CNT / anarcho-communism / anarcho-syndicalism
Sep 22 2007 14:04
Split from here
Sep 19 2007 14:05
#1
Offline
treeofjudas wrote:
Sep 19 2007 17:58
#2
When has anarchist syndicalism betrayed the working class to the stalinists?
Sep 19 2007 18:48
#3
CNT in the Spanish civil war.
revol68 wrote:
he means the CNT leadership in the May Days, it's a simplistic way of putting things but I get his point, however he also seems to miss the fact that it was done as a betrayal of anarcho syndicalism and was resisted by, guess who, yes other anarcho syndicalists.
treeofjudas wrote:
Anarcho-syndicalism and anarcho-communism are not the same thing. Anyway, I was mocking revol for a different thread, he got it, and that's all that matters.As for saying that the arguments I make do not make sense, do you mean in this thread, in this thread and the other one, in all threads, in every argument I have ever engaged in on this website, in every argument I have ever engaged with at all?..
revol68 wrote:
This should gove me more jollies, what's the difference? I'm an anarcho syndicalist and an anarcho communist, it was anarcho syndicalism that has got the closest to anarcho communism or libertarian communism as they tended to call it.p.s. you aren't mocking me, you're only making a fuckwit of yourself.
treeofjudas wrote:
I don't know what the difference is. There have been a few threads about that, don't think any of them amounted to any kind of conclusion. There is a difference, though, and I was definitely not poking fun at every anarcho-communist ever.PS: Honestly, like there's anything anyone could say that you couldn't find a justification for mocking, if you put your mind to it.
revol68 wrote:
You seem to enjoy making retarded criticisms of anarcho syndicalism yet you clearly know nothing, i wouldn't mind so much if your online personality didn't grate with me anyway. If you don't the difference how are you so sure there is one?
treeofjudas wrote:
In the thread you're referring to the only problem that came out of it is your inability to answer simple questions about your own pet ideology. I'll defer anything further to when I've finally had the chance to read Rocker's Anarcho-Syndicalism, only now you'll tell me that it's not the right text to read at all, it should have been obvious to me that that's actually an evil social-democratic perversion of the ideology, and I'm a fucking moron for not getting that, etc. etc.
catch wrote:
revol68 wrote:
he means the CNT leadership in the May Days, it's a simplistic way of putting things but I get his point, however he also seems to miss the fact that it was done as a betrayal of anarcho syndicalism and was resisted by, guess who, yes other anarcho syndicalists.That's not so far off the "tragic mistakes" schtick of the ICC in regards to the Bolsheviks though is it?
Now I'm not claiming that it's exactly the same argument, but simply because some people in an organisation resist the leaders of that organisation isn't an excuse. Otherwise we could excuse not only the Bolsheviks, but the unions "it was done as a betrayal of trade unionism and was resisted by who, yes other trade unionists", the list goes on.
You also conveniently failed to mention the massive rank and file vote in the CNT for the popular front. Did they all betray anarcho-syndicalism when they did that as well then?
catch wrote:
revol68 wrote:
This should gove me more jollies, what's the difference? I'm an anarcho syndicalist and an anarcho communist, it was anarcho syndicalism that has got the closest to anarcho communism or libertarian communism as they tended to call it.Not all anarcho-syndicalists are communists. Not all anarcho-communists are syndicalists. Does the fact the Japanese anarchist movement (of tens of thousands) split down the middle along these lines escape you? Not to mention the various other splits and disagreements around that time.
And anarcho-syndicalism didn't get the closest to communism - there's you giving it agency again - the working class in Spain did. Would you say that Bolshevism got the closest to communism before Spain then? Or collapse Hungary '56 into Nagyism?
No, we recognise that ideologies and organisations have their own dynamic that's seperate from the working class, and collapsing them into each other is what's produced the worst errors and betrayals.
revol68 wrote:
catch wrote:
revol68 wrote:
This should gove me more jollies, what's the difference? I'm an anarcho syndicalist and an anarcho communist, it was anarcho syndicalism that has got the closest to anarcho communism or libertarian communism as they tended to call it.Not all anarcho-syndicalists are communists. Not all anarcho-communists are syndicalists. Does the fact the Japanese anarchist movement (of tens of thousands) split down the middle along these lines escape you? Not to mention the various other splits and disagreements around that time.
And anarcho-syndicalism didn't get the closest to communism - there's you giving it agency again - the working class in Spain did. Would you say that Bolshevism got the closest to communism before Spain then? Or collapse Hungary '56 into Nagyism?
