Industrial collectivisation during the Spanish revolution - Deirdre Hogan

Interesting article by Deirdre Hogan about the collectivisation and worker control of industry in revolutionary Spain during the civil war.

Submitted by libcom on December 13, 2005

Although it was in the countryside where the most far-reaching
anarchist socialisation took place, the revolution took place in the
cities and the towns too. At that time in Spain almost 2 million out
of a total population of 24 million worked in industry, 70% of which
was concentrated in one area - Catalonia. There, within hours of the
fascist assault, workers had seized control of 3000 enterprises. This
included all public transportation services, shipping, electric and
power companies, gas and water works, engineering and automobile
assembly plants, mines, cement works, textile mills and paper
factories, electrical and chemical concerns, glass bottle factories
and perfumeries, food processing plants and breweries.

It was in the industrial areas that some of the first
collectivisations took place. On the eve of the military uprising a
general strike was called by the CNT. However once the initial period
of fighting was over it was clear that the next vital step was to
ensure the continuation of production. Many of the bourgeoisie
sympathetic to Franco fled after the defeat of the insurgent armed
forces. The factories and workshops owned by these were immediately
seized and run by the workers. Other sections of the bourgeoisie were
reluctant to keep the factories going and by closing them attempted
to indirectly contribute to Franco's cause. Closing factories and
workshops would also lead to higher unemployment and increasing
poverty, which would play into the enemy's hands. "The workers
understood this instinctively, and established in almost all
workshops, control committees, which had as their aim to keep a watch
on the progress in production, and to keep a check on the financial
position of the owner of each establishment. In numerous cases,
control was quickly passed from the control committee, to the
directive committee, in which the employer was drawn in with the
workers and paid the same wage. A number of factories and workshops
in Catalonia passed in this way into the hands of the workers who
were engaged in them."[1]

Also of the utmost importance was to create, without delay, a war
industry in order to supply the front and to get the transport system
moving again so that the militias and supplies could be sent to the
front. Thus, the first expropriations of industries and public
services took place in order to insure victory over fascism, with
anarchist militants taking advantage of the situation to push
immediately for revolutionary goals.

The role of the CNT

The social revolution can be best understood in the context of the
relatively long history in Spain of workers' organisation and social
struggle. The CNT, which was the major driving force of the
collectivisations, had been in existence since 1910 and had 1.5
million members by 1936. The anarchist syndicalist movement had
existed in Spain since 1870 and, from its birth to the (partial)
realisation of its ultimate ideal during the social revolution, had a
history of constant engagement in intense social struggle - "Partial
and general strikes, sabotage, public demonstrations, meetings,
struggle against strikebreakers.., imprisonment, transportation,
trials, uprisings, lock-outs, some attentats"[2]

Anarchist ideas were widespread by 1936. The circulation of
anarchist publications at that time gives us some idea of this: there
were two anarchist dailies, one in Barcelona, one in Madrid, both
organs of the CNT with an average circulation of between 30 and 50
thousand. There were about 10 periodicals, in addition to various
anarchist reviews with circulations of up to 70,000. In all the
anarchist papers, pamphlets and books, as well as in their trade
union and group meetings, the problem of the social revolution was
continuously and systematically discussed. Thus, the radical nature
of the Spanish working class, politicised through struggle and
confrontation, as well as the influence of anarchist ideas meant that
in a revolutionary situation anarchists were able to obtain mass
popular support.

The CNT had a very strong democratic tradition at its core.
Decisions on all local and immediate matters such as wages and
conditions were in the hands of the local membership who met
regularly in general assembly. Mutual aid and solidarity between
workers was encouraged and posed as the central way of winning
strikes. The CNT organised all workers irrespective of skill. In
other words, workers were encouraged to form one general union with
sections based on a particular industry rather than separate unions
for each different job within an industry. Both the democratic
tradition and the industrial nature of the trade union greatly
influenced the structures of the revolutionary collectives, which
generally, grew out of and were shaped by the industrial unions
already in place.

Another important aspect of the CNT that accounted for the
strength of the revolution was its use of direct action. "The CNT had
always advocated 'direct action by workers themselves' as a means of
solving disputes. This policy encouraged self-reliance and
self-confidence within the union and membership - there was a
prevailing culture of 'if we want something sorted out, we have to do
it ourselves'."[3] Finally the federal structure of the CNT which was
based on local autonomy and which created a stable but highly
decentralised form also encouraged self-reliance and initiative,
indispensable qualities which greatly contributed to the success of
the revolution.

