No sophistry will delete from the annals of history the fact that anarchism and Stalinism were on one side of the barricades while the working masses with the revolutionary Marxists were on the other.
Christ, I didn't realise he had said that. One of the major things we have to accept with Trotsky's analysis in those years is the fact his tendency had 15-30 members in the whole of Spain, and they were feeding him with details about events. It's obviously going to be heavily biased against those who did not conform to his ideology. It's also quite a hypocritical thing to say, considering some of the stuff he did during the Russian civil war.
Also, this is a good thing to read: http://www.infoshop.org/faq/append32.html#app2
"How accurate is Felix Morrow's book on the Spanish Revolution?"
""Only the small forces of the Bolshevik-Leninists. . . clearly pointed the road for the workers."
So 20 people in the whole of Spain were endowed with superior knowledge, and only they "pointed" the road. It's ridiculous.
Good film on the other night, thanks to everyone who came. Anyone who wants to continue any of the discussions we had afterwards feel free to do it here.
I'm particularly interested in discussion on the articles Pat brought along from Morrow and Trotsky, and the implied Marxist criticism of anarchism within them. I think as criticisms of the official line of the CNT they are very good, the basic message being that the working class should have taken power in the areas that it controlled, rather than collaborating with the bourgeoisie in the name of 'anti-fascist unity', a unity which was predictably abandoned by the capitalists and Stalinists as soon as they had become strong enough. I very much agree with these sentiments, indeed they are part of the reason I no longer participate in the local 'unite against fascism' group - it would have been good if the discussion could have touched on this point, which I see as the most relevant area for us to learn lessons from the events of 30s Spain.
I do however think that Trotsky and Morrow's indictment of anarchism rests on a rather disingenuous circular argument. There were many anarchist elements, most of which were tendencies within the CNT itself, which did put the revolution first, were against class collaboration and wanted the working class to take power in any part of Spain where this was possible. It seems to me, therefore, that the CNT's errors were not down to some kind of inevitable failing of anarchism but rather that different strands of anarchism behaved in different ways, (just as people claiming to be 'Marxists' were to be found on both sides of the barricades in May '37) and it is perfectly possible for anarchists to learn from these events and argue against the same mistakes in the future whilst still remaining anarchists. The Trotskyist argument appears to be that any anarchists who came to the 'correct' conclusions (such as the Friends of Durruti and Libertarian Youth) were 'semi-Bolshevik' (Morrow) or non-existent (Trotsky completely ignores them). So anyone they agree with is a Bolshevik (even if they think they are anarcho-syndicalists) and anyone they disagree with is an anarchist, therefore anarchists are always wrong!
I find this quote particularly distasteful considering the number of anarchist workers who were killed fighting the 'popular front' government.
That said the normal anarchist response that any mistakes constituted nothing more than the betrayals of a few CNT 'leaders' rather than any wooly thinking among Spanish anarchists as a whole is also a cop out, and these texts are important reading for anarchists in my opinion.