No, we recognise that ideologies and organisations have their own dynamic that's seperate from the working class, and collapsing them into each other is what's produced the worst errors and betrayals.
Loving this pseudo Hegelian bullshit idea of the working class that keeps always keeps itself pure from the distortions and corruptions of ideologies and organisations. Oh wait you actually mean a working class you already understand from an ideological viewpoint, a working class that has to abolish capitalism with the 'real movement of communism', a Platonic working class that's real movement towards communism happens in the field of forms, well away from the corruption of this world and history, a working class that never make mistakes or atleast can never be held accountable for them.
catch wrote:
You know that's not my argument so I don't know why you're trying this on.Do you think the anarcho-syndicalism can be collapsed into the Spanish working class of 1936? What about those in the UGT, or the Poum? Certainly rank and file members of the UGT were involved in the collectives, worked alongside CNT members etc. - I'm some would've been more principled than Garcia Oliver et al. Do you think everyone in the CNT was an anarcho-syndicalist? If the answer to these questions is no, then we have to ask why you insist on conflating them together, because it's the same logic that Trots use when they say the "working class" was in power in Russia.
Oh and are you seriously going to claim there's no historical or theoretical differences between anarcho-syndicalism and anarcho-communism or were you just trying to catch ToJ out?
Sep 22 2007 14:39
#4
Actually the anarcho-syndicalist record in the Mexican revolution was also pretty poor, they ended up supporting the government of Carranza right down to forming 'Red Battalions' which went out to defend Mexico City against the Zapatistas.
http://struggle.ws/mexico/history/anarchism_1910.html
They were not a minor propaganda group but the largest by a long shot of the union federations.
Likewise in China at least some of the anarcho-syndicalists actually entered into an alliance with the KMT after the crushing of the Shanghai commune - it was short lived as within a year the KMT decided it no longer needed mass mobilisations and suppressed them also.
While excuses and explanations can be made for both course of action Spain is neither the only nor by a long shot the worst example of anarcho-syndicalism entering into alliances with government.
Now I'm still inclined to think that the anarcho-syndicalist experience includes some of the high points of anarchism but to present it as some coherent whole to be contrasted and defended against other schools of anarchist thought just doesn't work out any better than those who do the same with Trotskyism v Stalinism. And some of those highpoints (the Friends of Durruti has been mentioned a lot) actually recognised that what they advocated was a 'slight variation' with what had gone before.
Sep 22 2007 15:18
#5
JoeBlack2 wrote:
Now I'm still inclined to think that the anarcho-syndicalist experience includes some of the high points of anarchism but to present it as some coherent whole to be contrasted and defended against other schools of anarchist thought just doesn't work out any better than those who do the same with Trotskyism v Stalinism.
I'd agree with this. If I was trying to define something like trotskyism I'd have to base my definition on what trotskyists have actually said and done, which covers a wide range of things. If a trot tried to tell me that the ideas and actions of rival sects didn't count as trotskyism I wouldn't take this very seriously - it would basically be an argument based on faith. If you're looking at anarcho-syndicalism then I think you have to include what has been done and advocated by anarcho-syndicalists, whether it's good, bad or indifferent. I don't think it makes much sense to try and define some kind of ideal version of it. Anarcho-syndicalism is what has been said and done by anarcho-syndicalists, some of which can be supported and some not.
Sep 22 2007 19:33
#6
Quote:
And some of those highpoints (the Friends of Durruti has been mentioned a lot) actually recognised that what they advocated was a 'slight variation' with what had gone before.
This is a reference to the proposal for regional and national defense councils, which would be basically a working class government. but what people who quote FoD on this fail to keep in mind is that this "modification" was made by the CNT itself, at a national conference Sept 3, 1936. after the CNT of Catalonia abandoned this proposal between end of Sept. and November (when the CNT entered the Popular Front government), certain people who favored the Sept 3 program continued to advocate for it, and that is the origin of FoD.
The problem seems to have been that there were different currents within the CNT of Catalonia at the time. Because the CNT was a mass movement, and not a political sect or party, it seems fairly likely that there would be different tendencies within it. In the competition between these tendencies, the CNT of Catalonia went back and forth and thus acted as a whole in a seemingly incoherent manner.
Sep 22 2007 21:29
#7
syndicalistcat wrote:
the CNT of Catalonia went back and forth and thus acted as a whole in a seemingly incoherent manner.
This is a very odd phrase, when you say 'seemingly' do you mean 'the CNT of Catalonia' was actually coherent but it just didn't look this way or what exactly do you mean.
