Friends of Durruti

82 posts / 0 new
Last post
syndicalistcat's picture
syndicalistcat
Offline
Joined: 2-11-06
Jan 17 2007 04:19

magidd: "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."

I don't have to mind read because they described exactly what they meant by failure to abide by federalist standards. I've already gone over that. You have nothing new to add.

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

magidd: "First of all local CNT village unions and the regional committee -- in Aragon are not the same."

There is an interview with Macario Royo in "Blood of Spain." He was on the regional committee of CNT in Aragon. He describes how he went to the militia commanders, including Durruti, to get their support to set up a regional defense council in Aragon. He points out this was a proposal of the CNT village unions. So the regional committee was acting at the request of the village unions. And this was in Sept. 1936. There wasn't the gulf between the CNT village unions and the regional committee you seem to suppose.

If the CNT was already a part of the "bourgeois state" why did the Communist controlled army units do their rampage thru Aragon in 1937, arresting 600 CNT members? It wasn't simply to destroy the "communes" -- 70% survived the attack. Their aim was the destruction of CNT power in Aragon, especially the elimination of the defense council. This was working class power.

The world is more complex than the black and white colors of sectarians.

I've written my own extensively documented account of the Spanish revolution at:

http://www.workersolidarity.org/spain.pdf

t.

magidd
Offline
Joined: 23-09-06
Jan 17 2007 11:59

magidd: "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."

Quote:
I don't have to mind read because they described exactly what they meant by failure to abide by federalist standards. I've already gone over that. You have nothing new to add.

Comment
wink ;)
This is for example what Abel Pas exactly wrote: "First mistake was made alredy in 19-20 of july than group of activists put itself on the place of members and made decision instead of them. SINS THAT MOMENT there was break between bases and ledership: bases wants to develop revolution and leadership wants to control and reduce that ". (Paz. A. Durruti. p 485).
And Paz never wrote that situation changed back
in 1937 or 1938.
New ruling structures (revolutionary committees, committees of antifacst militious) meny times was constructed NOT ON THE GENERAL ASSEMBLES but after the agreements between organisations (committees) of CNT and UHT and ets. Bernecker W.L. Anarchismus und Bürgerkrieg... 226-232.
Who give imperative mandate to bosses of CNT to surrender in Barselona in may 1937? Why did they make decision about that and started to urge fighters leave barricades?
And can anybody tell me WHEN and HAW general assembles of CNT members give to anarchist minister Garsia Oliver imperative mandate for creation of "labor camps"? wink

Quote:
If the CNT was already a part of the "bourgeois state" why did the Communist controlled army units do their rampage thru Aragon in 1937, arresting 600 CNT members? It wasn't simply to destroy the "communes" -- 70% survived the attack. Their aim was the destruction of CNT power in Aragon, especially the elimination of the defense council. This was working class power.

Comment
I never said ALL CNT members or all local groups were contr-revolutionaris. Opposite that i said few times that CNT did not have total unity. Groupse of CNT in Aragon, FIJL Catalunia, Durruti Friends ets were not bad or very very good. As for regional committee in Aragon: probably it was not so bad but still it was obidient to CNT general politics of ministerialism. That was the problems of majority of CNT: it was obidient to contr-revolutionaris in some prinsiple points (from another side local activity cood be realy good). But revolutionary minoritis of CNT were dependent and paralised by they memboship in CNT. That's why CNT was contr-revolutionary organisation.
In fact 80% of workers-bolshevics in 1917 belived that they are strugling for "Soviet power" not for "party dictatoship". Some of them were very good revolutioneris and do the same collectivisations of factoris in 1917 as CNT workers in 1936. But members of such thing as bolshevic party can not make social revolution.
I alredy said and i'll repit: "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".

Quote:
The world is more complex than the black and white colors of sectarians.

Comment
I agree. But haw do you know that? All things you said is sort of sectarian myth about CNT. That was created by reformist sindicalists. That sounds like “CNT was good but made some mistakes”. We all heard the same propaganda about Communist Party sins general secretary Hrushev attack “cult of Stalin”. Nobody except few thousands of sindicalists belive that CNT-myth todey.
CNT join burgua government. It cooperated with anti-facsist burgua coalition few years. It exploited workers. That was not "mistake". That was politics.

syndicalistcat's picture
syndicalistcat
Offline
Joined: 2-11-06
Jan 17 2007 18:02

magidd: "This is for example what Abel Pas exactly wrote: "First mistake was made alredy in 19-20 of july than group of activists put itself on the place of members and made decision instead of them. SINS THAT MOMENT there was break between bases and ledership: bases wants to develop revolution and leadership wants to control and reduce that ".

