Friends of Durruti

82 posts / 0 new
Last post
Skraeling
Offline
Joined: 7-04-06
Jan 8 2007 07:47
syndicalistcat wrote:
skraeling: "well, one dodgy aspect of Seidman's work is that under Franco productivity levels turned to normal, and workers did not face starvation and death."

actually at least 150,000 people, mainly UGT and CNT members, were executed by the fascists after the end of the civil war, and wages were very low.

my mistake. It is Seidman who is claiming that under Franco productivity levels returned to normal, and hence he claims workers did not face starvation. I can't remember if he says anything on the executions.

s.: "it was a mass organisation, but Seidman argues that most workers joined it because they had to get work after 1936, not cos they wanted to or believed in anarcho-syndicalist ideals."

Quote:
in early 1936 union membership was entirely voluntary and even later workers had the option of joining the UGT. and in the spring of 1936 1.65 million workers belonged to CNT, as a voluntary act. Union growth was often an expression of the revolution, e.g. the 30,000 member CNT health union formed to socialize the health care industry didn't exist before the civil war.

all Seidman is arguing is that workers needed to voluntarily join the CNT (or the UGT) if they wanted to get jobs in certain industries.

Quote:
depends on what you mean. if you mean that being required to do socially useful labor in order to get your share of the social product is "compulsory labor", I don't agree with that language, but I agree that in fact it should be a requirement for able bodied adults to be willing to work. The opposite is to endorse parasitism. And if "anarchism" means the endorsing of the right to be a parasite living off others, then i'm against "anarchism" in that sense.

i'm always wary of either/or arguments, like this one (seemingly). either you require all able bodied adults to work or you endorse parasitism. I think its dangerous to endorse either option. If you require all able bodes adults to work, how are you going to enforce that requirement if people don't work without being authoritarian? And as communism involves voluntarily giving according to one's ability, and receiving according to need (and not to how much work done), then is that parasitism in your opinion?

syndicalistcat's picture
syndicalistcat
Offline
Joined: 2-11-06
Jan 8 2007 08:12

s.: "all Seidman is arguing is that workers needed to voluntarily join the CNT (or the UGT) if they wanted to get jobs in certain industries."

This wasn't true prior to August 1936. Having a union card only became a requirement of a job after the introduction of a rationing system, since your union card was used as the entitlement to participate in the rationing system. Prior to that union membership was not required to have a job.

s.: "If you require all able bodes adults to work, how are you going to enforce that requirement if people don't work without being authoritarian?"

I don't understand you. People get a finite share of the social product. I'd say, if they are able-bodied adults, and not retired, they should be required to earn their share of the social product thru socially useful work. If they don't do so for other than some socially accepted reason, they don't have remuneration or entitlement to consume. This is a question of what the society has democratically established as part of its overall social self-management. How is that "authoritarian"? It doesn't assume any class hierarchy.

s.: "And as communism involves voluntarily giving according to one's ability, and receiving according to need (and not to how much work done), then is that parasitism in your opinion?"

I don't believe a viable economy could be organized on the basis of the principle "from each according to ability, to each according to need," if taken as a universal principle. What is "need"? Does it mean "anything goes"? That isn't a possible basis of a viable society. I can see how we might agree that we'll provide an average entitlement to consume for children, as we don't expect them to work, or for the retired, or for those who are willing to work but for whom we haven't yet found them work to do, til we find them work. And we might carry them as a society. But I don't think it is viable to not have incentives for people to do work for each other, for those who can.

t.

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Jan 8 2007 10:05
Skraeling wrote:
I would like to know if the Amigos called for compulsory work was for ordinary workers or fascists or both. Given the workerism of most CNTistas and faistas, i would say it was for both.

That's quite an assumption, Skraeling. Does anyone know? And do bear in mind that some of your opinion on their "workerism" may well have been shaped by Seidman's selectively chosen quotations in that book to show anarchists wanting to develop the productive forces trying to paint them as Soviet-style communists. I would imagine that being anarchists the reason they would want to increase labour efficiency would be to save time and effort, Seidman never mentions this though.

Quote:
nope, you're misrepresenting Seidman by focussing on one tiny example of his, and making it the centrepiece of his argument in order to make him sound like a complete git. Which is a dishonest method of argument.

Possibly, but my post was meant to be a counterweight to yours. His book on the other hand does what you accuse me of, though, for about 200 pages, by focussing on a couple of things, looking for examples of these negative things and only using them, never using any counter examples (for example the free rents, the libertarian communist areas, the free distribution of goods which weren't scarce, etc.), using quotes selectively out of context, etc.

Quote:
Seidman produces heaps of evidence from the committee books of collectives. The evidence is that workers informally resisted the CNTs and UGTs imposition of work, through theft, sabotage, go slows, pulling sickies, socialising rather than working, and so on. And the CNT militants attempted to overcome this resistance by calls for more work, more sacrifice.

No, he produces evidence that some workers did this. It could well have been the case that the vast majority of workers wanted shirking to stop so as they wouldn't all be butchered following a fascist victory. The reason CNT militants' calls for more work may be recorded more than this is that they were in an organisation which is documented.

I don't recall instances of sabotage or go-slows from the book (I read a borrowed copy quickly while on holiday), where abouts are they? As for sickies and socialising, that will always happen I think. It is also very telling that in this ultra-militant workforce which struck constantly beforehand, there was not one single strike, was there?

Quote:
And this happened in lots of different workplaces, not just one. And of course the CNT militants viewed this resistance as fascist, and dismissed it as the work of fascist sympathesisers.

How do you know it wasn't?

Quote:
edit: John you continually say that piecework was only introduced in one workplace. So i go into Seidman's book, and quickly find one paragraph on p. 136 saying that piecework was introduced in the Tailoring collective F. Vehils Vadal in Feb 1937, Casa Alemany collective in Oct. 1937 and in May 1938 for the railroad workers.

Were the others CNT run? Another thing he constantly does is conflate the actions of the CNT, UGT, and socialist groups. And was piecework voted for by the workers in those places? (If they were CNT-run it must've been)

John wrote:
I'd also be very wary of overly rosy pictures of anarcho-syndicalism and workers self-management. After all, i think workers self-management is an ambigious term, and can be interpreted as the self-management of capital.

I wanted to avoid the phrase "self-management" to get away from this. What I meant was he seems completely opposed to workers collectively running production or workplaces in any way that would be necessary for communism.

Quote:
I think Seidman's book has more substance to it than you think. Of course it has many problems and distortions, given that Seidman just wants to denounce anarcho-syndicalism. But i dont think Seidman's work should be rejected in the absolutist way that you propose.

I haven't proposed that. I think it's useful reading alongside a more supportive history, so that you do get examples from both sides.

Skraeling
Offline
Joined: 7-04-06
Jan 8 2007 23:34
syndicalistcat wrote:
s.: "If you require all able bodes adults to work, how are you going to enforce that requirement if people don't work without being authoritarian?"

I don't understand you. People get a finite share of the social product. I'd say, if they are able-bodied adults, and not retired, they should be required to earn their share of the social product thru socially useful work. If they don't do so for other than some socially accepted reason, they don't have remuneration or entitlement to consume. This is a question of what the society has democratically established as part of its overall social self-management. How is that "authoritarian"? It doesn't assume any class hierarchy.

You understood me OK, so those who don't do their fair share of work don't get to consume. I wasn't so much thinking of loafers who refuse to do any work, but more thinking of people who are able bodied and do work, but their take it easy and don't do much work and seriously slack around on the job. And what if this resistance was widespread, started to really disrupt society, and was not limited to a small minority. In that situation, how do you keep up work discipline without being authoritarian?

syndicalistcat wrote:
s.: "And as communism involves voluntarily giving according to one's ability, and receiving according to need (and not to how much work done), then is that parasitism in your opinion?"

