Spain and its Relevance Today - Part 1  
  
by Iain MacSaorsa  
  
"If instead of condemning that experience [of collaboration], 
the [anarchist] movement continues to look for excuses for it, 
the same course will be repeated in the future...exceptional 
circumstances will again put...anarchism on [its] knees before 
the state"   
  
(Juan Gomaz Casas, Anarchist Organisation: The History of the 
FAI, page 251).  
  
Introduction  
  
Spain, in the 1930's, had the largest anarchist movement in 
the world. At the start of the Spanish "Civil" war, over one 
and one half million workers and peasants were members of the 
C.N.T.(the National Confederation of Labour), an 
anarchosyndicalist union federation, and 30,000 were members 
of the F.A.I. (the Anarchist Federation of Iberia). The total 
population of Spain at this time was 24 million. The anarchist 
movement was larger, more dynamic and more influential than 
the corresponding Marxist organisations (the U.G.T. union 
federation, the Socialist Party, etc). Since 1868, the history 
of the Spanish Labour and revolutionary movement was dominated 
by anarchism, a situation unique to Spain in many respects.  
  
Therefore, considering this, the need to understand and know 
the events of Spain is essential. Firstly, to learn from the 
activities of our comrades, to learn from their mistakes and, 
secondly, to find and apply what is still relevant from their 
history to OUR activities and political programme/agenda. 
Thirdly, to discuss some basis ideas of anarchism, with 
reference to actual events, which should be clear in people's 
heads.  
  
Hopefully comrades will find this article useful. Needless to 
say far more could be written on the subject of Spain. This is 
one view point and should be seen as an aid for the 
discussion, for further reading and debate and as an 
indication of what anarchism and anarchists are capable of 
doing.  
  
The Start of the Civil War/Revolution  
  
When the Generals revolted against the republic on July the 
19th 1936, the government was paralysed. The only resistance 
to the fascists came from the working class, first and 
foremost from those sections organised in the C.N.T. and 
F.A.I.. While the government tried to negotiate with the 
fascists, offering them spaces in the cabinet at one point, 
the C.N.T. (and to a lesser degree the radical sections of the 
U.G.T.) constantly urged people to organise for a general 
strike, arm themselves and directly resist the coup.  
  
When the army did start its uprising, it was met on the 
streets with the heroism and initiative of the members of the 
C.N.T. ("Cenetistas") who went on the offensive. It was the 
C.N.T./F.A.I. which lead the resistance to the Generals. The 
members of the U.G.T. followed behind, while the politicians 
did nothing (as usual). It should be noted that U.G.T. unions 
in areas where the C.N.T. was strong were totally reformist. 
In areas where the C.N.T. was organised, but smaller, the 
U.G.T. was forced to be more radical under the influence of 
C.N.T. activities and the fear that their members would join 
the more militant (and effective and modern) organisation. 
After the resistance of the 19th of July, the Generals' coup 
had been defeated in TWO THIRDS of Spain.  
  
It is clear that as the cenetistas fought and died on the 
barricades they would not be risking their lives for some poxy 
republic. They unleased the most profound social revolution in 
the history of the world (so far at least...).  
  
The Revolution  
  
In the heady days after the 19th of July (people burning money 
was a common sight in the streets of Barcelona, for example) 
the initiative and power truly rested in the hands of the rank 
and file members of the C.N.T. and F.A.I.  No positive 
directives came from the C.N.T. committees (who were to busy 
doing other things as we shall see later). It was ordinary 
people, under the influence of Faistas (members of the F.A.I.) 
and C.N.T. militants no doubt, who, after defeating the 
uprising, got production, distribution and consumption started 
again (under more equalitarian arrangements of course) as well 
as organising, and volunteering (in their thousands) to join, 
the militias which were to be sent to free those parts of 
Spain under Franco. In every possible way, the working class 
of Spain were creating by their own actions a new world based 
on their own ideas of social justice and freedom (ideas 
inspired, of course, by anarchism and anarchosyndicalism).  
  
The full extent of this revolution cannot be covered here. All 
that can be done is highlight a few points of special interest 
and hope that these will give some indication of the breath of 
these events and encourage people to read a few of the books 
listed in Appendix 1.  
  
All industry in Catalonia was placed either under workers 
self-management OR workers control (that is, either totally 
taking over ALL aspects of management, in the first case, or, 
in the second, controlling the old management). There was, of 
course, a direct relationship between the size and influence 
of the C.N.T. and the number and internal nature of the 
collectives formed. Workers in the U.G.T. were generally 
inspired to action by the practical example of the C.N.T.  
  