I've heard this argument about the FoD simply restating a CNT decision before but the rather obvious problem with it is that the FoD themselves not only seemed to be unaware of this but actually denied it in presenting their program as a 'slight variation'. It's seems extraordinary if this was the case that they didn't make the very different argument of 'this is what we agreed, why don't we implement it'. This impression is further re-enforced as they spend a good bit of the pamphlet saying the CNT had lyricism a plenty but no program rather than 'we had a program but we never implemented it'.
This and your use of seemingly makes me feel your constructing a defense of the CNT by selective and expert knowledge of detail that may not really have all that much validity. This is not an unusual method on the left (the trots description of Makhno as an anti-semite fills the same role) but I don't actually see its purpose today beyond mystifying things. Unfortunately to actually unpick such an argument the hard way you have to study at at lest the same level of detail which I don't have the time to do.
It may be my impression is wrong - did any section of the CNT demand a return to the program of Sept 3, 1936? This would indicate that their interpretation then of what those details mean is the same as that you are putting forward today.
Sep 23 2007 00:33
#8
don't have time for a proper response other than to say Joe Black supports reformism in the here and now and so should shut the fuck up about people moving towards reformism in far more dramatic situations.
more later.....
Sep 23 2007 06:51
#9
revol68 wrote:
don't have time for a proper response other than to say Joe Black supports reformism in the here and now and so should shut the fuck up about people moving towards reformism in far more dramatic situations.more later.....
Seems to me here that you disagree with Joe's politics so you are suggesting that his analysis of Spain must be wrong too.
In my opinion not all of his points are invalid, for example:
Joe Black wrote:
It's seems extraordinary if this was the case that they didn't make the very different argument of 'this is what we agreed, why don't we implement it'. This impression is further re-enforced as they spend a good bit of the pamphlet saying the CNT had lyricism a plenty but no program rather than 'we had a program but we never implemented it'.
FoD wrote:
What happened was what had to happen. The CNT was utterly devoid of revolutionary theory. We did not have a concrete programme. We had no idea where we were going. We had lyricism aplenty; but when all is said and done, we did not know what to do with our masses of workers or how to give substance to the popular effusion which erupted inside our organisations. By not knowing what to do, we handed the revolution on a platter to the bourgeoisie and the marxists who support the farce of yesteryear. What is worse, we allowed the bourgeoisie a breathing space; to return, to re-form and to behave as would a conqueror.
Devrim
Sep 23 2007 10:21
#10
I'm curious as to how whether or not the strategy and forms of organisation adopted by a movement was (a) the best as could be or (b) was in error, or alternativly one way forward suggested then was (a) a departure from the previous practise of the movement or (b) just a continuation of it, has relevance today when we all must realise that the context in which that movement operated is very very removed from where we are now. The lessons we can derive from the 1930s are very limited, likewise from 1917 - 1921 in Russia (it is true even more so in that case).
For people who would hope to disagree with that statement I would point out that in 1930s Spain agricultural labourers were working for food (and limited food at that). There is just one example of how different that society was from Britain, or Ireland, or the United States, today.
It is interesting and inspiring to look back at history but you cannot base strategies for today on way back then, be they syndicalist or critical of syndicalism. We can read maybe a little from it for sure - but it can only be a very limited part of an argument for this or that.
I disagree with anarcho-syndicalism and with much of the critique of it.
JoeBlack2 you seem to me to come close in your above post to suggesting that an appriasal of the CNT in that period, and all parts of it, can be based on a reading of one primary document (moreover written by one guy? in a small group?) Strikes me the author could have simply been disillusioned and disenchanted and overegged the extent to which the CNT previous was crap. Also strikes me that what syndicalistcat is talking about re: september 1936 may have just been a similarity of terminology between that proposal and that of the FoD - if I remember correct wasn't the first just a give the government another name operation, whereas the second was for a body responsible to committees in the collectivised industries, so 'council' can have many meanings.
An interesting thing that people seem to overlook is to be found in Skirda's 'Facing the Enemy' apparently in the early part of 1936 (too late in any case) it was proposed to have a unified paramilitary organisation and planning, shot down with the jibe that the proposer was looking to become a general (the guy who said that later became one!), given the context I'd say this was a damn sight more useful thing to be thinking about that anything else and indeed that illustrates my point as to the lack of relevance that considerations of this period has for us today. I cannot see such a proposal being discussed at WSA or WSM meetings!