I don't believe a viable economy could be organized on the basis of the principle "from each according to ability, to each according to need," if taken as a universal principle. What is "need"? Does it mean "anything goes"? That isn't a possible basis of a viable society. I can see how we might agree that we'll provide an average entitlement to consume for children, as we don't expect them to work, or for the retired, or for those who are willing to work but for whom we haven't yet found them work to do, til we find them work. And we might carry them as a society. But I don't think it is viable to not have incentives for people to do work for each other, for those who can.

you didn't really answer my question, do you think communism equals endorsing parasitism? i'm not really asking whether you think communism is viable or not. I don't think communism means anything goes, or lacks incentives for people to work for each other. There would be heaps and heaps of incentives to work for each other, like for example, in order fulfill everyone's needs. I might be naive, it's just that i think such work should be voluntary, and not compulsory. And i think its perfectly reasonable to think that under communism most people would want to voluntarily work for each other. Sure, there would be many problems, but i think there would be less problems than a society based on compulsory work, er, sorry, a democratically self-managed requirement to work .

Skraeling
Offline
Joined: 7-04-06
Jan 8 2007 23:58
revol68 wrote:
Quote:
"from each according to ability, to each according to need,"

And let's not forget that this is a slogan for a communist society in which production and circulation is socialised, it's not meant as a "individuals can fuck about and expect others to just give them whatever they want".

yes of course.

Quote:
Skraeling your posts come across as if you think revolution can be carried out without using any force or coercion. I mean why is workers working longer hours anymore a violation of anarchist principles than killing Franco's grunts? They both aren't exactly desirable things but nonetheless they are unavoidable in the situation.

What's your opinion on pickets and scabs? Do you think it's authoritarian for workers to brick scab buses?

Of course revolution requires force and coercion. Of course its OK for workers to brick scab buses. That's not what i am getting at. I'm not talking about using force against enemies, whether they are fascist or capitalist or Stalinist. I'm talking about whether coercion should be used by anarcho-syndicalist militants against those apolitical workers who aren't fascists or Stalinist but simply don't share your ideals. You seem to think in an anti-fascist war a fair bit of coercion would be OK, give them workers a good kick up the arse and impose some proper work discipline on them. My main problem with this is not that it is for a bloody good reason (in order to wipe out fascism), but that this coercion could become institutionalised after the counter-revolution is over.

syndicalistcat's picture
syndicalistcat
Offline
Joined: 2-11-06
Jan 9 2007 00:00

s.: "You understood me OK, so those who don't do their fair share of work don't get to consume. I wasn't so much thinking of loafers who refuse to do any work, but more thinking of people who are able bodied and do work, but their take it easy and don't do much work and seriously slack around on the job. And what if this resistance was widespread, started to really disrupt society, and was not limited to a small minority. In that situation, how do you keep up work discipline without being authoritarian?"

What do you mean by "authoritarian"? Let's suppose that the entire society has some horizontal, participatory planning system for developing negotiated plans for what we are going to produce, and allocation of resources to do that, based on people's requests for products and proposals concerning the work they propose to do.

We can evaluate how intensely a group is working...whether they are slacking off...by comparing their output to a similarly situated production group. If they produce less, what is the explanation? Poor equipment? Poor training? Bad weather? If we rule out the other possible explanations, we'd have to conclude they were slacking in the sense that they were working less intensely than others. In that case we could give them fewer resources, or disband the group, and give their resources to others. Ultimately the use of the socially owned facilities must be accountable to the population or "socialization of the economy" is meaningless words. But there is no reason this process can't be done horizontally.

s.: "you didn't really answer my question, do you think communism equals endorsing parasitism?"

You didn't define what you mean by it. You mistakenly think this is obvious. It ain't.

continuing: "i'm not really asking whether you think communism is viable or not."

if it's not viable, then what's the objection to deviation from it?

s.: "I don't think communism means anything goes, or lacks incentives for people to work for each other. There would be heaps and heaps of incentives to work for each other, like for example, in order fulfill everyone's needs."

Again, what is a "need"? What do you mean by "communism"? these things aren't obvious.

s.: "I might be naive, it's just that i think such work should be voluntary, and not compulsory."

What does that mean? If it doesn't mean "anything goes," then how does the society ensure that the socially owned production facilities are used in ways that are accountable and effective in providing people with what they most desire?

In his booklet "Libertarian Communism" Isaac Puente says that there would be the requirement to work, for the able-bodied, in communism. He said that if people don't want to work for others, they have the option of producing everything they consume themselves.

t.

Skraeling
Offline
Joined: 7-04-06
Jan 9 2007 00:48
John. wrote:
Skraeling wrote:
I would like to know if the Amigos called for compulsory work was for ordinary workers or fascists or both. Given the workerism of most CNTistas and faistas, i would say it was for both.

That's quite an assumption, Skraeling. Does anyone know? And do bear in mind that some of your opinion on their "workerism" may well have been shaped by Seidman's selectively chosen quotations in that book to show anarchists wanting to develop the productive forces trying to paint them as Soviet-style communists. I would imagine that being anarchists the reason they would want to increase labour efficiency would be to save time and effort, Seidman never mentions this though.

well, by compulsory work i don't mean the gulags, just a requirement for everyone to work. I think of the weak points of Seidman's work is his attempt to paint them as little different from Stalinists. But it is undeniable that many in CNT believed that the Spanish economy needed to be modernised and developed as a sort of material basis for fundamental revolutionary change. However, its very wrong to imply that this leads to Stalinism.

John wrote:
Quote:
nope, you're misrepresenting Seidman by focussing on one tiny example of his, and making it the centrepiece of his argument in order to make him sound like a complete git. Which is a dishonest method of argument.

Possibly, but my post was meant to be a counterweight to yours. His book on the other hand does what you accuse me of, though, for about 200 pages, by focussing on a couple of things, looking for examples of these negative things and only using them, never using any counter examples (for example the free rents, the libertarian communist areas, the free distribution of goods which weren't scarce, etc.), using quotes selectively out of context, etc.

I agreee with you here. Seidman does do that. But where i disagree with you is that Seidman doesn't just focus on a couple of things, he looks at a wide variety of workplaces. But yes he just focusses on the negatives.

Quote:
No, he produces evidence that some workers did this. It could well have been the case that the vast majority of workers wanted shirking to stop so as they wouldn't all be butchered following a fascist victory. The reason CNT militants' calls for more work may be recorded more than this is that they were in an organisation which is documented.

I wasn't saying that all workers were into refusing to work harder and faster. Seidman admits this, and notes some workers were happy to work more. Seidman argues that the other organisations also called for more work, and documents this too.

Quote:
I don't recall instances of sabotage or go-slows from the book (I read a borrowed copy quickly while on holiday), where abouts are they?

well, there are lots of examples of people working slowly in the book, i can't remember specifics though. And on the page i have open (p. 137) Seidman talks of a strike and sabotage by UGT stonemasons in Nov 1937 because workers didnt receive the pay increase they wanted. But yes he does not document hardly any strikes, which is interesting, and does put a few large holes in his thesis. I guess he is claiming that the refusal to work was more individualistic than collective, but then if workers were really pissed off this resistance would become more collective and strike prone. So you have a good point there.

John wrote:
Quote:
And this happened in lots of different workplaces, not just one. And of course the CNT militants viewed this resistance as fascist, and dismissed it as the work of fascist sympathesisers.

