Spanish Civil War and workers democracy
Jun 18 2006 23:40
Link to back up thread:
Jun 19 2006 16:17
#2
With a tiny number of exceptions, collectivisation of agrictulture during the Spanish Civil War was completely voluntary and run on a federal basis, IIRC, hardly the same as War Communism.
Jun 19 2006 17:09
#3
Glad to see the forums back! I was just about to crack and sign up on the temporary one too!
Three separate threads on Spain, so not sure where to post this, but here goes.
For me, the striking difference between the Spanish uprising (which began as proletarian movement) and the Russian Revolution was internationalism.
While the Bolsheviks called for workers in all countries to struggle against their bourgeoisie, the CNT, POUM, etc called on workers to make their government send arms to the "anti-fascist" forces in Spain! It was this action that caused the left-communists of the day to label these organisations as bourgeois and why the Spanish events were the precise reversal of Lenin's famous slogan. It was the transformation of a civil war into an imperialist war.
The formation of co-operatives and "workers control", however democratically managed, does not a proletarian revolution make. Even the BNP encourage "workers co-operatives!
Jun 19 2006 17:17
#4
Is it true that CNT delegates were not revocable as per a councilist model?
Jun 19 2006 19:36
#5
Oliver, last time I suggested that you read things before you accuse people of being liars. Then you wrote:
OliverTwister wrote:
To place the quote about Siedman in its context - afraser said that a book by siedman showed that the cnt's rural policy was the same as the bolsheviks. (I can't find the thread and I don't remember it well, but afraser may have even said "methods of rural control".) Since the 'rural policy' of the bolsheviks involved armed terror squads and the CNT's did not, I don't think there was anything wrong with what i said. Afraser even admitted afterwards that it was a faulty analogy. IF Siedman had claimed that the CNT controlled rural areas through armed terror, then he would be a liar. That's not because he's criticizing the CNT, but because he would knowingly be presenting lies as truth.
This time I would suggest that you read things more carefully. As what afrazer wrote was:
afraser wrote:
If chapters 4-7 of Siedman's Book are correct then, outside the agricultural areas, the CNT set up a system essentially the same as that in the USSR.
Note the subtle use of the preposition 'outside', not 'in' 
.
From 'M Dupont' thread. (http://libcom.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=10255).
To place the quote about Siedman in its context - afraser said that a book by siedman showed that the cnt's rural policy was the same as the bolsheviks. (I can't find the thread and I don't remember it well, but afraser may have even said "methods of rural control".) Since the 'rural policy' of the bolsheviks involved armed terror squads and the CNT's did not, I don't think there was anything wrong with what i said. Afraser even admitted afterwards that it was a faulty analogy. IF Siedman had claimed that the CNT controlled rural areas through armed terror, then he would be a liar. That's not because he's criticizing the CNT, but because he would knowingly be presenting lies as truth.
Then we have the Dupont quote.
I could point out the 1934 revolution which was planned by the CNT as one easy counter-example. Nobody with a passing knowledge of spanish history of the time could take that dupont quote seriously, and the assertion he is making that the revolutionary period [in its entirety!]... proved itself to be against the CNT is easily disprovable.
I'm somewhat familiar with Siedman's book and imagine i'll read it when i get a chance. However that Dupont quote was disgusting and reminds me of the Camatte/Zerzan influenced post-leftists and primitivists who push ideas such as that the IWW, by organizing industrial workers for day to day gains rather than immediate destruction (or "re-wilding"), was stabilizing capitalism and prolonging its life.[/b]