Sep 23 2007 10:41
#11
An essay relevant to this discussion is to be found here:
http://struggle.ws/freeearth/spain_rev_war.html
Sep 23 2007 12:04
#12
Terry wrote:
I'm curious as to how whether or not the strategy and forms of organisation adopted by a movement was (a) the best as could be or (b) was in error, or alternativly one way forward suggested then was (a) a departure from the previous practise of the movement or (b) just a continuation of it, has relevance today when we all must realise that the context in which that movement operated is very very removed from where we are now. The lessons we can derive from the 1930s are very limited, likewise from 1917 - 1921 in Russia (it is true even more so in that case).For people who would hope to disagree with that statement I would point out that in 1930s Spain agricultural labourers were working for food (and limited food at that). There is just one example of how different that society was from Britain, or Ireland, or the United States, today.
Well this thread isn't just about the Friends of Durruti. My main concern with these questions is the extent to which modern groups and individuals attach themselves to these legacies (either 1917 or 1936) - which at their best have been contradictory, at worst counter-revolutionary. Is it the most important question facing us today? No of course not. But the fixation on 1917 or '36 also I think leads to a blindness in some cases to the post-war struggles which of course have more immediate relevance, and in many cases had zero positive input from either anarchist or Leninist groups.
Quote:
It is interesting and inspiring to look back at history but you cannot base strategies for today on way back then, be they syndicalist or critical of syndicalism.
Well I'm critical of syndicalism both now and then - given there are plenty of people on this board who see it as a strategy (and I'd add much more than revol, despite his love for the CNT), it's going to come up every now and then.
Quote:
the lack of relevance that considerations of this period has for us today.
If people are wont to repeat endlessly the stakes of the past due to idealised ideas of what the CNT, the IWW, the Bolsheviks or other groups were like, then it has relevance. edit: as JoeBlack2 points out, there's not all that many examples, so declaring the ones from a long time ago 'irrelevant' narrows the field quite a lot. It's also a line repeatedly pushed by people who'd like to see all talk of revolution erased.
Sep 23 2007 12:10
#13
I didn't bring up the FoD in that context I was responding to the idea that their ideas were not a break from orthodoxy. And I certainly didn't put forward the idea that all you need to understand the revolution was to look at their pamphlet. Slipping these sort of misdirections into your posts Terry (which is pretty much a constant with you) makes actually discussing stuff pretty frustrating - there is no need for it, they add nothing to your argument and they are really just a smarter variation of the hobbyist calling me a cunt.
I'd also say I was rather arguing against the idea of that or any other period of anarcho-syndicalism being a perfect model we could apply to today (and yes I'd say the same about the platform) but maybe that first paragraph was directed at someone else. In any case everywhere is different and examples are limited which is presumably why this discussion is happening in the first place?
I'm offline for the next few days
Sep 23 2007 13:04
#14
Quote:
]"I didn't bring up the FoD in that context I was responding to the idea that their ideas were not a break from orthodoxy."
Which you couldn't ascertain "based on a reading of one primary document". - that is my argument, so
Quote:
"they add nothing to your argument"
is a bit moot.
Quote:
"just a smarter variation of the hobbyist calling me a cunt"
how so, am I calling you a cunt? Am I saying your opinion is irrelevant because you are a reformist? Am I even taking a position on the overall issue markedly at odds with yours? (after all the very next line points out something which might support what you were originally saying). Note the last time you were accusing me of "misdirection" I wasn't even referring to something you said, but asking your opinion. Maybe you should distinguish between the posters that are calling you a cunt and then ones that are not, so you would be less inclined to percieve attempts at dicussion as attacks, misdirection, and insults.
(in reply to Catch)
Well a critique of anarcho-syndicalism should be based on the here and now. We don't have to concern ourselves with what was a society very removed from our own (this incidentally is very true of Russia). Moreover it is exclusive - given the number of people with the time/energy/interest to read up on these matters will always be limited, and it is also a bit of a forlorn hope - it would require a serious study beyond I think most of our capacities (time, language, geographic location) to really come to grips with these situations, to the extent that one could confidentally base a strategy for the future on a particular reading of the past. An awful lot of left readings of history manage to avoid large slices of what was actually going on - so I think it is a dubious way to go.
This is of course much more a criticism of people with an "idealised view of the past", which promotes a particular strategy, than of their critics, but, equally I'm not sure what basis there is for saying "the mistakes of the past endlessly repeated", most of West European Leninism for instance has been more like Social Democracy than Bolshevism.