Gaston Leval highlights the importance that this culture of direct
democracy and self-reliance has when it comes to a revolutionary
situation when he compares the role of the CNT with that of the UGT
in the collectivisation of the railways. Describing the highly
organised, efficient and responsible manner in which the railway
industry was put back into action under revolutionary control in only
a few days he writes "All this had been achieved on the sole
initiative of the Syndicate and militants of the CNT Those of the UGT
in which the administrative personnel predominated had remained
passive, used to carrying out orders coming from above, they waited.
When neither orders nor counterorders came, and our comrades forged
ahead, they simply followed the powerful tide which carried most of
them along with it."[4]

This history of struggle and organisation and the
anarcho-syndicalist nature of their union gave the CNT militants the
necessary experience of self-organisation and initiative which could
then be put to use naturally and effectively in the reorganisation of
society along anarchist lines when the time came. "It is clear, the
social revolution which took place then did not stem from a decision
by the leading organisms of the CNT... It occurred spontaneously,
naturally, not ...because "the people" in general had suddenly become
capable of performing miracles, thanks to a revolutionary vision
which suddenly inspired them, but because, and it is worth repeating,
among those people there was a large minority, who were active,
strong, guided by an ideal which had been continuing though the years
of struggle started in Bakunin's time and that of the First
International." [5]

Anarchist democracy in action in the collectives

The collectives were based on the workers self-management of their
workplaces. Augustin Souchy writes: "The collectives organised during
the Spanish Civil War were workers' economic associations without
private property. The fact that collective plants were managed by
those who worked in them did not mean that these establishments
became their private property. The collective had no right to sell or
rent all or any part of the collectivised factory or workshop, The
rightful custodian was the CNT, the National Confederation of Workers
Associations. But not even the CNT had the right to do as it pleased.
Everything had to be decided and ratified by the workers themselves
through conferences and congresses." [6]

In keeping with the democratic tradition of the CNT the industrial
collectives had a bottom up delegate structure of organisation. The
basic unit of decision-making was the workers' assembly, which in
turn elected delegates to management committees who would oversee the
day-to-day running of the factory. These elected management
committees were charged with carrying out the mandate decided at
these assemblies and had to report back to and were accountable to
the assembly of workers. The management committees also communicated
their observations to the centralised administrative committee.

Generally, each industry had a centralised administrative
committee made up of a delegate from each branch of work and workers
in that industry. For example, in the textile industry in Alcoy there
were 5 general branches of work: weaving, thread making, knitting,
hosiery and carding. The workers from each of these specialised areas
elected a delegate to represent them in the industry-wide
administrative committee. The role of this committee, which also
contained some technical experts, included directing production
according to the instructions received at the general assemblies of
workers, compiling reports and statistics on the progress of work and
dealing with issues of finances and co-ordination. In the words of
Gaston Leval "The general organisation rests therefore on the one
hand on the division of labour and on the other on the synthetic
industrial structure."[7]

At all stages, the general assembly of Syndicate workers was the
ultimate decision making body. "all important decisions [being] taken
by the general assemblies of the workers, . . . [which] were widely
attended and regularly held. . . if an administrator did something
which the general assembly had not authorised, he was likely to be
deposed at the next meeting."[8] Reports by the various committees
would be examined and discussed at the general assemblies and finally
introduced if the majority thought it of use. "We are not therefore
facing an administrative dictatorship, but rather a functional
democracy, in which all specialised works play their roles which have
been settled after general examination by the assembly."[9]

Advancing along the road of Revolution

The stage of industry-wide socialisation did not occur overnight
but was a gradual and ongoing process. Nor did the industrial
collectives proceed in the same manner everywhere, the degree of
socialisation and the exact method of organisation varying from place
to place. As mentioned in the introduction, while some work places
were immediately seized by the workers, in others they gained control
of their workplaces by first creating a control committee which was
there to ensure the continuation of production. From this the next
natural step was the take over the workplace entirely by the workers.