How do you know it wasn't?

I don't. Sure there would be some fascist sympathetic workers refusing to work hard. Seidman does admit this here and there. But i don't think you could explain all of this refusal in terms of fascist sympathesisers. The point is that the CNT militants often labelled the refusal to work by non-fascist sympathetic workers as fascist.

John wrote:
Quote:
edit: John you continually say that piecework was only introduced in one workplace. So i go into Seidman's book, and quickly find one paragraph on p. 136 saying that piecework was introduced in the Tailoring collective F. Vehils Vadal in Feb 1937, Casa Alemany collective in Oct. 1937 and in May 1938 for the railroad workers.

Were the others CNT run? Another thing he constantly does is conflate the actions of the CNT, UGT, and socialist groups. And was piecework voted for by the workers in those places? (If they were CNT-run it must've been)

he doesn't say if it was voted for or what union these workplaces belonged to. yup he does conflate the UGT and CNT and Stalinists too. but the point is that piecework was more widespread than you originally assumed. If i went thru the book no doubt i would find other examples. I suppose you could argue that Seidman only proves it was limited to a few workplaces, and most of that happened after the revolution was defeated.

John. wrote:
Quote:
I think Seidman's book has more substance to it than you think. Of course it has many problems and distortions, given that Seidman just wants to denounce anarcho-syndicalism. But i dont think Seidman's work should be rejected in the absolutist way that you propose.

I haven't proposed that. I think it's useful reading alongside a more supportive history, so that you do get examples from both sides.

As i stated before, that's my view of it too. Nice to come to some agreement then. But you did previously come across as being a bit absolutist in your dismissal of Seidman's work. I suppose its natural to wish to denounce the denouncer (Seidman), and reject his work out of hand. But even if his an individualist or whatever, it doesnt mean everything he documents is lies or deception.

For all his major flaws, at least Seidman does attempt to do a bottom-up style history of workplace relations during the civil war. but then again, I don't think his work is a good bottom-up history, i mean relying on union and collective minutes books for your sources is limited...

Skraeling
Offline
Joined: 7-04-06
Jan 9 2007 01:32
syndicalistcat wrote:
What do you mean by "authoritarian"?

forcing people to do something against their will, in this case, to work harder when they don't wish to.

syndicalistcat wrote:
In that case we could give them fewer resources, or disband the group, and give their resources to others.

OK, its fine to give them fewer resources, and give them to others, that doesnt seem too openly authoritarian to me. But i think requiring them to disband is, particularly if its against their wishes.

Quote:
s.: "you didn't really answer my question, do you think communism equals endorsing parasitism?"

You didn't define what you mean by it. You mistakenly think this is obvious. It ain't.

I mean as you define parasitism in the previous posts you made. It's not clear to me what exactly i think is obvious. That communism does not equal parasitism?

Quote:
continuing: "i'm not really asking whether you think communism is viable or not."

if it's not viable, then what's the objection to deviation from it?

aaargh. obviously i'm not saying it's not viable, just trying to stick to the original point, that's all

Quote:
s.: "I might be naive, it's just that i think such work should be voluntary, and not compulsory."

What does that mean? If it doesn't mean "anything goes," then how does the society ensure that the socially owned production facilities are used in ways that are accountable and effective in providing people with what they most desire?

it doesn't mean anything goes at all. it means precisely what it means, that is labour would be voluntary, and up to people to (collectively) decide themselves how much they work in order to meet each others needs and desires. Obviously people would need to collectively work together to fulfill needs. But this can be done on a voluntary basis. I see no need for work to be compulsory.

If people used communist facilities for their own selfish ends, then i guess people would reason with them to ask them to stop them doing it, and if that failed, would deny resources to them and ostracise them as a last resort. I imagine there would be many other things one could do as well. But all this is pure speculation because in the end what goes on in a future society will be decided by the people in it, not me.

Quote:
In his booklet "Libertarian Communism" Isaac Puente says that there would be the requirement to work, for the able-bodied, in communism. He said that if people don't want to work for others, they have the option of producing everything they consume themselves.

Yes but Puente was attempting to synthesise anarchist collectivism, mutualism and anarchist communism. Anarchist collectivism obviously came out on top, with the pesky petty bourgeois individualists being granted their own small plot of land.

magidd
Offline
Joined: 23-09-06
Jan 9 2007 03:19

Social sistem wich existed in Spane in 1936-1939 was form of capiatalism (neo-capitalism as Gaston Leval said). Somebody who violate people to work hard in the conditions of capitalism is exploiter. This is clear. And this is absolutly not important haw do you call this exploiter: boss, government, union, CNT, UHT or enything else. In fact the bigest israely industrial company KUR belonged to israely biggets union "Gistadrut". But i never heard if enybody have dauts about Israel: there were capitalism and expluatation. That was the same in Spane.

syndicalistcat's picture
syndicalistcat
Offline
Joined: 2-11-06
Jan 9 2007 04:36

me: "What do you mean by "authoritarian"?"

s.: "forcing people to do something against their will, in this case, to work harder when they don't wish to.

No society could possibly exist that is not "authoritarian" by this criterion. The idea that each individual ego is to have the right to veto the social collective is both totally individualist and totally utopian. It also makes your viewpoint inconsistent because your definition of "anti-authoritarian" does in fact entail that "anything goes," contrary to what you say elsewhere.

"s.: "you didn't really answer my question, do you think communism equals endorsing parasitism?"

me: "You didn't define what you mean by it. You mistakenly think this is obvious. It ain't."

You still haven't answered my question. That is, you haven't told us what "communism" means for you. We can't evaluate anything you say about it if we don't know what you mean by it.

Moreover, you continue to repeat unclear and unexplained statements about work being "voluntary" and not "compulsory" without any clear idea of what this would mean in the context of an actual mode of production.

s: "If people used communist facilities for their own selfish ends, then i guess people would reason with them to ask them to stop them doing it, and if that failed, would deny resources to them and ostracise them as a last resort."

If a society denies resources to people it is forcing them to do things against their will, such as give up resources, which you earlier said is "authoritarian."

me: "In his booklet "Libertarian Communism" Isaac Puente says that there would be the requirement to work, for the able-bodied, in communism. He said that if people don't want to work for others, they have the option of producing everything they consume themselves."

s.: "Yes but Puente was attempting to synthesise anarchist collectivism, mutualism and anarchist communism. Anarchist collectivism obviously came out on top, with the pesky
petty bourgeois individualists being granted their own small plot of land."

You're here claiming to be the Pope of libertarian communism. Your method here is sectarian. it is like the Trot groups who say "we are the only real marxists, the others are all phonies." It is especially unwarranted given that you've never answered my question as to what you think "communism" means.

t.

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Jan 9 2007 11:01
Skraeling wrote:
well, by compulsory work i don't mean the gulags, just a requirement for everyone to work.

Right. Well tbh I'm not sure what "compulsory" means, and under the circumstances at the time it was very understandable. Additionally, didn't all the collectives require all able-bodied people to work, otherwise they wouldn't get the benefits of the collective? What I'm getting at is, like the other things, Seidman doesn't demonstrate that the views of the anarchist organisations differs from the general opinion of the working class. That they seemed to mostly argue the same things that workers voted for en masse in assemblies would seem to verify this, no?

Quote:
I think of the weak points of Seidman's work is his attempt to paint them as little different from Stalinists. But it is undeniable that many in CNT believed that the Spanish economy needed to be modernised and developed as a sort of material basis for fundamental revolutionary change. However, its very wrong to imply that this leads to Stalinism.

