H.2.16 Does the Spanish Revolution show the failure of anarchism?

   The actions of the anarchists of the CNT and FAI during the Spanish
   Civil War is almost always mentioned by Marxists when they attack
   anarchism. Take, for example, Pat Stack:

     "This question of state power, and which class holds it, was to
     prove crucial for revolutionaries during the Spanish Civil War and
     in particular during the revolutionary upheavals in Catalonia. Here
     anarchism faced its greatest test and greatest opportunity, yet it
     failed the former and therefore missed the latter.

     "When the government in the region under the leadership of Companys
     admitted its impotence and offered to dissolve, effectively handing
     power to the revolutionary forces, the anarchists turned them down.
     CNT leader and FAI . . . militant Garcia Oliver explained, 'The CNT
     and the FAI decided on collaboration and democracy, renouncing
     revolutionary totalitarianism which would lead to the strangulation
     of the revolution by the anarchist and Confederal dictatorship. We
     had to choose, between Libertarian Communism, which meant anarchist
     dictatorship, and democracy, which meant collaboration.' The choice
     was between leaving the state intact and paving the way for Franco's
     victory or building a workers' government in Catalonia which could
     act as a focal point for the defeat of Franco and the creation of
     the structures of a new workers' state. In choosing the former the
     anarchists were refusing to distinguish between a capitalist state
     and a workers' state . . . The movement that started by refusing to
     build a workers' state ended up by recognising a capitalist one and
     betraying the revolution in the process."
     ["Anarchy in the UK?", Socialist Review, no. 246]

   There are four key flaws in this kind of argument. First, there is the
   actual objective situation in which the decision to collaborate was
   made in. Strangely, for all his talk of anarchists ignoring "material
   conditions" when we discuss the Russian revolution, Stack fails to
   mention any when he discusses the decisions of the Spanish Anarchists.
   As such, his critique is pure idealism, without any attempt to ground
   it in the objective circumstances facing the CNT and FAI. Second, the
   quote provided as the only evidence for Stack's analysis dates from a
   year after the decision was made. Rather than reflect the actual
   concerns of the CNT and FAI at the time, they reflect the attempts of
   the leaders of an organisation which had significantly departed from
   its libertarian principles to justify their actions. While this
   obviously suits Stack's idealist analysis of events, its use can be
   flawed for this reason. Thirdly, clearly the decision of the CNT and
   FAI ignored anarchist theory. As such, it seems ironic to blame
   anarchism when anarchists ignores its recommendations, yet this is what
   Stack argues. Lastly, there is the counter-example of Aragon, which
   clearly refutes Stack's analysis.

   To understand why the CNT and FAI made the decisions it did, it is
   necessary to do what Stack fails to do, namely to provide some context.
   The decision to ignore anarchist theory, ignore the state rather than
   smashing it and work with other anti-fascist organisations was made
   immediately after the army had been defeated on the streets of
   Barcelona on the 20th of July, 1936. It is this fact, the success of a
   popular insurrection in one region against a nation wide military coup,
   which helps place the CNT's decisions into context. Catalonia is but
   one region in Spain. While the CNT had great strength, it was not
   uniform. Some areas, such as around Madrid and in Asturias, the
   socialist UGT was stronger (although the CNT had been making inroads in
   both areas).

   This meant any decision to introduce libertarian communism in Catalonia
   would have, in all likelihood, meant isolation within Republican Spain
   and the possibility that the CNT would have to fight both the
   Republican state as well as Franco. So the decision to collaborate was
   obviously driven by fear of Franco and the concern not to divide the
   forces fighting him. As a 1937 CNT report put it, the union had a
   "difficult alternative: to completely destroy the state, to declare war
   against the Rebels, the government, foreign capitalists . . . or
   collaborating." [quoted by Robert Alexander, The Anarchists in the
   Spanish Civil War, vol. 2, p. 1156]

   As such, the real choice facing the CNT was not "between leaving the
   state intact . . . or building a workers' government in Catalonia which
   could act as a focal point for the defeat of Franco" but rather
   something drastically different. Either work with other anti-fascists
   against Franco so ensuring unity against the common enemy and implement
   anarchism after victory or immediately implement libertarian communism
   and possibly face a conflict on two fronts, against Franco and the
   Republic (and, possibly, imperialist intervention against the social
   revolution). This situation made the CNT-FAI decide to collaborate with
   other anti-fascist groups in the Catalan Central Committee of
   Anti-Fascist Militias. To downplay these objective factors and simply
   blame the decision on anarchist politics is a joke. This dilemma was
   the one which was driving the decisions of the CNT leadership, not any
   failings in anarchist politics.

   Similarly, the Garica Oliver quote provided by Stack dated from July
   1937. They were made as justifications of CNT-FAI actions and were
   designed for political effect. They cannot be taken at face value as
   they are totally contradictory. He was arguing that libertarian
   communism (a society based on directly democratic free associations
   organised and run from the bottom up) was an "anarchist dictatorship"
   and less democratic than the capitalist Republic he had been fighting
   against between 1931 and 1936! Moreover, libertarian communism was the
   revolution. As such, to choose it over capitalist democracy to stop
   "the strangulation of the revolution" makes no sense, as the revolution
   which was created by the rank-and-file of the anarchist movement after
   the defeat of Franco was based on libertarian communist ideas and
   ideals!