In some cases whole town and regional economies were 
transformed into federations of collectives. The example of 
Alcoy (population 45 000) can be given as a typical example:  
  
"Everything was controlled by the syndicates. But it most not 
therefore be assumed that everything was decided by a few 
higher bureaucratic committees without consulting the rank and 
file members of the union. Here libertarian democracy was 
practised. As in the C.N.T. there was a reciprocal double 
structure; from the grass roots at the base....upwards, and in 
the other direction a reciprocal influence from the federation 
of these same local units at all levels downwards. from the 
source back to the source." (Gaston Leval,  quoted in "The 
Anarchist Collectives", Ed Sam Dolgoff, page 105)  
  
It should be noted this was obviously before the 
counterrevolution got under way and that the organs of the 
collectives were NOT identical to the corresponding organs of 
the C.N.T., although they did operate like the C.N.T. did 
before the Civil War.   
  
In practice, until sabotaged by the state, the collectives 
proved that ALL aspects of industry and agriculture can be 
operated better by the workers themselves (using anarchist 
organisation) than under capitalism.  
  
Collectivisation was not full socialism (although it was 
definitely socialistic). For example, most collectives kept 
the use of money (in some form or another) as well as 
distributing goods according to DEED not NEED (ie, saying that 
so much labour is "worth" so much and so retaining value 
relationships from capitalism). Obviously, food was 
distributed free in some cases (to the old, sick, etc and 
militia at the front) but the main rationing schemes were 
still based on certain (not all) capitalist principles.   
  
As Gaston Leval states, "it was not... true socialisation, but 
a form of workers neo-capitalism, 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", p227/8).  
  
This should be remembered, as should the last point. In no way 
can this truly detract from the positive achievements of 
working class self-management and the anarchist reorganisation 
of the economy. In general, the collectives created most of 
the structural framework of an anarchocommunist economy, 
while, due to the concrete realities of Spain (its isolation 
economically and politically, the lack of other widespread 
revolutionary movements in other countries and its agrarian 
economic base) it could not apply some of the social aspects 
(abolition of wage labour, money, etc).   
   
The militias set to fight the war were organised in true 
anarchist fashion and often defeated better armed, better 
trained and more numerous detachments of the fascist army. 
There was no rank, no saluting and no officer class. Everybody 
was equal. The militias did use ex-officers, but only as 
advisors. The direction of the war rested in the militia 
committees, under the control of the front line fighters who 
could countermand and replace delegates. The militias 
contained both men and women. Ironically enough, Trotskyites 
always say how much they approve of the militias and how 
"democratic" they were,  without ever mentioning how Trotsky 
removed all these features from the Red Army before and during 
the Russian Civil War.....  
  
When a militia entered a town or village, they did not force 
the people to join collectives or dictate the form social life 
would take. All they did was to ensure the population could 
organise their own lives, as the population saw fit.  
  
On the social front, anarchist organisations created rational 
schools, a libertarian health service, social centres, and so 
on. The Mujeres Libres (free women) combated the traditional 
role of wymmin in Spanish society, empowering thousands both 
inside and outside the anarchist movement (much to the 
annoyance of some male anarchists...). The story of the 
Mujeres Libres would take an article in itself (See the Free 
Women of Spain by Martha A. Ackelsberg for more information on 
this very important organisation). This activity on the social 
front only built on the work started long before the start of 
the war, for example the unions often funded rational schools, 
workers centres and so on.  
  
This (very) short summary cannot do justice to the 
achievements of our comrades in Spain. The booklist in 
Appendix 1 contains material for those who wish to find out 
more. It should come as no surprise that anarchism did create 
the seeds of a new world and that this world operated 
infinitely better than capitalism (or state socialism). And we 
must also remember that anarchism can never be created 
"overnight". Between capitalism and a classless society (full 
communist anarchism), there will, of necessity, be a 
"transition" period after a successful insurrection. This 
period will be marked by the need to create anarchist 
structures and social relationships (consolidating the 
revolution) while defending this task (by force, if 
necessary). Its first step will be to smash the state and 
ensure a new one is not formed.  
  
The Counterrevolution  
  
The "May Days" of 1937 signified the effective defeat of the 
Spanish Revolution. The state felt strong enough to crush the 
power of the working class and remove the last remains of 
their conquests from the 19th of July. The leaders of the CNT 
and FAI urged compromise, and so aided the state and the 
counterrevolution.  
  
So what went wrong? What had allowed the social revolution to 
be sidetracked and defeated so quickly. Sad to say, it was the 
actions of the CNT-FAI and, in particular, the actions of 
certain "influential militants" (or leaders).  
  
For a revolution to be successful it needs to create 
organisations 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 . For example, if the state is not 
smashed, it continue and get stronger as it will be the only 
medium 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.  
  