Like a major historical case against Leninism, is surely, that irrespective of this that or the other, Kronstadt, 14, 18, 24 or 200 Imperialist armies, or whatever, a model developed for Russia circa 1900 couldn't be applicable to say Britain today (note for instance lack of absolute monarchy, widespread literacy, and abscence of significant peasant population with communal traditions!). These discussions tend towards being very subjective-focused (ie right ideas, right form of organisation), and pander to the "crisis of leadership" model of history. I am not saying we cannot draw lessons, more that we shouldn't advocate, or reject, something based on what happened in socities very different from our own. I mean the Russian Revolution was based in large part on an insurgent peasantry in an area lacking in communications with strong communal traditions (the village commune) and folklore that provided some ideological basis for the revolution. What positive lessons can we draw from it? But yeah being a bit au fait with it from the point of view of criticising Leninism is worth it. There was also a pretty significant 'objective conditions' basis to the degeneracy of both the Spanish and Russian revolutions.
(edited: spelling)
Sep 23 2007 13:31
#15
Terry wrote:
Well a critique of anarcho-syndicalism should be based on the here and now.
We don't have to concern ourselves with what was a society very removed from our own (this incidentally is very true of Russia).
Considering how many people identify with particular factions in Spain and Russia this seems a bit moot doesn't it, even if we accept your idea that ideologies should only be evaluated on their immediate contemporary existence and not historically.
Quote:
Moreover it is exclusive - given the number of people with the time/energy/interest to read up on these matters will always be limited, and it is also a bit of a forlorn hope - it would require a serious study beyond I think most of our capacities (time, language, geographic location) to really come to grips with these situations, to the extent that one could confidentally base a strategy for the future on a particular reading of the past. An awful lot of left readings of history manage to avoid large slices of what was actually going on - so I think it is a dubious way to go.
Well that omission of "large slices" is part of the reason we've been working on the revolutionary wave and russian revolution reatures (and there'll be more, these are just to get started) - precisely to highlight those aspects and events so often ignored (by both Leninists and Anarchists in large part).
Quote:
This is of course much more a criticism of people with an "idealised view of the past", which promotes a particular strategy, than of their critics, but, equally I'm not sure what basis there is for saying "the mistakes of the past endlessly repeated", most of West European Leninism for instance has been more like Social Democracy than Bolshevism.
Bolshevism was a part of social democracy, you can't counterpose the two 
Quote:
Like a major historical case against Leninism, is surely, that irrespective of this that or the other, Kronstadt, 14, 18, 24 or 200 Imperialist armies, or whatever, a model developed for Russia circa 1900 couldn't be applicable to say Britain today (note for instance lack of absolute monarchy, widespread literacy, and abscence of significant peasant population with communal traditions!). These discussions tend towards being very subjective-focused (ie right ideas, right form of organisation), and pander to the "crisis of leadership" model of history. I am not saying we cannot draw lessons, more that we shouldn't advocate, or reject, something based on what happened in socities very different from our own. I mean the Russian Revolution was based in large part on an insurgent peasantry in an area lacking in communications with strong communal traditions (the village commune) and folklore that provided some ideological basis for the revolution. What positive lessons can we draw from it? But yeah being a bit au fait with it from the point of view of criticising Leninism is worth it. There was also a pretty significant 'objective conditions' basis to the degeneracy of both the Spanish and Russian revolutions.
The changes in circumstances are an argument against aligning with any particular tradition (Bolshevism, anarcho-syndicalism, council communism) - it's not sufficient though, we need to also understand the failures they made at the time. And this doesn't come down only to 'material conditions' - even if everyone agrees that simply a better group/some bettter ideas wouldn't have led to success, it's important to look at what those groups did to contribute to the failures - some more than others of course.
Sep 23 2007 14:54
#16
Quote:
"Considering how many people identify with particular factions in Spain and Russia this seems a bit moot doesn't it"
Maybe. I just figure it is 2007 in a very different society pretty much sums it up. Like I reckon people would treat a proposal to revive the whiteboys, the levellers or piracy that way, and the contemporary groups who claim this or that heritage are actually the contemporary groups not their apparent heritage!
I also think one could potentially make a far more relevant and cutting critique of Leninism by looking at the actual practise of more recent groups when faced by stuff we actually have to face, and without the 14 imperialist armies get out clause (the book 'Revolution in the Air' - which is actually very sympathetic to Leninism-Maoism in 70s U.S., is also, by necessity of just repeating what happened, damning).
Quote:
"The changes in circumstances are an argument against aligning with any particular tradition (Bolshevism, anarcho-syndicalism, council communism) - it's not sufficient though, we need to also understand the failures they made at the time."
Yeah I don't majorly disagree with you, question of emphasis really. Like when people are trading a particular strategy or form of organisation or whatever as the be all and end all based on something that happened 80 to 100 years ago it is no harm to be able to say well actually y'know it was not necessarily that hot. A good counter-point to excessivly idealised version of history or an overweaning focus on history, but by the same token I wouldn't reject something cause it had particular problems in a particular instance removed from our own circumstance. Different matter when it is generally crap. Syndicalism for instance was very good at somethings, perhaps still is, Leninism was generally crap and is generally crap.