   It is safe to take Garica Oliver's words with a large pinch of salt. To
   rely upon them for an analysis of the actions of the Spanish Anarchists
   or the failings of anarchism suggests an extremely superficial
   perspective. This is particularly the case when we look at both the
   history of the CNT and anarchist theory. As noted in [1]section H.1.4,
   according to anarchist ideas, the social revolution, to quote Bakunin,
   must "totally destroy the State," expropriate capital and the land "on
   behalf of workers' associations" and create "the federative Alliance of
   all working men's associations" which "will constitute the Commune."
   [Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings, p. 170] As can be seen, the CNT
   ignored these recommendations. Given that the CNT did not destroy the
   state, nor create a federation of workers' councils, then how can
   anarchist theory be blamed? It seems strange to point to the failure of
   anarchists to apply their politics as an example of the failure of
   those politics, yet this is what Stack is doing.

   As we discuss in [2]section I.8.11, the CNT leadership, going against
   anarchist theory, decided to postpone the revolution until after Franco
   was defeated. As the Catalan CNT leadership put it in August 1936:

     "Reports have also been received from other regions. There has been
     some talk about the impatience of some comrades who wish to go
     further than crushing fascism, but for the moment the situation in
     Spain as a whole is extremely delicate. In revolutionary terms,
     Catalonia is an oasis within Spain.

     "Obviously no one can foresee the changes which may follow the civil
     war and the conquest of that part of Spain which is still under the
     control of mutinous reactionaries."
     [quoted by Jose Peirats, The CNT in the Spanish Revolution, vol. 1,
     pp. 151-2]

   As can be seen, concern that Catalonia would be isolated from the rest
   of the Republic is foremost in their minds. Equally, there is the
   acknowledgement that many CNT members were applying anarchist politics
   by fighting fascism via a revolutionary war. This can be seen by the
   rank and file of the CNT and FAI ignoring the decision to "postpone"
   the revolution in favour of an anti-fascist war. All across Republican
   Spain, workers and peasants started to expropriate capital and the
   land, placing it under workers' self-management. They did so on their
   own initiative. They also applied anarchist ideas in full in Aragon,
   where the Council of Aragon was created in October 1936 at a meeting of
   delegates from CNT unions, village collectives and militia columns. In
   other words, the creation of a federation of workers' associations as
   argued by Bakunin. Little wonder Stack fails to mention what happened
   in Aragon: it would undermine his argument against anarchism to mention
   it.

   To contrast Catalonia and Aragon shows the weakness of Stack's
   argument. The same organisation, with the same politics, yet different
   results. How can anarchist ideas be blamed for what happened in
   Catalonia when they had been applied in Aragon? Such a position could
   not be logically argued and, unsurprisingly, Aragon usually fails to
   get mentioned by Marxists when discussing Anarchism during the Spanish
   Civil War. The continuity of what happened in Aragon with the ideas of
   anarchism and the CNT's 1936 Zaragoza Resolution on Libertarian
   Communism is clear.

   In summary, how could anarchism have "failed" during the Spanish
   Revolution when it was ignored in Catalonia (for fear of fascism) and
   applied in Aragon? How can it be argued that anarchist politics were to
   blame when those very same politics had formed the Council of Aragon?
   It cannot. Simply put, the Spanish Civil War showed the failure of
   certain anarchists to apply their ideas in a difficult situation rather
   than the failure of anarchism.

   Needless to say, Stack also claims that the Friends of Durruti group
   developed towards Marxism. As he puts it:

     "Interestingly the one Spanish anarchist group that developed the
     most sophisticated critique of all this was the Friends of Durutti
     [sic!]. As [Trotskyist] Felix Morrow points out, 'They 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, and the necessary state
     measures of repression against the counter-revolution.' The failure
     of the Spanish anarchists to understand exactly that these were the
     stark choices workers' power, or capitalist power followed by
     reaction."

   That Stack could not bother to spell Durruti's name correctly shows how
   seriously we should take this analysis. The Friends of Durruti (FoD)
   were an anarchist grouping within the CNT and FAI which, like a large
   minority of others, strongly and consistently opposed the policy of
   anti-fascist unity. Rather than signify a "conscious break" with
   anarchism, it signified a conscious return to it. This can be clearly
   seen when we compare their arguments to those of Bakunin. As noted by
   Stack, the FoD argued for "juntas" in the overthrow of capitalism and
   to defend against counter-revolution. Yet this was exactly what
   revolutionary anarchists have argued for since Bakunin (see [3]section
   H.2.1 for details). The continuity of the ideas of the FoD with the
   pre-Civil War politics of the CNT and the ideas of revolutionary
   anarchism are clear. As such, the FoD were simply arguing for a return
   to the traditional positions of anarchism and cannot be considered to
   have broken with it. If Stack or Morrow knew anything about anarchism,
   then they would have known this.