Yeah, I mean it only seems sensible. He quoted figures about the productivity of the textiles industry showing American or British factories being, what, 100 times more efficient or something? You would think anyone would want this inefficiency reduced - capitalists for profit, workers under self-management to save time and effort.

Quote:
I agreee with you here. Seidman does do that. But where i disagree with you is that Seidman doesn't just focus on a couple of things, he looks at a wide variety of workplaces. But yes he just focusses on the negatives.

Yeah that's my point - it's not a cross-section of workplaces, he only picks negative examples. he doesn't produce any statistics on other negative examples that he doesn't cite though, which makes me suspect that he found the only examples of things like piecework in those what 3 workplaces, etc.

Quote:
Quote:
No, he produces evidence that some workers did this. It could well have been the case that the vast majority of workers wanted shirking to stop so as they wouldn't all be butchered following a fascist victory. The reason CNT militants' calls for more work may be recorded more than this is that they were in an organisation which is documented.

I wasn't saying that all workers were into refusing to work harder and faster. Seidman admits this, and notes some workers were happy to work more. Seidman argues that the other organisations also called for more work, and documents this too.

Yes, but as I said my main problem was that he fails to demonstrate that it was just the organisations or militants calling for this, rather than the majority of workers agreeing with it in order to help defeat the fascists. Books like Dolgoff, Leval, etc. are full of examples of collectives and industries working lots extra and donating huge amounts of scarce supplies to requests from the front, and soldiers from the front donating their wages to collectives who needed new equipment after reading appeals in Solidaridad Obrera, etc. Ditto examples of aid to refugees - Seidman's attempts to paint the Spanish workers as really disliking the refugees I thought was probably the worst example of selective use of information to give the worst view possible. Seeing the information about some of the problems alongside examples of positive things, and statistics about the relevant prevalence of each would be useful, but he's not at all interested in a balanced picture, only smearing the CNT.

Quote:
well, there are lots of examples of people working slowly in the book

Right ok, I took go-slows to mean collectively organised slowdowns.

Quote:
i can't remember specifics though. And on the page i have open (p. 137) Seidman talks of a strike and sabotage by UGT stonemasons in Nov 1937 because workers didnt receive the pay increase they wanted.

Well that was the UGT, not the CNT. And Nov 37 was pretty much after the revolution was dead. This is another trick Seidman uses, jumping backwards and forwards in time to remove the historical perspective.

Quote:
But yes he does not document hardly any strikes, which is interesting, and does put a few large holes in his thesis. I guess he is claiming that the refusal to work was more individualistic than collective, but then if workers were really pissed off this resistance would become more collective and strike prone.

That's what you'd think, yes, especially in the most militant and combatitive working class in the world. As he outlined at the beginning(which was excellent), workers in the 1930s were going on general strikes to win back-pay for the 1919 general strike (or some other big strike years before) and things!

Quote:
I don't. Sure there would be some fascist sympathetic workers refusing to work hard. Seidman does admit this here and there. But i don't think you could explain all of this refusal in terms of fascist sympathesisers.

TBH I don't think he demonstrates significant refusal in CNT workplaces during the revolutionary period up to the 1937 May Days.

Quote:
The point is that the CNT militants often labelled the refusal to work by non-fascist sympathetic workers as fascist.

Well, again this may correspond to majority opinion. The majority of workers who were opposed to fascism might have been angry about people's laziness helping the fascists. I mean lots of workers in the UK now think unemployed people are lazy layabouts, and that's even without self-management.

Quote:
he doesn't say if it was voted for or what union these workplaces belonged to. yup he does conflate the UGT and CNT and Stalinists too. but the point is that piecework was more widespread than you originally assumed.

Ok, but I was talking about CNT workplaces.

Quote:
If i went thru the book no doubt i would find other examples. I suppose you could argue that Seidman only proves it was limited to a few workplaces, and most of that happened after the revolution was defeated.

Yes, and was voted for by the workers, and argued against by CNT delegates!

Quote:
But you did previously come across as being a bit absolutist in your dismissal of Seidman's work.

No, only as a counter-weight to some of its supporters. I've heard people quote Seidman's unproven assertions as gospel, adding in exaggerations along the way ("the CNT shot factory workers who didn't work fast enough", etc.). Magidd has done this on here a bit, including reproducing Seidman's accusations of anti-Semitism.

Quote:
I suppose its natural to wish to denounce the denouncer (Seidman), and reject his work out of hand. But even if his an individualist or whatever, it doesnt mean everything he documents is lies or deception.

No, I do believe most of the stuff he documents, but if you selectively choose your data to fit your argument and ignore all things counter to it then your argument is baseless. If I wanted to write a book about black people, and only cited (true) examples of criminal behaviour, my book wouldn't give an accurate picture of black people.

Quote:
For all his major flaws, at least Seidman does attempt to do a bottom-up style history of workplace relations during the civil war. but then again, I don't think his work is a good bottom-up history, i mean relying on union and collective minutes books for your sources is limited...

But he doesn't have much other option... but yes a real bottom-up history would be great. And like I said it is useful alongside the often excessively-rosy anarcho-syndicalist histories.

Skraeling
Offline
Joined: 7-04-06
Jan 10 2007 00:32
syndicalistcat wrote:
me: "What do you mean by "authoritarian"?"

s.: "forcing people to do something against their will, in this case, to work harder when they don't wish to.

No society could possibly exist that is not "authoritarian" by this criterion. The idea that each individual ego is to have the right to veto the social collective is both totally individualist and totally utopian. It also makes your viewpoint inconsistent because your definition of "anti-authoritarian" does in fact entail that "anything goes," contrary to what you say elsewhere.

whoa, hold on, this is getting ludicrous. I never ever said that each individual ego has the right to veto the social collective. That is totally misrepresenting what I said. Where have i said that a future society should be ruled by some form of consensus decision making where each individual has the right of veto of the collective? You're reading into things.

Anyway, I do think authoritarianism (however it is defined) is inevitable in any society, but can be minimised.

All I offered was a pretty simplistic definition of authoritarianism, that obviously requires a lot more work. Look, I'm no philosophy student, and get really really bored by debates about definitions and semantics. It's something that i'm not good at. My strengths lay elsewhere.

Quote:
You still haven't answered my question. That is, you haven't told us what "communism" means for you. We can't evaluate anything you say about it if we don't know what you mean by it.

Well i'm reluctant to offer a simplistic definition, but i'll try and find one from the net:

intro for communism/john gray website wrote:
Communism is a society without money, without a state, without property and without social classes. People come together to carry out a project or to respond to some need of the human community but without the possibility of their collective activity taking the form of an enterprise that involves wages and the exchange of its products. The circulation of goods is not accomplished by means of exchange: quite the contrary, the by-word for this society is "from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs".

With communism the government of people gives way to the administration of things. Contrary to the illusion produced by the present society the state and its institutions are not the inevitable result of the growth and complexities of societies, but the opposite, the result of the frantic socialisation of the species without community. The necessity for distinct organs of administration, repression and assistance has its cause in the maintenance of class society. The state is the defender of the dominant class which is increasingly integrated into it. It is forced to alleviate destitution which is increased by a social life where man becomes a predator for man.

With communism the oppositional but complementary relationship between the political and economic spheres disappears, i.e. between the citizen supposedly governing society in freedom and equality, and the producer as a slave to material necessity, hierarchy and the despotism of the factory. Communist theory and struggle are a critique of economy and politics.

Quote:
Moreover, you continue to repeat unclear and unexplained statements about work being "voluntary" and not "compulsory" without any clear idea of what this would mean in the context of an actual mode of production.