No new facts here. Paz was actually confused about the date. The regional plenary that made the decision to join the Anti-fascists Militia Committee took place on July 23rd. It's true the CNT labor council delegates didn't consult the rank and file in an assembly. In case you're unaware, they had an immediate crisis, they were in fact right then in the process of recruiting thousands of union members into a union militia, seizing the motor vehicle industry to set up arms factories, etc. They probably felt they didn't have the weeks of time needed to organize and invoke assemblies of members all over Catalonia.

Their real failure was not discussing what concrete steps to take in this situation two months before, at the Congress in Zaragoza. That's why, as Cesar Lorenzo says in Los anarquistas y el poder, they "had to improvise in total incoherence after July 19th."

However, there was a later plenary in August when, once again, Garcia Oliver and a number of the unions, put forward the proposal to overthrow the government in Catalonia. That time, there HAD BEEN assemblies of the rank and file. The ranks had the time to instruct their delegates to overthrow the government, if that was the direction they wanted to go in. And there were people pushing in that direction. But, once again, they faild to get majority support. In that case, you can't blame the delegates for "substituting for the members" since there had been assemblies of the members.\

It's true, of course, that once an organization makes a decision for a direction, it's harder to change it. As I said, I think Lorenzo was right in criticizing them for having no concrete program for a practical taking of power with the UGT via a workers assembly for the whole region. Their discussion on "libertarian communism" was too abstract, it had no practical program of immediate steps to go in that direction in the actual situation they faced.

As for the rest of your verbiage, instead of misdescribing my position, as you do there, you could read what i actually say, in:

http://www.workersolidarity.org/spain.pdf

t.

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Jan 19 2007 10:33
casseur wrote:
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.

That it would - if anyone could scan the text it would be much appreciated!

Anarcho
Offline
Joined: 22-10-06
Jan 19 2007 10:59

May I point people to "An Anarchist FAQ" (www.anarchistfaq.org -- the infoshop server is down just now) which has an appendix on Marxist attacks on Spanish Anarchism:

Marxists and Spanish Anarchism
http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/1931/append32.html

It has sections on the Friends of Durruti, but it concentrates on Morrow's book (given that is the source of most Marxist nonsense on Spain, that makes sense). I would also suggest Section I.8 as well:

I.8 Does revolutionary Spain show that libertarian socialism can work in practice?
http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/1931/secI8.html

Most marxist attacks on the Spanish anarchists are usually ill-informed and lacking in any real understanding of the situation the revolution found itself in. Without understanding the objective circumstances, the subjective decisions cannot be fully understood and any criticism will seem superficial in the extreme. Which is, of course, the failing of the usual Marxist analysis of Spanish Anarchism.

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Jan 19 2007 11:57
John. wrote:
casseur wrote:
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.

That it would - if anyone could scan the text it would be much appreciated!

John, It is already on line in various places:
http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=utf-8&fr=slv8-msgr&p=%27Towards%20a%20...

AndrewF's picture
AndrewF
Offline
Joined: 28-02-05
Jan 19 2007 12:21
casseur wrote:
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.

Actually it is and has been for years (google the title)

Flag is down at the moment but the text is on Anarkismo at
http://www.anarkismo.net/newswire.php?story_id=912

OliverTwister's picture
OliverTwister
Offline
Joined: 10-10-05
Jan 19 2007 19:12

This might also be of interest:

http://www.spunk.org/texts/places/spain/sp001780/index.html

Commodity
Offline
Joined: 19-12-06
Feb 2 2007 18:29
nastyned wrote:
In reply to Alf:

No, no. It's objectively true. Unlike the ICC's line.

Ah, so there is such thing as objectivity?

Commodity
Offline
Joined: 19-12-06
Feb 2 2007 18:44
Quote:
The CNT members were unwilling to follow the lead of the FoD. That's simply the fact of the situation.

The CNT leaders made the decision of collaboration with the State. The blame can't be entirely placed on the workers; Garcia Oliver can fairly take much fault.

gatorojinegro's picture
gatorojinegro
Offline
Joined: 21-01-07
Feb 3 2007 03:01

commodity: "The CNT leaders made the decision of collaboration with the State. The blame can't be entirely placed on the workers; Garcia Oliver can fairly take much fault."