   As such, the failure of the Spanish anarchists was not the "stark
   choice" between "workers' power" and "capitalist power" but rather the
   making of the wrong choice in the real dilemma of introducing anarchism
   (which would, by definition, be based on workers' power, organisation
   and self-management) or collaborating with other anti-fascist groups in
   the struggle against the greater enemy of Franco (i.e. fascist
   reaction). That Stack does not see this suggests that he simply has no
   appreciation of the dynamics of the Spanish Revolution and prefers
   abstract sloganeering to a serious analysis of the problems facing it.

   Stack ends by summarising:

     "The most important lesson . . . is that whatever ideals and gut
     instincts individual anarchists may have, anarchism, both in word
     and deed, fails to provide a roadworthy vehicle for human
     liberation. Only Marxism, which sees the centrality of the working
     class under the leadership of a political party, is capable of
     leading the working class to victory."

   As a useful antidote to these claims, we need simply quote Trotsky on
   what the Spanish anarchists should have done. In his words: "Because
   the leaders of the CNT renounced dictatorship for themselves they left
   the place open for the Stalinist dictatorship." Hardly an example of
   "workers' power"! Or, as he put it earlier in the same year, 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." [our
   emphasis, Writings 1936-7, p. 514 and p. 488] Rather than seeing
   "democratic organs of power, juntas or soviets, in the overthrow of
   capitalism" as being the key issue, Trotsky considered the party as
   being the decisive factor. At best, such organs would be used to
   achieve party power and would simply be a fig-leaf for its rule (see
   [4]section H.3.11 for more on this).

   Clearly, the leading Marxist at the time was not arguing for the
   "centrality of the working class under the leadership of a political
   party." He was arguing for the dictatorship of a "revolutionary" party
   over the working class. Rather than the working class being "central"
   to the running of a revolutionary regime, Trotsky saw the party taking
   that position. What sort of "victory" is possible when the party has
   dictatorial power over the working class and the "sovereign ruler" of
   society? Simply the kind of "victory" that leads to Stalinism.

   Anarchists reject this vision. They also reject the first step along
   this path, namely the identification of party power with workers'
   power. Simply put, if the "revolutionary" party is in power then the
   working class is not. Rather than seeing working class organisations as
   the means by which working people run society, Leninists see them
   purely in instrumental terms - the means by which the party can seize
   power. As the Russian Revolution proved beyond doubt, in a conflict
   between workers' power and party power Leninists will suppress the
   former to ensure the latter.

   To paraphrase Stack, the most important lesson from both the Russian
   and Spanish revolutions is that whatever ideals and gut instincts
   individual Leninists may have, Leninism, both in word and deed, fails
   to provide a roadworthy vehicle for human liberation. Only Anarchism,
   which sees the centrality of the working class self-management of the
   class struggle and revolution, is capable of ensuring the creation of a
   real, free, socialist society.

   Therefore, rather than see the failure of anarchism, the Spanish
   Revolution showed the failure of anarchists to apply their politics due
   to exceptionally difficult objective circumstances, a mistake which
   almost all anarchists acknowledge and have learned from. This does not
   justify the decision, rather it helps to explain it. Moreover, the
   Spanish Revolution also has a clear example of anarchism being applied
   in the Council of Aragon. As such, it is hard to blame anarchism for
   the failure of the CNT when the same organisation applied its ideas
   successfully there. Simply put, Marxist claims that the Spanish
   Revolution shows the failure of anarchist ideas are not only wrong,
   they are extremely superficial and not rooted in the objective
   circumstances of the time.

   Lastly, it could be argued that our critique of the standard Leninist
   attack on anarchism during the Spanish Revolution is similar to that
   presented by Leninists to justify Bolshevik authoritarianism during the
   Russian one. After all, Leninists like Stack point to the objective
   circumstances facing Lenin's regime - its isolation, civil war and
   economic problems - as explaining its repressive actions. However, this
   is not the case as the defeat of the Spanish Revolution was due to
   anarchists not applying our ideas while, for Russia, it was due to the
   Bolsheviks applying their ideology. The difficulties that faced the
   Russian Revolution pushed the Bolsheviks further down the road they
   where already travelling down (not to mention that Bolshevik ideology
   significantly contributed to making many of these problem worse). As we
   discuss in [5]section H.6, the notion that "objective circumstances"
   explains Bolshevik tyranny is simply unconvincing, particularly given
   the role Bolshevik ideology played in this process.

   For more discussion of the Spanish Revolution and its lessons for
   anarchists, see [6]section I.8. In addition, the appendix [7]"Marxists
   and Spanish Anarchism" has a much fuller discussion of this issue
   (including whether the Friends of Durruti broke with anarchism).

References

   1. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH1.html#sech14
   2. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secI8.html#seci811
   3. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH2.html#sech21
   4. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH3.html#sech311
   5. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secH6.html
   6. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/secI8.html
   7. file://localhost/home/mauro/baku/debianize/maint/anarchy/append32.html
