   As Stuart Christie argues:

     "The higher committees of the CNT-FAI-FIJL in Catalonia saw
     themselves caught on the horns of a dilemma: social revolution,
     fascism or bourgeois democracy. Either they committed themselves to
     the solutions offered by social revolution, regardless of the
     difficulties involved in fighting both fascism and international
     capitalism, or, through fear of fascism . . . they sacrificed their
     anarchist principles and revolutionary objectives to bolster, to
     become part of the bourgeois state . . . Faced with an imperfect
     state of affairs and preferring defeat to a possibly Pyrrhic
     victory, Catalan anarchist leadership renounced anarchism in the
     name of expediency and removed the social transformation of Spain
     from their agenda.

     "But what the CNT-FAI leaders failed to grasp was that the decision
     whether or not to implement Libertarian Communism was not theirs to
     make. Anarchism was not something which could be transformed from
     theory to practice by organisational decree. . .

     "What the CNT-FAI leadership had failed to take on board was the
     fact that the spontaneous defensive movement of 19 July had
     developed a political direction of its own. On their own initiative,
     without any intervention by the leadership of the unions or
     political parties, the rank and file militants of the CNT,
     representing the dominant force within the Barcelona working class,
     together with other union militants had, with the collapse of State
     power, . . . been welded . . . into genuinely popular non-partisan
     revolutionary committees . . . in their respective neighbourhoods.
     They were the natural organisms of the revolution itself and direct
     expression of popular power."
     [Op. Cit., p. 99]

   In other words, the bulk of the CNT-FAI membership acted in an
   anarchist way while the higher committees compromised their politics
   and achievements in the name of anti-fascist unity. In this the
   membership followed years of anarchist practice and theory. It was fear
   of fascism which made many of the leading militants of the CNT abandon
   anarchist politics and instead embrace "anti-fascist unity" and
   compromise with the bourgeois republic. To claim that July 1936
   indicated the failure of anarchism means to ignore the constructive
   work of millions of CNT members in their workplaces, communities and
   militias and instead concentrate on a few militants who made the
   terrible mistake of ignoring their political ideas in an extremely
   difficult situation. As we said above, this may explain the decision
   but it does not justify it.

   Therefore, it is clear that the experiences of the CNT and FAI in 1936
   indicate a failure of anarchists to apply their politics rather than
   the failure of those politics. The examples of the Makhnovists, the
   revolts in Spain between 1932 and 1934 as well as the Council of Aragon
   show beyond doubt that this is the case. Rather than act as anarchists
   in July 1936, the militants of the Catalan CNT and FAI ignored their
   basic ideas (not lightly, we stress, but in response to real dangers).
   They later justified their decisions by putting their options in a
   Marxist light -- "either we impose libertarian communism, and so become
   an anarchist dictatorship, or we collaborate with the democratic
   government." As Vernon Richards makes clear:

     "Such alternatives are contrary to the most elementary principles of
     anarchism and revolutionary syndicalism. In the first place, an
     'anarchist dictatorship' is a contradiction in terms (in the same
     way as the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' is), for the moment
     anarchists impose their social ideas on the people by force, they
     cease being anarchists . . . the arms of the CNT-FAI held could be
     no use for imposing libertarian communism . . . The power of the
     people in arms can only be used in the defence of the revolution and
     the freedoms won by their militancy and their sacrificed. We do not
     for one moment assume that all social revolutions are necessarily
     anarchist. But whatever form the revolution against authority takes,
     the role of anarchists is clear: that of inciting the people to
     abolish capitalistic property and the institutions through which it
     exercises its power for the exploitation of the majority by a
     minority. . . the role of anarchists [is] to support, to incite and
     encourage the development of the social revolution and to frustrate
     any attempts by the bourgeois capitalist state to reorganise itself,
     which it would seek to do." [Op. Cit., pp. 43-6]

   Their compromise in the name of anti-fascist unity contained the rest
   of their mistakes. Joining the "Central Committee of Anti-Fascist
   Militias" was the second mistake as at no time could it be considered
   as the embryo of a new workers' power. It was, rather, an organisation
   like the pre-war UGT "Workers' Alliances" -- an attempt to create links
   between the top-level of other unions and parties. Such an
   organisation, as the CNT recognised before the war (see [53]section 5),
   could not be a means of creating a revolutionary federation of workers'
   associations and communes and, in fact, a hindrance to such a
   development, if not its chief impediment.

   Given that the CNT had rejected the call for revolution in favour of
   anti-fascist unit on July 20th, such a development does not reflect the
   CNT's pre-war program. Rather it was a reversion to Felix Morrow's
   Trotskyist position of joining the UGT's "Workers' Alliance" in spite
   of its non-revolutionary nature (see [54]section 5).

   The CNT did not carry out its program (and so apply anarchist politics)
   and so did not replace the Generalitat (Catalan State) with a Defence
   Council in which only union/workplace assemblies (not political
   parties) were represented. To start the process of creating libertarian
   communism all the CNT would have had do was to call a Regional Congress
   of unions and invite the UGT, independent unions and unorganised
   workplaces to send delegates. It could also have invited the various
   neighbourhood and village defence committees that had either sprung up
   spontaneously or were already organised before the war as part of the
   CNT. Unlike the other revolts it took part in the 1930s, the CNT did
   not apply anarchist politics. However, to judge anarchism by this
   single failure means to ignore the whole history of anarchism and its
   successful applications elsewhere, including by the CNT and FAI during
   numerous revolts in Spain during the 1930s and in Aragon in 1936.