Maybe true, originally i thought it's obvious that work should be voluntary and not compulsory. While i do think every able bodied person needs to work, i really dislike the term that everyabledbody is "required to work", which to me smacks of workerism and has authoritarian connotations. Maybe its all semantics.

Quote:
If a society denies resources to people it is forcing them to do things against their will, such as give up resources, which you earlier said is "authoritarian."

again, you're misrepresenting me. I said would not give them resources, not ask them to give up their resources.

Quote:
s.: "Yes but Puente was attempting to synthesise anarchist collectivism, mutualism and anarchist communism. Anarchist collectivism obviously came out on top, with the pesky
petty bourgeois individualists being granted their own small plot of land."

You're here claiming to be the Pope of libertarian communism. Your method here is sectarian. it is like the Trot groups who say "we are the only real marxists, the others are all phonies." It is especially unwarranted given that you've never answered my question as to what you think "communism" means.

hohohohohoho nice bit of shit slinging comrade! the pope of libertarian communism isn't a bad insult though. i give you 9.75 out of 10 for that one. Well i suppose i would get shit like this after my throwaway line about Puente. It's also funny cos i'm not a libertarian communist (as defined by Spanish anarcho-syndicalists). Oooh, let's do some more shit slinging shall we? what can i throw back at you? That parecon equals a participatory bureaucracy? That parecon equals a participatory prison? will they do?

To explain what I have written, i think Puente's libertarian communism offers a confused definition of communism. I mean communism (which i have defined in another debate with you before), as defined by numerous communists like Marx and numerous anarchist communists like Kropotkin, involves distributing the social product according to need. It doesn't involve, as under Puente or Parecon, distributing the social product according to work done. In the anarchist tradition, i believe distribution according to work done is called anarchist collectivism (which Bakunin and co. were into). Hence my throwaway line. To be fair, if i remember right, Puente wanted a mixed mutualist, collectivist and communist society where communities would experiment with forms of capitalism, collectivism and communism. (Problem is that he confuses the matter by calling this overall system "communist", when I reckon it is only partially communist, if you define communism as I do anyway). And parecon at least has the decency to grant communism for the elderly, children and sick (he he) wink

anyway, I will have to duck out of this riveting shit slinging match, erm, debate. I'm shifting tomorrow and will be without regular net access for possibly a month or two.

Skraeling
Offline
Joined: 7-04-06
Jan 10 2007 00:55
John. wrote:
Additionally, didn't all the collectives require all able-bodied people to work, otherwise they wouldn't get the benefits of the collective?

I don't know.

Quote:
What I'm getting at is, like the other things, Seidman doesn't demonstrate that the views of the anarchist organisations differs from the general opinion of the working class. That they seemed to mostly argue the same things that workers voted for en masse in assemblies would seem to verify this, no?

I'm not sure about this. I think on the one hand the CNT was a mass based expressions of the militant part of the working class. But on the other hand, there seemed to have been lots of other workers who weren't so militant, or just plainly weren't into anarcho-syndicalism for whatever reason eg. a few maybe were militant but not into the CNT. I think the working class is complex and not homogenous, which I imagine would have true in Spain too. I think Seidman demonstrates that there was some informal conflict between some workers and the CNT, which indicates a bit of a gap between some workers and the CNT.

Quote:
Yes, but as I said my main problem was that he fails to demonstrate that it was just the organisations or militants calling for this, rather than the majority of workers agreeing with it in order to help defeat the fascists. Books like Dolgoff, Leval, etc. are full of examples of collectives and industries working lots extra and donating huge amounts of scarce supplies to requests from the front, and soldiers from the front donating their wages to collectives who needed new equipment after reading appeals in Solidaridad Obrera, etc. Ditto examples of aid to refugees - Seidman's attempts to paint the Spanish workers as really disliking the refugees I thought was probably the worst example of selective use of information to give the worst view possible. Seeing the information about some of the problems alongside examples of positive things, and statistics about the relevant prevalence of each would be useful, but he's not at all interested in a balanced picture, only smearing the CNT.

True. I agree.

Quote:
TBH I don't think he demonstrates significant refusal in CNT workplaces during the revolutionary period up to the 1937 May Days.

I would agree with that. Most of his examples are from after the May Days. He really doesn't refute the anarchist argument that more workplace problems happened after the May Days, in fact, the evidence he produces mostly supports it.

Quote:
The majority of workers who were opposed to fascism might have been angry about people's laziness helping the fascists.

Maybe true. But isn't Spanish culture stereotypically renowned for being a bit lazy? Manana, always manana (for those who dont know, it means doing something in some unspecified time, or at some unspecified time, in the future). I imagine that might have been be a factor too.

Quote:
No, only as a counter-weight to some of its supporters. I've heard people quote Seidman's unproven assertions as gospel, adding in exaggerations along the way ("the CNT shot factory workers who didn't work fast enough", etc.).

That's pretty over the top, I didn't know people said this type of thing.

Quote:
No, I do believe most of the stuff he documents, but if you selectively choose your data to fit your argument and ignore all things counter to it then your argument is baseless. If I wanted to write a book about black people, and only cited (true) examples of criminal behaviour, my book wouldn't give an accurate picture of black people.

Good point. Seidman's work is very dodgy in this respect.

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Jan 10 2007 10:41
Skraeling wrote:
I mean communism (which i have defined in another debate with you before), as defined by numerous communists like Marx and numerous anarchist communists like Kropotkin, involves distributing the social product according to need.

aye, that's the 'to each according to his need' bit, the 'from each according to his ability' is an expectation for those who can to contribute to the social product they enjoy (however 'enforced', stigma/social ostracisation, granting of only basic rations, send 'em to the gulag ... wink)

syndicalistcat's picture
syndicalistcat
Offline
Joined: 2-11-06
Jan 10 2007 23:41

Skraeling: "With communism the government of people gives way to the administration of things."

This is mere rhetoric. There will still be disputes, there will be those who were defeated in the struggle to establish classless society, there will be instances of murder, rape, theft of personal possessions (like your Aunt Sally's art collection). Moreover, there needs to be a means for the society as a whole to make the basic rules, and also to enforce those rules. All of this means there will inevitably be polity or governance structure. The CNT's libertarian communist program advocated "free municipalities" (never really implemented in the revolution, except in a few places in Aragon), derived from the more communalist anarchist tradition, which were to be the basis of the polity, with regional and national people's congresses, which would have essentially legislative authority, to make the basic rules or arrangements for the society, tho they talked of controversial or important topics being referred back to the base assemblies. Also, the congresses would have the power of social planning and to run the dominant armed force (the "People's Militia"). They modified the program in Sept. 1936 to add administrative committees to oversee the social self-defence function -- police, "people's courts", and a unified "People's Militia." This program was rejected by the UGT in their negotiations with the UGT bureaucrats.

the point is that the CNT's interpretation of libertarian communism did envision a polity or governance structure. Becuase it was to be rooted in, and accountable to, the base assemblies, and in the context of a society where class division had been eliminated, it would not have had the degree of separation from popular control that has historically been what a state involves (as pointed out by Engels).

After Garcia Oliver became minister of justice, he did create labor camps. These were intended as a more humane alternative to prisons. People wouldn't be couped up in cages. Later, when the Communists got control of them, they became more like the more usual understanding of "concentration camp."

t.

magidd
Offline
Joined: 23-09-06
Jan 15 2007 18:18

Looke at the facts

CNT was authoritarian corporatin after 1936. Only one thing revolutionaris (Durruty Friends or overs) can do: elemenate this sistem by self-activity of proletarians.
Plenum 21 july 1936. CNT-activists make desigion about not- making of lebertarian communist transformation and creation of committee of anty-fassist militions. Garsia Oliver said that that was made withaut imperative mandate.