Initially, when the continuation of production was the most
pressing task, there was little formal co-ordination between
different workshops and factories. This lack of co-ordination caused
many problems as Leval points out: "Local industries went through
stages almost universally adopted in that revolution . . . [I]n the
first instance, committees nominated by the workers employed in them
[were organised]. Production and sales continued in each one. But
very soon it was clear that this situation gave rise to competition
between the factories. . . creating rivalries which were incompatible
with the socialist and libertarian outlook. So the CNT launched the
watchword: 'All industries must be ramified in the Syndicates,
completely socialised, and the regime of solidarity which we have
always advocated be established once and for all."[10]

The need to remedy this situation - where although the workers had
gained control of the workplaces the different workplaces often
operated independently and in competition with each other - and to
complete the socialisation process and so avoid the dangers of only
partial collectivisation was a task of which many workers were keenly
aware. A manifesto of the Syndicate of the wood industry published in
December 1936 stresses that the lack of coordination and solidarity
between workers in different factories and industries would lead to a
situation where workers in more favoured and successful industries
would become the new privileged, leaving those without resources to
their difficulties, which in turn would lead to the creation of two
classes: "the new rich and ever poor, poor."[11]

To this effect increasing efforts were made by the collectives not
to compete with each other for profits but instead to share the
surpluses across whole industries. So for example the Barcelona
tramways, which was particularly successful, contributed financially
to the development of the other transport systems in Barcelona and
helped them out of temporary difficulties. There were many cases of
solidarity across industries too. In Alcoy, for example, when the
printing, paper and cardboard Syndicate was experiencing difficulties
the 16 other Syndicates that made up the local Federation in Alcoy
gave financial assistance that enabled the printing Syndicate to

However as well as bringing an anarchist society a step closer it
was also a question of efficient industrial organisation. In the
manifesto published by the wood industry Syndicate it was stated "The
Wood Syndicate has wanted to advance not only along the road of the
Revolution, but also to orientate this Revolution in the interests of
our economy, of the people's economy."[12] In December 1936 a plenum
of syndicates met and made analyses on the need to completely
reorganise the inefficient capitalist industrial system and press
onward towards complete socialisation. The report of the plenum

"The major defect of most small manufacturing shops is
fragmentation and lack of technical/commercial preparation. This
prevents their modernisation and consolidation into better and more
efficient units of production, with better facilities and
coordination. . . . For us, socialisation must correct these
deficiencies and systems of organisation in every industry. . . . To
socialise an industry, we must consolidate the different units of
each branch of industry in accordance with a general and organic plan
which will avoid competition and other difficulties impeding the good
and efficient organisation of production and distribution. . ."[13]

The effort made to do away with the smaller, unhealthy and costly
workshops and factories was an important characteristic of the
industrial collectivisation process. As was the case with land
cultivation, it was felt that with the running of workshops and
factories" the dispersal of forces represented an enormous loss of
energy, an irrational use of human labour, machinery and raw
materials, a useless duplication of efforts."[14] For example, in the
town of Granollers "All kinds of initiatives tending to improve the
operation and structure of the local economy could be attributed
to...[the Syndicate]. Thus in a very short time, seven collectivised
hairdressing salons were set up through its efforts, replacing an
unknown number of shabby establishments. All the workshops and
mini-factories on shoe production were replaced by one large factory
in which only the best machines were used, and where necessary
sanitary provisions for the health of the workers were made. Similar
improvements were made in the engineering industry where numerous
small, dark and stifling foundries were replaced by a few large
working units in which air and sun were free to penetrate...
Socialisation went hand in hand with rationalisation."[15]

The creative drive unleashed

The Barcelona Tramways

As was the case with the collectives in the countryside, workers
self-management in the cities was associated with remarkable
improvements in working conditions, productivity and efficiency. Take
for example the achievements of the Barcelona tramways. Just five
days after the fighting had stopped, the tramways lines had been
cleared and repaired and seven hundred tramcars, which was a hundred
more than the usual six hundred, appeared on the road, all painted
diagonally across the side in the red and black colours of the C.N.T.
- F.A.I. The technical organisation of the tramways and the traffic
operation was greatly improved, new safety and signalling systems
were introduced and the tramway lines were straightened. One of the
first measures of the collectivisation of the tramways had been the
discharge of the excessively paid company executives and this then
enabled the collective to reduce the fares for passengers. Wages
approached basic equality with skilled workers earning 1 peseta more
a day than labourers. Working conditions were greatly improved with
better facilities supplied to the workers and a new free medical
service was organised which served not only the Tramway workers but
their families as well.