This problem confronted the leaders of the CNT on the 20th of 
July. They interpreted the needs of the situation as "either 
we seize power or we collaborate with political parties" (and 
so the state) in effect, "anarchist dictatorship" or 
"democracy". While the rank and file members of the CNT (and 
other sections of the working class inspired by the CNT) were 
in the process of constructing a new world, clearly showing in 
practice that they were in favour of anarchism, the 
"influential militants" in CNT committees were stabbing them 
in the back.   
  
Instead of pursuing anarchist policies (and past CNT policy as 
indicated from congresses), the committee members started to 
pursue their own policies. Far from NOT seizing power 
themselves (as the Trotskyites lament, their definition of 
"workers power"), the CNT and FAI committee members seized 
power within their own organisations. Without receiving any 
mandate from the CNT syndicates they claimed to be delegates 
from, the leading committees decided off their own backs not 
to talk of libertarian communism but only of the fight against 
fascism.  
  
In practice the committees had been separated from the rank 
and file and their members transformed from delegates into 
representatives ("leaders" in every sense of the word) who 
started to make policy decisions on the rank and files behalf, 
without bothering to consult them.  
  
On the 20th of July, instead of, for example, organising a 
joint plenum of CNT and UGT syndicate delegates plus delegates 
from previously unorganised workplaces (mandated by the rank 
and file) in order to discuss the situation and possibly 
create a permanent delegate federation to coordinate the 
revolution and the war against the fascists, the CNT-FAI 
committees sent a delegation of its members to meet the leader 
of the Catalan Government "The delegation...was 
intransigent....[e]ither Companys [the Catalan president] must 
accept the creation of a Central Committee [of AntiFascist 
Militias] as the ruling organisation or the CNT would CONSULT 
THE RANK AND FILE AND EXPOSE THE REAL SITUATION TO THE 
WORKERS. Companys backed down."   
  
(p216, Durruti the people armed (my emphasis))  
  
This shows clearly the role of the CNT committee members (see 
also "Towards a Fresh Revolution" by the Friends of Durruti). 
They used their new found influence in the eyes of Spain to 
unite with the leaders of other organisations/parties but not 
the rank and file. This process lead to the creation of the 
"Central Committee of AntiFascist Militias", in which 
political parties as well as labour unions were represented. 
This committee was not made up of mandated delegates, but of 
representatives of existing organisations, nominated by 
committees. Instead of a genuine federal body (made up of 
mandated delegates from workplace, militia and neighbourhood 
assemblies) the C.N.T. created a body which was not 
accountable to, nor could reflect the ideas of, ordinary 
working class people expressed in their assemblies. The state 
and government was not abolished by self-management, only 
ignored.   
  
This first betrayal of anarchist principles led to all the 
rest, and so the defeat of the revolution and so the civil 
war. In the name of "antifascist" 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, p40)  
  
It is clear that anti-fascism destroyed the revolution, not 
fascism. "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...AntiFascism is the new 
slogan by which the working class is being betrayed"  
  
(Ethal McDonald, Workers Free Press, Oct 1937)  
  
To justify their collaboration, the leaders of the CNT-FAI 
claimed not to collaborate would have lead to a civil war 
within the civil war. In practice, while paying lip service to 
the revolution, the communists and republicans attacked the 
collectives, murdered anarchists, cut supplies to 
collectivised industries (even WAR industries) and disbanded 
the anarchist militias after refusing to give them weapons and 
ammunition (preferring to arm the Civil Guard in the rearguard 
in order to crush the CNT and so the revolution). By 
collaborating, a civil war was not avoided. One occurred 
anyway, with the working class as its victims, as soon as the 
state felt strong enough. Garcia Oliver (soon to be the first 
ever "anarchist" minister of justice) stated that 
collaboration was necessary and that the CNT had "renounc[ed] 
revolutionary totalitarianism, which would lead to the 
strangulation of the revolution by anarchist and Confederal 
[CNT] dictatorship. We had confidence in the word and in the 
person of a Catalan democrat" Companys (who had in the past 
jailed anarchists). Which means that only by working with the 
state, politicians and capitalists can an anarchist revolution 
be truly libertarian!  
  
The continued existence of the state ensured that economic 
federalism (ie extending the revolution under the direction of 
the syndicates) could not develop naturally nor be developed 
far enough in all places. Due to the political compromises of 
the C.N.T. the tendencies to coordination and mutual aid could 
not develop. For example, in Barcelona during the first two 
months of the revolution there were few real attempts at 
economic federation between industries. While understandable 
in the circumstances, ie the need to get production going 
again placed federalism down the list of things to do, it did 
lead to some collectives becoming "collective capitalists" as 
the market could not be replaced by an integrated social 
organism. In addition, due to the existence of rich and poor 
capitalist firms before the revolution, there were rich and 
poor collectives as well. Since there did not exist the means 
to coordinate production and distribute goods according to 
need, attempts at mutual aid were often ad hoc.  
  