Abel Pas (in his booke "Durruty") said about CNT that "groop of activists put themselves on the plase of simple members of CNT". That politics create "the break between ledeaship of CNT and simple members". Abel Pas notes that in 1936-1939 radical minority of CNT was obedient to collective discipline of CNT and did not apply to the "street".

Offisial historian of CNT Jose Peirats describes holl situation in CNT after 1936 as "destruction of federalism". As he said "National Comettee of CNT became machine wich gives orders to local organisation of CNT" and making decisions for all organisation.
CNT in 1936 was absolutly contr-revolutionary organisation: tactically, ideologikaly, economically (as Mithel Saidmen shows).

syndicalistcat's picture
syndicalistcat
Offline
Joined: 2-11-06
Jan 15 2007 19:29

The fact is, if the Friends of Durruti had the support of the assemblies in the unions of CNT in Catalunya, they could have elected the labor council delegates. If they'd elected the labor council delegates, they would have had a majority at a regional plenum. If they had a majority at a regional plenum, they could have ousted the Popular Front collaborationist regional committee. If they controlled the regional federation in Catalonia, the largest regional, they could have ousted the national committee. magiid doesn't show that this isn't true. Thus if the members had wanted to have a regional Catalan committee and national committee acting differently, they had the power to do so. If they didn't make that move, it is because they had been persuaded the Popular Front strategy was necessary. That is the actual reality of the situation. As to Seidman's book, we've already debated that, and pointed out its mistakes.

t.

magidd
Offline
Joined: 23-09-06
Jan 15 2007 20:02
Quote:
The fact is, if the Friends of Durruti had the support of the assemblies in the unions of CNT in Catalunya, they could have elected the labor council delegates.

Comment
This is demagogia.
1)CNT organistaion after 1936 was controled by burocrosy as Jose Peirats and Abel Pas show. There is no reasons and no ways for revolutionaris to take controle over such organisation. It is the same shit as try to establish controle on burocratice union todey by democratic procedure.
2) As they show revolutionaris (as Durruti Friends) did not aplly to the street or do it very carefully becouse they were obedient to collective discipline of CNT.

Quote:
they had a majority at a regional plenum, they could have ousted the Popular Front collaborationist regional committee.

Comment
This is demagogia again. You can not controle bureaucratike organisation by demokratik methods.

Quote:
magiid doesn't show that this isn't true.

Comment
Yes i did.

syndicalistcat's picture
syndicalistcat
Offline
Joined: 2-11-06
Jan 15 2007 20:28
Quote:
magidd: CNT organistaion after 1936 was controled by as Jose Peirats and Abel Pas show. There is no reasons and no ways for revolutionaris to take controle over such organisation.

magidd's conclusion doesn't follow from the data he refers to. Let's review exactly what Paz and Peirats meant by "violating the norms of CNT federalism." The CNT had a practice, prior to July of 1936, where at plenaries or congresses, the only way an item could get on the agenda was to first be approved and proposed by an assembly of a local union. The agendas sent out by the regional or national committee were simply collations of the proposals from the unions, maybe organized in some way that made sense. The national committee was not permitted to make proposals without these coming from the rank and file union assemblies first.

After July of 1936, the national committee began sending out proposals and agendas in advance of plenaries without first getting these from the unions via approval at union assemblies. Sometimes circulars or internal bulletins were sent only to the militants. The excuse for this was that the CNT was flooded with new members who were not always trusted by the anarchists, as they feared many of them were opportunists. In any event, this data does NOT show that the regional committee in Catalonia or the national commmittee could not have been easily removed IF the majority of the members wanted a different direction. The local labor councils (local federations) in Catalunya still consisted of delegates elected from the local union assemblies. These labor council delegates made up the delegates at regional plenaries. The regional plenaries elected, and could remove, the regional committee. And if they'd removed the regional committee, they could have changed the editorial staff at Solidaridad Obrera, which was controlled by the regional committee. Nothing in Paz or Peirats contradicts what I've just said.

Consider for example the national CNT plenary of Sept. 3rd. This is the plenary where the CNT decided to propose to the UGT jointly overthrowing the Popular Front government and replacing it with a joint CNT-UGT labor defense council, and a unified militia instead of rebuilding the top-down military. How did that proposal get approved? It wasn't because the national secretary Horacio Prieto wanted it. Prieto was totally opposed to this proposal. He was a treintista and wanted the CNT to join the Popular Front government. The defense council proposal was adopted because the regional federation of Catalunya pushed for it and brought it to the national plenary, and got it approved against the wishes of Prieto, the national secretary. The details of this are in "Los anarquistas y el poder" by Cesar M. Lorenzo.

From the fact that the national committee began making proposals and had its own ideas it argued for, it doesn't follow that all of a sudden the CNT becomes indistinguishable from a "bureaucratic union."

t.

casseur
Offline
Joined: 26-10-06
Jan 15 2007 20:59

Point of interest..'Towards a fresh revolution'by the Friends of Durruti is not online yet. So if anyone has a copy it'd be a useful libcom library addition.

magidd
Offline
Joined: 23-09-06
Jan 15 2007 21:30

There is differense between situation than some groopes make proposals and situation of spanich CNT durring revolution wich was as Jose Peirats describes "destruction of federalism". He said "National Comettee of CNT became machine wich gives orders to local organisation of CNT" and making decisions for all organisation. Why did local organisations of CNT was in jeneraly obedient to they reformist and corrapted leaders wich violated the imperative mandate alredy in july 1936? I don't know exactly haw was it working but that was not direct democrassy and federalism animore. CNT was not revolutionary movement anymore it was controled by some reformist bustards. This is obvious. In such a situation revolutianarys have only one chois- to create new revolutianry movement and give examples of revolutionare action. Such as exampleas are important. It only can convince wide hesitating masses of proletarians that revolutionary way daes exist.
Durruty Friends did not do that. So they were wrong, they were paralised by collective discipline of CNT.

syndicalistcat's picture
syndicalistcat
Offline
Joined: 2-11-06
Jan 15 2007 21:49
Quote:
I don't know exactly haw was it working but that was not direct democrassy and federalism animore.

Yes, you didn't know how it was working. That's exactly my point. And that means you're just blowing smoke out your rear end.

Quote:
CNT was not revolutionary movement anymore it was controled by some reformist bustards. This is obvious.

No, it's not obvious. The CNT movement was not identical to the "influential militants" who took positions in government and the officer corps of the army. The "reformist" direction of Popular Front collaboration happened, as far as I can see, because the CNT militants had not done enough work to prepare a different direction before July 19th. This is the point of Cesar Lorenzo when he says that "after July 19th the CNT was left to improvise in total incoherence." Plus, there were people like de Santillan who appealed to fear, and played up the risks, rather than realizing that risk are inherent in a revolutionary situation and you don't get anywhere by letting yourself be paralyzed with fear. Calling de Santillan a "reformist basard" is just empty rhetoric that doesn't help as far as understanding what happened.

in re FoD, maggid says: "In such a situation revolutianarys have only one chois- to create new revolutianry movement and give examples of revolutionare action. Such as exampleas are important. It only can convince wide hesitating masses of proletarians that revolutionary way daes exist."