The Socialisation of Medicine

The socialisation of medicine was another outstanding achievement
of the revolution. After July 19 the religious personnel who had been
administering the sanitary services disappeared overnight from the
hospitals, the dispensaries and other charitable institutions, making
it necessary for new methods of organisation to be improvised
immediately. To this effect the Syndicate for Sanitary Services was
constituted in Barcelona in September 1936 and within a few months
had 7000 skilled medical professional members, over 1000 of which
were doctors with different specialities. Inspired by a great social
ideal the aim of the Syndicate was to fundamentally reorganise the
whole practice of medicine and of the Public Health Services. This
Syndicate was part of the National Federation for Public Health, a
section of the C.N.T. which by 1937 had 40,000 members.

The region of Catalonia was divided up into 35 centres of greater
or lesser importance, depending on population density, in such a way
that no village or hamlet was without sanitary protection or medical
care. In one year, in Barcelona alone, six new hospitals had been
created, including two military hospitals for war causalities as well
as nine new sanatoria established in expropriated properties located
in different parts of Catalonia. Whereas before the revolution
doctors were concentrated in rich areas, they were now sent where
they were needed most.

Factories and workshops...

In the factories, too, great innovations were made. Many
workplaces, once in control of the workers, were converted to the
production of war materials for the anti-fascist troops. This was the
case of the metal industry in Catalonia which was completely rebuilt.
Only a few days after July 19th, for example, the Hispano-Suiza
Automobile Company was converted to the manufacture of armoured cars,
ambulances, weapons, and munitions for the fighting front. Another
example is the optical industry which was virtually non-existent
before the revolution. The small scattered workshops that had existed
before were voluntarily converted into a collective which constructed
a new factory. "In a short time the factory turned out opera glasses,
telemeters, binoculars, surveying instruments, industrial glassware
in different colours, and certain scientific instruments. It also
manufactured and repaired optical equipment for the fighting fronts.
. . .What private capitalists failed to do was accomplished by the
creative capacity of the members of the Optical Workers' Union of the

A good example of the scale of some of the industrial collectives
is the textile industry which functioned efficiently and employed
"almost a quarter of a million textile workers in scores of factories
scattered in numerous cities... The collectivisation of the textile
industry shatters once and for all the legend that the workers are
incapable of administrating a great and complex corporation." [17]

One of the first steps towards building an anarchist society is
the equalisation of wages. This is necessary in order to finish the
divisions within the working class, divisions which only serve to
weaken the class as a united whole. In the industrial collectives
often this did not happen immediately and there sometimes existed
relatively small differences in wages between technical and less
specialised workers. Wages were decided by the workers themselves at
the general assemblies of the Syndicates. When wages differences,
between workers with technical responsibilities and those without,
were accepted by the majority of workers this was often seen as a
temporary measure to avoid provoking conflicts at this stage of the
revolution and to ensure at all costs the smooth continuation of
production. Highly paid executive wages, however, were abolished and
ex-bosses given the option of leaving or working as one of the
regular workers, which they often accepted.

With private profit as the main motivating factor in the
organisation of industry gone, industries could be reorganised in a
more efficient and rational manner. For example, there were many
electricity generation stations scattered all around Catalonia which
produced small and insignificant outputs and which, although suited
to private interest, were not in the public interest at all. The
electricity supply system was completely reorganised, with some of
the inefficient stations closed. In the end this meant that the
saving in labour could be used on improvements such as a new barrage
near Flix constructed by 700 workers which resulted in a considerable
increase in the available electricity.

Participation of women in the collectives

One major change brought about during the revolution was the large
scale incorporation of women into the workforce. The CNT began
seriously to push for the unionisation of women workers. In the
textile industry, piecework for women was abolished and homeworkers
incorporated into the factories, which generally meant improvement of
wages and hours worked. The responsibility for childcare and
housework was, however, still left to women and many women found it
difficult to balance their multiple roles. Sometimes childcare was
provided by the collectives. For example, the wood and building
trades union in Barcelona as well as building a recreational area
with a swimming pool, also reconverted a church into a day-care
centre and school for workers' children.