No doubt Garcia Oliver can be faulted for the stance he took in May of 1937. But he can't be blamed for the CNT's pursuing the strategy of collaboration with the Popular Front. That's because he was in fact initially a strong opponent of that direction, throughout July to September 1936.

And who are "the CNT leaders"? the decision to collaborate with the Popular Front parties in Catalonia, which began that whole direction, was taken on July 23rd 1936 by a regional plenum, which was a meeting of over 500 rank and file labor council delegates. Moreover, that direction was ratified by another plenary in August. If the rank and file in the CNT were opposed to that direction, they had the opportunity to make their opinions known at union meetings between those two plenaries, and elect new labor council delegates or make sure their delegates would change course.

It would be more accurate to blame the FAI "leaders" because at both a Barcelona CNT labor council meeting on July 20th 1936 and again at the crucial regional plenary on July 23rd, it was mainly the representatives of the FAI who argued for collaboration with the Popular Front parties, and against overthrowing the government.

t.

Commodity
Offline
Joined: 19-12-06
Feb 3 2007 05:56
gatorojinegro wrote:
commodity: "The CNT leaders made the decision of collaboration with the State. The blame can't be entirely placed on the workers; Garcia Oliver can fairly take much fault."

No doubt Garcia Oliver can be faulted for the stance he took in May of 1937. But he can't be blamed for the CNT's pursuing the strategy of collaboration with the Popular Front. That's because he was in fact initially a strong opponent of that direction, throughout July to September 1936.

And who are "the CNT leaders"? the decision to collaborate with the Popular Front parties in Catalonia, which began that whole direction, was taken on July 23rd 1936 by a regional plenum, which was a meeting of over 500 rank and file labor council delegates. Moreover, that direction was ratified by another plenary in August. If the rank and file in the CNT were opposed to that direction, they had the opportunity to make their opinions known at union meetings between those two plenaries, and elect new labor council delegates or make sure their delegates would change course.

It would be more accurate to blame the FAI "leaders" because at both a Barcelona CNT labor council meeting on July 20th 1936 and again at the crucial regional plenary on July 23rd, it was mainly the representatives of the FAI who argued for collaboration with the Popular Front parties, and against overthrowing the government.

t.

Labor council delegates would be considered leaders, wouldn't they? They held the authority to make decisions for the CNT. As I said, I'm not excusing the participation of the common worker, but the council delegates had the power to decide the path the CNT would take: sacrificing their principles or carrying through with the revolution.

I guess I'm trying to imply that anyone in any position of authority contributed to the switch to collaborationism, whether through direct support or apathy. The only group which remained authentic was the Group.

gatorojinegro's picture
gatorojinegro
Offline
Joined: 21-01-07
Feb 3 2007 06:11

by "the Group" do you mean FoD? There were others who agreed with their perspective. At the time of the decision by the CNT reginal plenary in July 1936, the proposal to overthrow the government came from the labor council of Bajo Llobregat, an area of blue-collar industrial suburbs south of Barcelona (blast furnaces, metalworking plants, textile miles). They walked out in anger when the decision to collaboarate with the government was made. And they overthrew the city governemnt of Hospitalet de Llobregat, the largest municipality in their area, replacing it with CNT revolutionary committee, and instituted equal wages for everyone in their area. Also, read the interview with Eduardo de Guzman in "Blood of Spain." He was the managing editor of the CNT daily paper in Madrid. He agreed with FoD's perspective even tho I think he wasn't a member of it.

t.

Commodity
Offline
Joined: 19-12-06
Feb 5 2007 18:41
gatorojinegro wrote:
by "the Group" do you mean FoD? There were others who agreed with their perspective. At the time of the decision by the CNT reginal plenary in July 1936, the proposal to overthrow the government came from the labor council of Bajo Llobregat, an area of blue-collar industrial suburbs south of Barcelona (blast furnaces, metalworking plants, textile miles). They walked out in anger when the decision to collaboarate with the government was made. And they overthrew the city governemnt of Hospitalet de Llobregat, the largest municipality in their area, replacing it with CNT revolutionary committee, and instituted equal wages for everyone in their area. Also, read the interview with Eduardo de Guzman in "Blood of Spain." He was the managing editor of the CNT daily paper in Madrid. He agreed with FoD's perspective even tho I think he wasn't a member of it.

t.

Of course there were individual supporters of the Group's program, but I did say "the only group which remained authentic was the Group" (to clarify which group I was talking about).