This lack of coordination meant that the collectivisation 
could not develop towards full socialisation 
(socialism/communism) plus it made equalising any differences 
between collectives much harder to achieve. It also allowed 
the state to intervene into the economy and, through its 
control of credit, control the collectives. The October 1936 
Collectivisation Degree (used by the CNT leadership to 
"legalise" the revolution!) allowed the state a further way to 
undermine self-management in industry. This Decree distorted 
and controlled the revolutionary economy, ensuring that it 
could develop no further and laid the ground work for its 
degeneration back towards normal capitalism, which state 
control of credit (and so the collectives) ensured.  
  
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 vica 
versa.  
  
The CNT leaders, from the very start of the revolution, 
claimed that only by a united ("anti-fascist") front, could 
fascism be defeated. The leadership gave the rank and file no 
choice (a fait accompli) and, in addition, members at the 
front were not consulted (most of the "hard-core" anarchists - 
ie those who were most against compromise - were there) thus 
reducing opposition to the leadership's line. This fait 
accompli was the most extreme example of similar actions which 
had occurred periodically in the past, ie the committees 
controlling the union and not the syndicate assemblies. 
Usually, CNT plenums,congresses and conferences managed to 
curb this tendency to a large extent. The leadership centrally 
controlled the organisation, calling plenums at short notice, 
defining the agenda (which was unheard of in the past) and not 
distributing information to the union assemblies. The 
leadership's policy, of "anti-fascism" as opposed to 
antistate/anticapitalism and its actions lead to the defeat of 
the revolution and so the war. As Vernon Richards makes clear:  
  
"[was it] 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" (Vernon 
Richards' Lessons of the Spanish Revolution, page 42).  
  
This is a very good book and is recommended.  
  
This collaboration gave the state and capitalism a breathing 
space and time to gather their strength. When the time was 
right, they counter attacked and destroyed the revolution and 
their "allies" in the antifascist front, the CNT-FAI. In the 
space of two months, the Central Committee of Anti-Fascist 
Militias was abolished and, having no where left to go, the 
CNT committees sent 4 representatives into the government as 
ministers. According to Solidaridad Obrera (the CNT paper) 
this meant that "the government has stopped being an 
oppressive force against the working class...with the 
participation of the CNT, the state and  
government no longer oppress the people".  
  
This is a sick joke considering that soon after the state 
decided to crush the collectives by force and provoked the May 
Day events (during which the "anarchist" ministers, in effect, 
sided with the state and in the name of antifascist "unity" 
called on the working class to stop resistance).  
  
Spain, by the actions of the ordinary members of the CNT-FAI 
gave anarchism one of its most glorious moments. 
Unfortunately, it also gave us one of its worse by the actions 
of certain  "influential militants".  
  
In part 2, next issue, lessons from the Spanish Revolution and 
Spanish anarchism. 
  
Appendix 1 : Bibliography  
  
Lessons of the Spanish Revolution by Vernon Richards  
(Freedom Press)  
  
Anarchists in the Spanish Revolution by Jose Peirats  
(Freedom Press)  
  
The Spanish Anarchists by Murray Bookchin  
  
Collectives in the Spanish Revolution by Gaston Level  
(Freedom Press)  
  
Free Women of Spain by Martha A. Ackelsberg  
  
A New World in Our Hearts edited by A. Meltzer  
  
Durruti the People Armed by Abel Paz  
(Black Rose Books)  
  
Anarchist Organisation : the History of the F.A.I.  
by Juan Gomaz Casas  
(Black Rose Books)  
  
Objectivity and Liberal Scholarship by Noam Chomsky  
  
The Spanish Case  by J. Romero Maura   
(contained in Anarchism Today, pages 60-83,   
edited by James Joll and David E. Apter).  
  
The Practice of direct action : The Barcelona rent strike of 
1931  
by Nick Rider   
(from For Anarchism edited by David Goodway  
  
Vision of Fire: Emma Goldman (Edited David Porter)  
  
Homage to Catalonia by George Orwell  
  
The anarchist collectives edited by Sam Dolgoff  
(Black Rose Books)  
  
Towards a Fresh Revolution by The Friends of Durruti  
(Drowned Rat)  
  
Spain: Social Revolution, Counter Revolution  
Freedom Press (selections from "Spain and the World")  
  
The Writings of Camillo Berneri   
Cienfuegos Press Anarchist Review   
  
The Spanish Revolution by Burnett Bolloten  
  
The Blood of Spain by Ronald Frazer
 