Mujeres Libres, the women's anarchist organisation, organised
secciones de trabajo with responsibilities for specific trades and
industries which cooperated with relevant CNT syndicates. These
secciones de trabajos helped set up childcare centres in factories
and workshops as well as running schools and training pro - grams to
prepare women for work in factories. These training programs helped
women access work which had previously been restricted to men. For
example, one of the first women licensed to drive trams in Barcelona
describes her work there: "They took people on as apprentices,
mechanics, and drivers, and really taught us what to do. If you could
only have seen the faces of the passengers [when women began serving
as drivers], I think the companeros in Transport, who were so kind
and cooperative toward us, really got a kick out of that."[18]

However it is not true to say that women achieved equality with
men in the industrial collectives. Wage differentials between men and
women continued to exist. Also, except for a few exceptional cases,
women were under-represented in the factory committees and other
elected positions within the collectives. The continuation of women's
traditional domestic roles was no doubt one of the factors which
contributed in preventing the more active participation of women in
the collectives and these issues, as well as others that effect women
in particular (such as maternity leave), were not prioritised.
Although large numbers of women entered the workforce during the
revolution, equal participation in the paid workforce was not
achieved and because the anarchosyndicalist vision of social
organisation was based around the workforce, people not in the
industrial collectives were effectively excluded from social and
economic decision making.

Difficulties and Weaknesses


The revolution in the countryside was more advanced than the
collectivisations that took place in the industrial areas. Many of
the agricultural collectives succeeded in reaching a stage of
libertarian communism, operating on the principle "from each
according to ability, to each according to need". Both consumption
and production were socialised. "In them one did not come across
different material standards of life or rewards, no conflicting
interests of more or less separated groups."[19 This was not the case
with the collectivisation in the towns and cities, where aspects of
the capitalist money economy still existed along with a fair
proportion of the bourgeoisie, state institutions and traditional
political parties. Collectivisation was limited to workers'
self-management of their workplaces within the framework of
capitalism, with workers running factories, selling goods and sharing
the profits. This led Gaston Leval to describe the industrial
collectives as a sort of "a workers' neocapitalism, 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."[20]

What happened...?

The revolution, however, was unable to extend itself due mainly to
the fact that while the rank and file seized control of the factories
and pursued the work of socialisation, there was a failure to
consolidate these gains politically. Instead of abolishing the state
at the outbreak of the revolution, when it had lost all credibility
and existed only in name, the state was allowed to continue to exist,
with the class collaboration of the C.N.T leadership (in the name of
antifascist unity) lending it legitimacy. Thus, there existed a
period of dual power, where the workers had a large element of
control in the factories and streets but where the state was slowly
able to rebuild its power base until it could move against the
revolution and take power back. The economic shortcomings of the
revolution: the fact that the financial system was not socialised,
that collectivisation lacked unity on a national level, that the
industrial collectives did not go further than, at best,
co-ordination at the level of industry, is inextricably linked to
this major political mistake and betrayal of anarchist principles.

In order to achieve libertarian communism with production based on
need and communal ownership of means of production as well as of what
is produced it was necessary to replace the entire capitalist
financial system with an alternative socialised economy based on
federative unity of the entire workforce, and a means of making
collective decisions for the entire economy. This required the
setting up of workers congresses and a federal coordinating structure
which would unify collectives all over the country and allow for
effective coordination and planning for the economy as a whole. This
new system of economic and political organisation must replace the
government and capitalist market economy. As Kropotkin said, "a new
form of economic organisation will necessarily require a new form of
political structure." [21] However, as long as the capitalist
political structure - state power - remained, the new economic
organisation could not develop and full coordination of the economy
was held back.

Counter Revolution

The industrial collectives were hindered from advancing in the
same manner as the agricultural collectives "as a consequence of
contradictory factors and of opposition created by the coexistence of
social currents emanating from different social classes."[22] In the
industrial town of Alcoy, for example, where the Syndicates had
immediately gained control of all industries without exception, the
organisation of production was excellent. However Leval points out:
"the weak point was, as in other places, the organisation for
distribution. Without the opposition of tradesmen and the political
parties, all alarmed by the threat of complete socialisation, who
combated this "too revolutionary" programme, it would have been
possible to do to better... For the socialist, republican and
communist politicians actively sought to prevent our success, even to
restoring the old order or maintaining what was left of it."[23] The
counter-revolutionary forces were able to unite in their opposition
to the revolutionary changes taking place in Spain and use the power
of the state to attack the collectives. From the start the State
remained in control of certain resources, such as the country's gold
reserves. Through its control of the gold reserves and its monopoly
of credit the Republican state was able to take aspects of the
economy out of the control of the working class and thus undermine
the progress of the revolution.

In order to gain control over the collectives, to minimize their
scope and to oppose moves made by the working class in the direction
of economic unification and overall economic regulation from below,
the Catalan State issued the Collectivisation Decree in October 1936.
The decree which "legalised" the collectives, prevented them from
freely developing into libertarian communism by obliging each
workshop, and each factory to sell that which it produced,
independently. The state attempted to control the collectives through
the decree by creating administrative committees which were
answerable to the Ministry of Economy. The decrees also allowed only
factories of 100 or more workers to be collectivised.