Quote:
"Bolshevism was a part of social democracy, you can't counterpose the two."
No it may have shared certain standpoints and been born from similar roots, but the parliamentary-reformist social democracy and the insurgent Bolshevism
were quite different and certainly by 1945, if not by 1936, and totally by 1968, the Communist Parties resembled social democracy more than Bolshevism, they didn't attempt to overthrow the existing capitalist states for instance. A quite different practise, for instance if the French CP behaved like Bolshevism, or at least the Lenin wing of it, in 1968, it would have been looking to push the revolution forward to some degree, and then take over.
Quote:
"Well that omission of "large slices" is part of the reason we've been working on the revolutionary wave and russian revolution reatures (and there'll be more, these are just to get started) - precisely to highlight those aspects and events so often ignored (by both Leninists and Anarchists in large part)."
Yeah there is no harm in something like that, you'll have read a couple of articles of mine on historical topics, it is good to know this history, but you have to recognise real limitations in how much knowledge is possible - and it follows from this, as well as from changing circumstance, that for an input into strategy it isn't suitable (not that it isn't good to know a bit). Number one the historical record is limited, of that how much has been translated, of that how much does anyone have time to read. You can't have experience of it, or chat to someone who has. Most of the people involved left no record whatsoever, it was after all for the most part a pre-literate society, soon submerged by a totalitarian dictatorship. Just as an example contemporary left or council communist material was slating Bolshevism for maintaining private property in the rural areas, yet where land was taken over it was taken over by villages(can't remember the author). Leninism similarily proffers a non-anaylsis of an almost non-existant class division among the peasantry. On the other hand I could be wrong of this - but supposing I am, how are we gonna come to a conclusion. It is isn't at all like discussing what we are familiar with, or what there is a big record for, or what we can chat to other people who are familiar with it about. Don't take your books down the nearest charity shop, that ain't what I'm saying, just that the history of 80 to 100 years ago (in an almost pre-modern society as well) doesn't provide us with the basis for a strategy for the future. But I don't think you are arguing that, so we are in the same chapter, if not the same page. It is good to keep a memory going of what has happened though.
Personally I think, as you say above, a focus on the West in the post WW 2 period is most apt, and maybe on smaller and less dramatic things!
Quote:
"And this doesn't come down only to 'material conditions' "
This is where I really disagree with you I think. The CNT-FAI didn't have much options in my reckoning. My limited knowledge of the movement, which I'm hoping to improve upon, would suggest they could have improved organisationally before 1936, but once the war got started, with hindsight, they were in a situation with limited options. We are not in a similar situation though, so my criticism of anarcho-syndicalism in its contemporary guise wouldn't hinge on that at all, not saying that yours necessarily does. AFAIK anarcho-syndicalism and revolutionary syndicalism was the highpoint of the classical workers movement, which I don't think should be forgotten, and I think its failings are overstated, but that means nothing to any project to re-create it in the English speaking world in the 21st centuary. Anything bearing its name will not and, with some things perhaps should not, really be the same. Also the most successful libertarian left movement ever in Europe.
Sep 23 2007 16:26
#17
Quote:
I've heard this argument about the FoD simply restating a CNT decision before but the rather obvious problem with it is that the FoD themselves not only seemed to be unaware of this but actually denied it in presenting their program as a 'slight variation'.
That's simply false. They said it was a "slight variation" of *anarchism*, not of a CNT program.
Quote:
It's seems extraordinary if this was the case that they didn't make the very different argument of 'this is what we agreed, why don't we implement it'. This impression is further re-enforced as they spend a good bit of the pamphlet saying the CNT had lyricism a plenty but no program rather than 'we had a program but we never implemented it'.
I have additional reasons for saying what I did. Two of the main founders of FoD were Liberto Callejas and Jaime Balius. Jaime Balius is the main author of the pamphlet you're quoting. When the CNT adopted the program of regional and national defense councils at the Sept 3, 1936 conference, the two big daily papers, Solidaridad Obrera in Barcelona and Castilla Libre in Madrid, made a huge campaign around this. Liberto Callejas was at that time managing editor of Solidaridad Obrera, and Jaime Balius was a main editorial writer during that period. When the CNT flipped in its position and joined the Popular Front government in November, Callejas and Balius were fired by the regional committee of the CNT of Catalonia because they refused to go along.