They did do "revolutionary actions" -- that's what the May Days was all about. But their base within the CNT was limited to the neighborhood defense groups and some people in the militia units. They needed the support of the mass of CNT members in the unions. If they had that support, as I said before, they could have changed the CNT's direction. The FoD could not have continued an assualt on the Popular Front in Catalunya on its own without the support of the CNT membership. The CNT members were unwilling to follow the lead of the FoD. That's simply the fact of the situation.

t.

magidd
Offline
Joined: 23-09-06
Jan 15 2007 22:07
Quote:
Let's review exactly what Paz and Peirats meant by "violating the norms of CNT federalism." The CNT had a practice, prior to July of 1936, where at plenaries or congresses, the only way an item could get on the agenda was to first be approved and proposed by an assembly of a local union. The agendas sent out by the regional or national committee were simply collations of the proposals from the unions, maybe organized in some way that made sense. The national committee was not permitted to make proposals without these coming from the rank and file union assemblies first.
After July of 1936, the national committee began sending out proposals and agendas in advance of plenaries without first getting these from the unions via approval at union assemblies.

Comment
First of all you distort the reality. National Commitee was not only sending oders. Local organisations was in generaly obidiente to that orders. This is why it was as Peirats said "machine wich gives orders to local organisation of CNT". Even in may of 1937 then CNT-activists left barrikades inspite they almouste win batlle. They were obidient to bustards from National Commettee who told them leave.
Second. Model of CNT after 1936 is the same as burgua state in some countres like Switzerland. There government make alot of important decisions only wich referendums. So what? Is that what anarchists call "direct democrassy"?
Holl initiative is in the hands of government, it makes all decisions and controle information and media. It even don't give all information to the "simple people" as CNT. So proletarians trust the government. This is about "haw modern burgua state is working".
Thirst. 90% of memebers of Labor Party like politikes of Toni Blare may be . May be they even vote for wor in Irak during referendum. Does that mean that revolutionary anarhists must work inside Labor Party? I don't think so. I think that shows only that Labor Party is bad. There are
1 000.000 proletarianse inside? But unfortunatly they are going reformist way. So lets make our oun revolutionary organisation and make propoganda among this people and show tham haw good anarhism is.

magidd
Offline
Joined: 23-09-06
Jan 15 2007 22:19
Quote:
The CNT movement was not identical to the "influential militants" who took positions in government and the officer corps of the army.

Comment
O! Nise! But CNT movement was obidient to ""influential militants" who took positions in government and the officer corps of the army". You know this is very funny.
This is like what general secretary Hrushev said: "Stalin and some of his comrades was wrong but Communist Party is not identical to the "influential leaders"".

Quote:
Calling de Santillan a "reformist basard" is just empty rhetoric that doesn't help as far as understanding what happened.

Comment
Funny againe. It is possible to discusse reasons of him- why not? Did i say: there is nothing to discuss here? Did i say: it's forbidiente to discuss that point?
But it does not change enithing. Santillan was a "reformist basard" and traitor becouse he became minister of burgua state. And that means he went to the side of class animy as CNT itself.

magidd
Offline
Joined: 23-09-06
Jan 15 2007 22:42
Quote:
The CNT members were unwilling to follow the lead of the FoD. That's simply the fact of the situation.

Comment
No. First of all activists of Durruty Frindes and some over revolutiobnary groopes inside CNT was called by reformist leaders of CNT as "uncontrolled". Many many of revolutionary anarhists and proletarian heretics were repressed by burgua government. So it wood be disgusting hypocrisy to say that they have the same ability for propoganda of they ideas as reformists! Reformists of CNT were part of burgua government and have access to huge resorses of state financial and police might.
Olso i don't care about CNT as i don't care about Labor Party. There are more important qewstions. Revolution started in july 1936 not becouse CNT leaders want that. They did not want. But alot of local members of CNT and over not-CNT workers struglling and make collectives in Catalunia and communes in Aragon.
But then revolutianary activity was undermined becouse of politickes of union leaders, manipulations, passivity of masses and represions. What revolutionaris must do in such situation? Only one thing- create new revolutionary movement, shoot bustards and government spys, give exampless of socialisation and revolutionary strugle wich is impossible inside Labor Party (CNT).

syndicalistcat's picture
syndicalistcat
Offline
Joined: 2-11-06
Jan 15 2007 23:41

magidd: "Reformists of CNT were part of burgua government and have access to huge resorses of state financial and police might."

You're confused here. The Communists had pushed for the rebuilding of the Republican hierarchical police and military because they had a permeationist strategy. Their strategy was to gain control of the officer positions, and then use this to gain state power. That this was their aim is shown in documents that have now been released from the Soviet archives, and translated in the book "Spain Betrayed" (Espana Traicionada in Spanish version).

The attack on the worker-run telephone system was a pre-meditated confrontation by the Communist-controlled police, to gain state control, and thus Communist Party control. Their long-term aim wasn't capitalism but a managerialist mode of production. This is shown by who they recruited among -- the middle strata of Spanish society -- army officers, lawyers, managers, small business owners, people who could become managerial cadres in a new statist system.

It wasn't the CNT ministers in the government who favored this direction. The CNT ministers did not have control of the Republican police who were used to disarm CNT members. The whole provocation was aimed at removing the CNT ministers from the government and in general cutting down the power the workers had achieved. That's why after the May Days the Communist ministers proposed that the CNT and POUM be repressed, outlawed. Why would they propose outlawing the CNT if it had become incorporated into the state as you suggest?

When Largo Caballero, Left Socialist UGT leader and prime minister said he'd never allow suppression of the POUM and CNT, the Communist ministers walked out. When Caballero then said "The Council of Ministers continues," the liberal Republicans, social-democrats and Basque Nationalists all walked out in support of the Communists. The result of this was that the Left Socialists not only were kicked out of control of the government but the Communists used the police to seize their newspapers and kicked them out of their union positions. The CNT was also kicked out of the government, and subjected to repression, with many worker-managed enterprises nationalized, etc. Why would this have happened if the CNT were just an integral part of the "bourgeois state" as you say?

maggid: "Olso i don't care about CNT as i don't care about Labor Party. There are more important qewstions. Revolution started in july 1936 not becouse CNT leaders want that. They did not want. But alot of local members of CNT and over not-CNT workers struglling and make collectives in Catalunia and communes in Aragon."

You've got a problem. That's because it was the CNT itself that seized the industries, not "the workers" independently of the CNT. All of the expropriations were done directly by the CNT unions. The "collectives" didn't come into existence til October 1936. You're apparently ignorant of the dynamics of the revolution. The "communes" in Aragon were also the creation of the CNT village unions. It was on the initiative of the village unions of the CNT and the CNT regional committee of Aragon that the Defense Council of Aragon -- a revolutionary worker government -- was created in Aragon. It was on the initative of the CNT in Aragon that the "communes" as you call them were organized into a regional federation in Aragon.

t.

magidd
Offline
Joined: 23-09-06
Jan 17 2007 00:50
Quote:
It wasn't the CNT ministers in the government who favored this direction. The CNT ministers did not have control of the Republican police who were used to disarm CNT members.

Comment
But thousends of "uncontrolled" (as CNT leaders call tham) anarhchist activists and proletarian heretiks were arested by this antyfacsist state polis. NOT CNT ministres and not a leaders of CNT. wink
It was the CNT leadership who call anarchist fighters in may 1937 to leave barricades and to give evrething back to leninists. Fighters were CNT members so they do what leaders of CNT want. If there were another radicle anarchists force... Who knows what cood happen. So CNT leaders easy coloborated with state polise...
Anyway CNT corrupted leaders were part of government and army. I never belive that it is possible even compare they financial, informational and managerial resources
with resource of Durruti Frineds. I can add that radical anarhists worked in the conditions of repressions. So as i said it is terrible hypocrisy to say that Durruti Frineds just have simple possibility to convince "direct democratic collective of CNT" develop revolution and displace corrapted leaders. This is total misunderstanding of hierarchic system. As Kustoriadis said supervisory group
concentrate in they hands information, money and communication between local organisations. It gives people only what it wants to give. Then it propose decision and masses approve that in general. This is why Jose Peirats and Abel Pas said there were violation of federalism in CNT.