As mentioned earlier, the C.N.T. militants fought against this
system and for greater inter-workplace co-ordination. In their press
and within meetings in their unions and collectives they worked at
convincing their fellow workers of the dangers of partial
collectivisation, of the necessity of keeping the control of
production entirely in their own hands and of eliminating the
workers' bureaucracy which the collectivisation decree attempted to
create. They were partially successful, and the industrial collective
tended towards greater socialisation. However, they suffered from the
increasing difficulty of obtaining raw materials as well as from the
continuing counter-revolutionary attacks. Attempts were made to
sabotage the functioning of the collectives. These included
deliberate disruptions of urban-rural exchanges and the systematic
denial of working capital and raw materials to many collectives, even
war industries, until they agreed to come under state control.

Then in May 1937, street battles broke out as government troops
moved against urban collectives such as the CNT controlled telephone
exchange in Barcelona. In August 1938, all war-related industries
were placed under full government control.

"In all cases where the collectives were undermined, there were
substantial drops in both productivity and morale: a factor which
surely contributed to the final defeat of the Spanish Republic by the
Francoist forces in 1939."[24]


Despite the limitations of the Industrial revolution in Spain, it
demonstrated clearly that the working class are perfectly capable of
running factories, workshops and public services without bosses or
managers dictating to them. It proved that anarchist methods of
organising, with decisions made from the bottom up, can work
effectivly in large scale industry involving the coordination of
thousands of workers across many different cities and towns. The
revolution also gives us a glimpse of the creative and constructive
power of ordinary people once they have some control over their
lives. The Spanish working class not only kept production going
throughout the war but in many cases managed to increase production.
They improved working conditions and created new techniques and
processes in their workplaces. They created, out of nothing, a war
industry without which the war against fascism could not have been
fought. The revolution also showed that without the competition bred
by capitalism, industry can be run in a much more rational manner.
Finally it demonstrated how the organised working class inspired by a
great ideal have the power to transform society.

(1) Gaston Leval, Collectives in Spain,

(2) Gaston Leval, Collectives in the Spanish Revolution,
Freedom Press, 1975, chapter 2, pg54.

(3) Kevin Doyle, The Revolution in Spain,

(4) Gaston Leval, Collectives in the Spanish Revolution,
Freedom Press, 1975, ch 12, pg 254

(5) ibid, chapter 4, pg 80.

(6) Flood et al, Augustin Souchy cited in.. I.8.3,

(7) Gaston Leval, Collectives in the Spanish Revolution,
Freedom Press, 1975, ch 11, pg234.

(8) Robert Alexander cited in the Anarchist FAQ, I.8.3,

(9) Gaston Leval, Collectives in Spain,

(10) Gaston Leval quoted in the anarchist FAQ, I.8.4

(11) From the Manifesto of the CNT Syndicate of the wood
industry, quoted in Collectives in

the Spanish Revolution, Gaston Leval, Freedom Press, 1975, ch
11, pg231.

(12) ibid, ch 11, pg230.

(13)Cited by Souchy, cited in the Anarchist FAQ, section

(14) Gaston Leval, Collectives in the Spanish Revolution,
Freedom Press, 1975, ch 12, pg259

(15) Ibid, ch 13, pg287.

(16) The Anarchist Collectives: Workers' Self-management in
the Spanish Revolution, 1936-

1939, ed. Sam Dolgoff, Free Life Editions, 1974, ch 7.

(17) Augustin Souchy, Collectivization in Catalonia,


(18) Pura Perez Arcos cited by Martha A. Ackelsberg, Free
Women of Spain, anarchism and

the struggle for the emancipation of women, Indiana University
Press, 1991, ch 5, pg 125.

(19) Gaston Leval, Collectives in the Spanish Revolution,
Freedom Press, 1975, ch 11, pg227.

(20) ibid, ch 11, pg 227.

(21) Kropotkin cited in the anarchist FAQ, I.8.14,

(22) Gaston Leval, Collectives in the Spanish Revolution,
Freedom Press, 1975, ch 11, pg227

(23) ibid, ch 11, pg239.

(24) Lucien Van Der Walt, The Collectives in Revolutionary

Edited for spelling by libcom from the Revolt collection.



11 years ago

In reply to by

Submitted by Reddebrek on June 22, 2013

PDF version here