Now, you're suggesting that this obviously strong support by Callejas and Balius for the defense council program, to the point they were willing to be fired over it, had nothing to do with FoD's advocacy of it, even tho Callejas and Balius were important initiators in the formation of FoD in March 1937, only a few months later. That is NOT plausible.
Why should their pamphlet have been focused on the internal affairs of the CNT? Moreover, you fail to consider that the pamphlet was trying to explain the decision of July 1936. When they talk about failing to have a program, it's true they failed to have a concrete program of what to do in July, which is the period the pamphlet is discussing. After six weeks of debate in the union, they finally came up with a program, but one which obviously not everyone was committed to....hence the flip-flopping.
Plus, the managing editor of Castilla Libre in Madrid, Edurardo de Guzman, also defended the defense council proposal. He still defended it in an interview conducted with him by Ron Fraser in the 1970s, which is reproduced in "Blood of Spain." So, you ask, are there still CNT people around who defended that proram later? The interview with de Guzman shows that there were still people defending the program as of the 1970s. And de Guzman was not a member of FoD, which was a FAI group in Catalonia.
You're simply showing your ignorance. Terry suggests it is a mere coincidence that the language of the FoD pamphlet was similar to that of the CNT program. He appears to be unaware of the history of two of the main intellectual founders, Callejas and Balius, which i have pointed out above. If they were furiously defending that program in the pages of Solidaridad Obrera in Sept 1936, it is no "coincidence" that they defended it in the program of FoD. And if they believed that abandoning that program was a mistake, it makes perfect sense that they would use the same language, because they were essentially part of a certain political tendency in the CNT, and trying to move the CNT in the direction that tendency wanted. That tendency was not limited to them, as the case of Eduardo de Guzman shows.
Durruti was also part of the tendency pushing for the National Defense Council. This is another connection between FoD and that program. I would suggest reading the relevant parts of Abel Paz's recent biography of Durruti. In Sept. Durruti strongly backed the implementing of the defense council program in Aragon, the only region where they carried it out. And in a quote from Durruti in that biography he says that implementing it in the regions where they can is a way to pressure Caballero and the UGT to go along with the National Defense Council proposal. FoD is named after Durruti. But you guys are suggesting that FoD's advocacy of the national defense council is merely an accidental agreement with the Sept 3 program, a merely accidental agreement with what Durruti was trying to do in September. That is NOT plausible.
I say that the CNT of Catalonia was "seemingly" incoherent because it made contradictory decisions. That gives an *appearance* of incoherence. I'm suggesting that it is likely that, rather than the same person being incohrent, flip flopping, the most likely explanation is that there were competing political tendencies in the CNT of Catalonia, competing ideas about direction, and that one tendency was dominant at the time of the Sept 3 national conference, and a different tendency ended up on top a few weeks later when they agreed to join the Generalitat government, on Sept 26.
Sep 23 2007 17:16
#18
Quote:
"But you guys are suggesting that FoD's advocacy of the national defense council is merely an accidental agreement with the Sept 3 program, a merely accidental agreement with what Durruti was trying to do in September."
Not really I'm more asking. I havn't read the September 3rd program, has it been translated anywhere? I have read 'Towards a Fresh Revolution' and understand what is meant by 'national defence council' there, but I don't know what is meant by it in the September 3rd proposal. Which one is the recent biography, 'In the Spanish Revolution', or 'The People armed'.
Sep 23 2007 18:50
#19
The CNT's Sept 3 1936 proposal for replacing the Republican government with a joint UGT-CNT National Defense Council is discussed in Los anarquistas y el poder, by Cesar Lorenzo. It is also discussed by Eduardo de Guzman in "Blood of Spain". And it is discussed in Abel Paz's 800 page English language biography of Durruti, recently published by AK Press. The proposal wasn't only for a National Defense Council but for regional defense councils. When the FoD talk about the CNT taking power in Catalonia, they are talking about a regional defense council. People sometimes get confused about this distinction. The word "council" here is a translation of the Spanish word "junta". That's why it was also referred to as a "revolutionary junta." You can see more clearly what they had in mind by looking at what happened in Aragon where they did in fact set up a regional defense council. The setting up of that council in Aragon is discussed in both the Durruti biography as well as "Blood of Spain." The council in Aragon was set up at a regional congress of delegates from the collectivized villages in Sept, following the adoption by the CNT of the defense council program on Sept 3.