   Ironically enough, Kropotkin had attacked the official CNT line of not
   mentioning Libertarian Communism "until such time as we had captured
   that part of Spain that was in the hands of the rebels." In analysing
   the Paris Commune Kropotkin had lambasted those who had argued "Let us
   first make sure of victory, and then see what can be done." His
   comments are worth quoting at length:

     "Make sure of victory! As if there were any way of forming a free
     commune without laying hands upon property! As if there were any way
     of conquering the foe while the great mass of the people is not
     directly interested in the triumph of the revolution, by seeing that
     it will bring material, moral and intellectual well-being to
     everybody.

     "The same thing happened with regard to the principle of government.
     By proclaiming the free Commune, the people of Paris proclaimed an
     essential anarchist principle, which was the breakdown of the state.

     "And yet, if we admit that a central government to regulate the
     relations of communes between themselves is quite needless, why
     should we admit its necessity to regulate the mutual relations of
     the groups which make up each commune? . . . There is no more reason
     for a government inside the commune than for a government outside."
     [The Commune of Paris]

   Kropotkin's argument was sound, as the CNT discovered. By waiting until
   victory in the war they were defeated. Kropotkin also indicated the
   inevitable effects of the CNT's actions in co-operating with the state
   and joining representative bodies. In his words:

     "Paris sent her devoted sons to the town hall. There, shelved in the
     midst of files of old papers, obliged to rule when their instincts
     prompted them to be and to act among the people, obliged to discuss
     when it was needful to act, to compromise when no compromise was the
     best policy, and, finally, losing the inspiration which only comes
     from continual contact with the masses, they saw themselves reduced
     to impotence. Being paralysed by their separation from the people --
     the revolutionary centre of light and heat -- they themselves
     paralysed the popular initiative." [Op. Cit.]

   Which, in a nutshell, was what happened to the leading militants of the
   CNT who collaborated with the state. As anarchist turned Minister
   admitted after the war, "[w]e were in the government, but the streets
   were slipping away from us. We had lost the workers' trust and the
   movement's unity had been whittled away." [No Gods, No Masters, vol. 2,
   p. 274] The actions of the CNT-FAI higher committees and Ministers
   helped paralyse and defeat the May Days revolt of 1937. The CNT
   committees and leaders become increasingly isolated from the people,
   they compromised again and again and, ultimately, became an impotent
   force. Kropotkin was proved correct. Which means that far from refuting
   anarchist politics or analysis, the experience of the CNT-FAI in the
   Spanish Revolution confirms it.

   In summary, therefore, the Spanish Revolution of 1936 indicates the
   failure of anarchists rather than the failure of anarchism.

   One last point, it could be argued that anarchist theory allowed the
   leadership of the CNT and FAI to paint their collaboration with the
   state as a libertarian policy. That is, of course, correct. Anarchism
   is against the so-called "dictatorship of the proletariat" just as much
   as it is against the actual dictatorship of the bourgeoisie (i.e. the
   existing system and its off-shoots such as fascism). This allowed the
   CNT and FAI leaders to argue that they were following anarchist theory
   by not destroying the state completely in July 1936. Of course, such a
   position cannot be used to discredit anarchism simply because such a
   revision meant that it can never be libertarian to abolish government
   and the state. In other words, the use made of anarchist theory by the
   leaders of the CNT and FAI in this case presents nothing else than a
   betrayal of that theory rather than its legitimate use.

   Also, and more importantly, while anarchist theory was corrupted to
   justify working with other parties and unions in a democratic state,
   Marxist theory was used to justify the brutal one-party dictatorship of
   the Bolsheviks, first under Lenin and the Stalin. That, we feel, sums
   up the difference between anarchism and Leninism quite well.

References

   1. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secJ7.html
   2. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secJ3.html#secj36
   3. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/append32.html#app6
   4. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/append32.html#app1
   5. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/append32.html#app20
   6. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/append32.html#app5
   7. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/append32.html#app5
   8. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/append32.html#app5
   9. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/append32.html#app20
  10. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/append32.html#app8
  11. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/append32.html#app9
  12. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/append32.html#app12
  13. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/append32.html#app12
  14. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/append32.html#app20
  15. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/append32.html#app5
  16. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/append32.html#app12
  17. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/append32.html#app13
  18. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/append32.html#app11
  19. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/append32.html#app17
  20. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/append32.html#app8
  21. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/append32.html#app17
  22. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/append32.html#app11
  23. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH3.html#sech39
  24. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/append32.html#app11
  25. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/append32.html#app17
  26. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/append41.html
  27. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/append32.html#app14
  28. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/append32.html#app12
  29. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/append32.html#app20
  30. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/append32.html#app20
  31. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/append32.html#app12
  32. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/append32.html#app11
  33. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/append32.html#app17
  34. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/append32.html#app12
  35. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/append32.html#app1
  36. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/append32.html#app1
  37. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/append32.html#app8
  38. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/append32.html#app20
  39. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/append32.html#app20
  40. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/append32.html#app18
  41. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/append32.html#app15
  42. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/append32.html#app15
  43. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/append32.html#app12
  44. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/append32.html#app15
  45. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/append32.html#app15
  46. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/append32.html#app15
  47. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/append32.html#app18
  48. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/append32.html#app12
  49. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/append32.html#app14
  50. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/append32.html#app6
  51. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secA5.html#seca55
  52. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/append32.html#app8
  53. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/append32.html#app5
  54. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/append32.html#app5