Quote:
The attack on the worker-run telephone system was a pre-meditated confrontation by the Communist-controlled police, to gain state control, and thus Communist Party control. Their long-term aim wasn't capitalism but a managerialist mode of production... It wasn't the CNT ministers in the government who favored this direction.

Comment
CNT leaders just give perfect help to state police then ivite fighting proletarians to leave barricades in 1937 in Barselona.
Managerialist statist mode of production in the conditions of market economy is the form of capitalism (state capitalism) as in USSR.

Quote:
When Largo Caballero, Left Socialist UGT leader and prime minister..

Comment
Fuck him and fuck all ministers.

maggid: "Olso i don't care about CNT as i don't care about Labor Party. There are more important qewstions. Revolution started in july 1936 not becouse CNT leaders want that. They did not want. But alot of local members of CNT and over not-CNT workers struglling and make collectives in Catalunia and communes in Aragon."

Quote:
You've got a problem. That's because it was the CNT itself that seized the industries, not "the workers" independently of the CNT. All of the expropriations were done directly by the CNT unions. The "collectives" didn't come into existence til October 1936. You're apparently ignorant of the dynamics of the revolution. The "communes" in Aragon were also the creation of the CNT village unions. It was on the initiative of the village unions of the CNT and the CNT regional committee of Aragon that the Defense Council of Aragon -- a revolutionary worker government -- was created in Aragon.

Comment
"CNT itself" is to a certain extent a mirage. In the plenum in july 1936 leaders of CNT say: "that is not revolution but anty-facsist resistense" and "that is not a moment for libertarian-communist transformation". But alot of local activists of CNT and just simple not CNT workers in Aragon and some over plases started revolution, make collectives and communes. Unfortunatly National Committee have alot of possibilites to establish controle over local activists. If somebody "disperse" them it cood be grate deal... Some CNT workers sujest that but did not do.
Then somebody talk about state or nation or about political party or about union as about sort of unity he is making big mistake. Proletarians and burocrates (bosses) are not the same. Only one thing revolutionaris can do: to create new selforgernised proletarian structures (assembles and accountable counseles) and to smash all hierarchys.

magidd
Offline
Joined: 23-09-06
Jan 17 2007 01:10
Quote:
The result of this was that the Left Socialists not only were kicked out of control of the government but the Communists used the police to seize their newspapers and kicked them out of their union positions. The CNT was also kicked out of the government, and subjected to repression, with many worker-managed enterprises nationalized, etc. Why would this have happened if the CNT were just an integral part of the "bourgeois state" as you say?

Comment
wink
In the beginig leaders cooperate with burgua state than it repressed uncontrolled anarchists. CNT leading group help to state police disperse proletarian insurrection in Barselona in 1937.
And then some of them olso gut problems with police or political partys... That's normal. That's sometimes happened during revolutions. In the certain moment coalition of burgua and burocrates is killing revolutionary proletarian insurrection. Than burocrates strugling with each other.

syndicalistcat's picture
syndicalistcat
Offline
Joined: 2-11-06
Jan 17 2007 01:24

magidd: "As Kustoriadis said supervisory group
concentrate in they hands information, money and communication between local organisations."

Yes, but this is not what Paz and Peirats were saying happened in the CNT, that is not what they meant by "violations of federalism." I already discussed what they had in mind. What they had in mind had already occurred in the July-Sept 1936 period. You're confusing that with what happened later, after the CNT joined the Popular Front government in Nov. 1936.

magidd: "CNT leaders just give perfect help to state police then ivite fighting proletarians to leave barricades in 1937 in Barselona. Managerialist statist mode of production in the conditions of market economy is the form of capitalism (state capitalism) as in USSR."

The Communists wanted to impose the same type of system that existed in the USSR. It was a state centralist, administered economy, not a market-governed economy. It was not capitalist. But, yes, I agree that the CNT ministers in the government (they were not the same as the "CNT leaders" who were the people on the national and regional committees, presumably) were wrong. According to oral history interviews in "Blood of Spain," members of the CNT regional committee in Catalonia were naive in believing that everything would go back to where it was at before May 1937 "now that our members have shown their teeth" (a direct quote from one of those "CNT leaders" you bemoan). In fact that was naive because loads of police were brought in to disarm the CNT.

You can say "fuck Caballero" if you like, but you've not shown you understand what was going on. Things in real life, it seems, get too complicated for your ultra-left brain to handle.

When I pointed out the facts...that the CNT itself -- the local CNT village unions and the regional committee -- in Aragon created the "communtes" there, and that the CNT unions themselves expropriated the industries, not "workers" acting independently of the state, all you do in response is to babble.

Unless you come up with actual evidence, I'm not going to respond to you further as it appears to be pointless.

t.

magidd
Offline
Joined: 23-09-06
Jan 17 2007 03:53
Quote:
Yes, but this is not what Paz and Peirats were saying happened in the CNT, that is not what they meant by "violations of federalism." I already discussed what they had in mind. What they had in mind had already occurred in the July-Sept 1936 period. You're confusing that with what happened later, after the CNT joined the Popular Front government in Nov. 1936

Comment
It is intresting that you can peneterate into they mindes. But of course they were not talking only about what happened in the July-Sept 1936 period. They were talking about general politicks of CNT leaders after 1936 olso.
Our comrade Vadim Damie made 1000 pages research about Spanish revolution wich will be publish soon and he shows that. The obvious example of that aftoritarian contr-revolution inside CNT is may 1937 than leadership of CNT make anarchist fighters leave barricades in Barselona.

Quote:
The Communists wanted to impose the same type of system that existed in the USSR. It was a state centralist, administered economy, not a market-governed economy. It was not capitalist.

Comment
What you said has nothing common with reality becouse system that existed in the USSR was market-governed economy. It was one big corporation wich sell and buy the mouste importent things at the worlds markts. All Stalin programmes of industrialisation was strongly connected with export-import operations. That's why 7 million peasents in USSR die withaut food. Government took everething they produced and sell big part of it in the worlds market. Stalin did this becouse USSR were afraid DEFOLT in 1933 and need mashins from Germany for industrialisation. If you can call that "not a market economy" i have nothing to say.

Quote:
CNT itself -- the local CNT village unions and the regional committee -- in Aragon created the "communtes" there

Comment
First of all local CNT village unions and the regional committee -- in Aragon are not the same. Village unions initiate communisation- this is troof.

Quote:
But, yes, I agree that the CNT ministers in the government (they were not the same as the "CNT leaders" who were the people on the national and regional committees, presumably) were wrong. According to oral history interviews in "Blood of Spain," members of the CNT regional committee in Catalonia were naive in believing that everything would go back to where it was at before May 1937 "now that our members have shown their teeth" (a direct quote from one of those "CNT leaders" you bemoan).

Comment
Leon Trotsky olso said somrething like that after his expulsion. But untill he was leader of Communist Party he hated people revolution even more then his comrade-enemy Stalin... wink
May 1937 is the time then CNT leaders disarmed anarchist fighters and give evrething directly to the hands of police.