The defense council program was gradually watered down under two forms of pressure, from the treintistas within the CNT, and other moderates, and from the opposition of the UGT outside. Given the opposition of the UGT, there were different views in the CNT about how to respond. The traintistas, especially the treintista national secretary, Horacio Prieto, were opposed to the national defense council proposal as "unrealistic" and wanted to basically capitulate to the Popular Front. They were for being a part of the Popular Front. The opposite view about how to respond is articulated by Durruti, as shown by an important quote in the Paz biography. In that quote, it is clear that Durruti sees the taking power in the regions as a pressure tactic to force the agreement of the UGT left socialists to the setting up of the National Defense Council.
Given the lack of unity in the CNT around the defense council program, the commitment to that program didn't stick. One of the explanations for the lack of commitment to that program is that it had not been discussed broadly in the union before July 19th, and so there wasn't a widespread agreement on it as the result of past debates and agreements and so on. The defense council proposal had not been discussed at the national congress at Zaragoza in May and had been adopted Sept 3 as a modification to the CNT's program, under pressure from the revolutionaries in the CNT, especially people concerned about the threat of the Communist program for rebuilding the conventional hierarchical army and police forces to replace the militia. People in the CNT associated with the militia effort, like Garcia Oliver and Durruti, were aware that lack of coordination between the various union and party militias was the main defect of the militia system and that this weakness would play into the hands of the Communists. Hence their concern that the CNT have an alternative program for a unified "People's Militia", a revolutionary army, to replace the uncoordinated militias.
Sep 23 2007 21:55
#20
JH wrote:
JoeBlack2 wrote:
Now I'm still inclined to think that the anarcho-syndicalist experience includes some of the high points of anarchism but to present it as some coherent whole to be contrasted and defended against other schools of anarchist thought just doesn't work out any better than those who do the same with Trotskyism v Stalinism.I'd agree with this.
Yep. I don't see anarcho-syndicalism as mutually exclusive to libertarian communism, anarcho communism etc and those who do are frankly missing the wood for the trees. Ditto those who see IWW's praxis as a dichotomy of Solfed's etc etc.
JB2 - heard about the Mexico City syndicalists fighting Zapata before, but out of curiosity, to what extent were they revolutionary? I always heard them referred to as syndicalist and understood the reasoning behind them supporting Caranza being their staunch Catholicism. Don't interpret that as an attempted apology, more an attempt to understand events in context.
Sep 23 2007 22:25
#21
Alan wrote:
JB2 - heard about the Mexico City syndicalists fighting Zapata before, but out of curiosity, to what extent were they revolutionary? I always heard them referred to as syndicalist and understood the reasoning behind them supporting Caranza being their staunch Catholicism. Don't interpret that as an attempted apology, more an attempt to understand events in context.
Actually I thought it was the other way round - that they regarded Zapata's followers as a kind of reactionary and religious peasant movement. I'm not too sure of the history though. It probably also reflected a racial and cultural divide between the mestizos and whites in the cities and and the indians in the countryside.
Sep 23 2007 23:35
#22
I think its can all be blamed on the tequilla dominating the southern movement, while in the north Marijuana was the poison of choice...
Sep 23 2007 23:37
#23
An account of Mexican syndicalism here; http://libcom.org/library/revolutionary-syndicalism-mexico-john-m-hart
Sep 24 2007 00:02
#24
JH wrote:
Alan wrote:
JB2 - heard about the Mexico City syndicalists fighting Zapata before, but out of curiosity, to what extent were they revolutionary? I always heard them referred to as syndicalist and understood the reasoning behind them supporting Caranza being their staunch Catholicism. Don't interpret that as an attempted apology, more an attempt to understand events in context.Actually I thought it was the other way round - that they regarded Zapata's followers as a kind of reactionary and religious peasant movement. I'm not too sure of the history though. It probably also reflected a racial and cultural divide between the mestizos and whites in the cities and and the indians in the countryside.
Fuck yeah that was it, I read that pamphlet (that I think is referenced in the WSM article) years back (ok about 3 years ago). You could be right about the cultural divide...it was (and still is) a pretty racist society.
Sep 24 2007 00:03
#25
rebelworker wrote:
I think its can all be blamed on the tequilla dominating the southern movement, while in the north Marijuana was the poison of choice...
Bro, tequila's from a town called Tequila in Jalisco, near Guadalajara. Which is northern central Mexico. And everyone knows that everyone smoked weed and peyote was the opium of the indigenous masses. 
EDIT: Just read (most of) the WSM article on the Casa del Obrera Mundial. They do seem like anarcho-syndicalists, apologies for my ignorance. I'm currently taking a course on the Mexican Revolution and we're just getting up to 1910. I wouldn't mind a discussion thread about Zapata personally: to what extent can he be understood as anarchistic?