Ian Schlom's List: Spanish Revolution

He has many lovely things to say about historiography in the beginning. Then he goes into the character of the Spanish in war and their, basically, fetishes of ideas. Here's some of what he says about the Spanish Anarchists and Fascists:

The Falangists flew the red-black flag symbolizing blood and death in proud imitation of the Anarchists, who had flown the flag long before the Falange movement was invented.  Anarchists and Falangists were brothers under the skin, and death was always the landscape they understood best.  In that landscape they walked with their heads held high

The Anarchists were moved by religious devotions, sang their hymns with religious fire, deeply and helplessly committed to lives of sacrifice.  They spoke of brotherhood as the saints speak of Heaven.  They represented a very real segment of traditional Spanish belief.

There is a sense in which the Spanish Civil War was a long-drawn despairing protest on behalf of dignidad, and no history of the war will be complete unless it places the typical Spanish concept of honor in the forefront of the battle.  For the Spaniard life without dignidad was a vain thing, and ever social class had its own conception of honor to be defended at all costs, even at the cost of annihilation and massacre.  Honor was greater than life.  It was for the sake of honor that men lived, and diminution of honor was paid for in blood.  The savagery of the war can only be explained by an unquenchable desire to satisfy spiritual needs.

Introduction pages. 1-9

In his introduction, Murray Bookchin brings up some interesting facts. Some are on the extent of the Anarchist presence in Spain. In 1936, before the outbreak of civil war, there were around one million members of the CNT, "an immense following if one bears in mins that the Spanish population numbered only twenty-four million" (1). This is meant to say that the Anarchists were a significant force in Spain. Barcelona was both the largest city in Spain and an "Anarchosyndicalist enclave within the Republic. Its working class, overwhelmingly committed to the CNT, established a far-reaching system of syndicalist self-management" (1). Factories, utilities, transport facilities, and retail were "taken over and administered by workers' committees and unions. The city itself was policed by a part-time guard of working men and justice was meted out by popular revolutionary tribunals." There was rural social revolution as well, of course. In the first few wqeeks of civil war, the peasants of Andalusia abolished the use of man, making "free, communistic systems of production and distribution" (1). There were also highly organised Anarchist collectives in Aragon.

Bookchin said that the Spanish Revolution was and the Spanish Anarchists were important because, once, it raised the question regarding how effective collectives were. "These collectives, moreover, were not mere experiments created by idle dreamers; they emerged from a dramatic social revolution that was to mark the climax - and tragic end - of the traditional workers' movement" (2). Twice, the development of Spanish Anarchism from the 1870's to the 1930's is important because it shows how the movement became so strong and embedded. It evolved very close to the people, "reflecting the cherished ideals, dreams, and values of ordinary individuals, not an esoteric credo and tightly knit professional party far removed... The resiliency and tenacity that kept Spanish Anarchism alive in urban barrios and rural pueblos for nearly 70 years, despite unrelenting persecution is understandable only if we view this movement as an expression of plebian Spanish society itself rather than as a body of exotic libertarian doctrines" (2).

The Anarchists of Spain were "puritanical" in how they saw things.  ecause a cantage point of "poverty and exploitation that had reduced millions of Spanish workers and peasants to near-animal squalor," they saw all excess and concentration of wealth "as grossly immoral.  They reacted to the opulence and idleness of the wealthy with a stern ethical credo that emphasised duty, the responsibility of all to work, and a disdain for the pleasures of the flesh."  Unlike Marxist movements, Spanish Anarchism "placed a strong emphasis on life-style: on a total remaking of the individual along libertarian lines.  It deeply valued spontaneity, passion, and initiative from below.  And it thoroughly detested authority and hierarchy in any form.  Despite its stern moreal outlook, Spanish Anarchism opposed the marriage ceremony as a bourgeois sham, advocating instead a free union of partners, and it regarded sexual practiced as a private affair, governable only by a respect for the rights of women.  One must know the Spain of the 1930s, with its strong patriarchal traditions, to recognize what a bold departure Anarchist practices represented from the norms of even the poorest, most exploited, and most neglected classes in the century" (4).

Spanish Anarchism was also very experimental, bringing the future society as close to the present as possible - prefigurative politics.  It was ahead of its time and quite unique and (personally for Ian, at least) exciting:  "The concept of living close to nature lent Spanish Anarchism some of its most unique features - vegetarian diets, often favoring uncooked foods; ecological horticulture; simplicity of dress; a passion for the countryside;  even nudism - but such expression of 'naturialism' also became the subject of much bafoonery in the Spanish press of the time (and of condescending disdain on the part of many present-day academicians).  The movement was keenly preoccupied with all the concrete details of a future libertarian society.  Spanish Anarchists avidly discussed almost every change a revolution could be expected to make in their daily lives, and many of them immediately translated precept into practice as far as this was humanly possivle.  Thousands of Spanish Anarchists altered their diets and abandoned such habit-forming 'vices' as cigarette-smoking and drinking.  Many becam proficient in Esperanto in the conviction that, after the revolution, all national borders would fall away and human beings would speak a common language and share a common cultural tradition" (5).

The "high sense of community and solidarity" helped create the affinity group, and "organizational form based not merely on political or ideological ties, but often close friendship and deep personal involvement" (5).  The Spanish Anarchists were from the very beginning, in the 1870's, anarchosyndicalist.  Their strategies, based on trade unions, was anarchosyndicalist before the French Anarchists developed the theory.  Bookchin cites Engels referring to Spanish Anarchists in 1873 who were behaving in effectively anarchosyndicalist ways.  ["The Bakuninists at Work" ~ Engels]

Murray Bookchin "Prologue: Fanelli's Journey" pgs 12-16

Bakunin sends Giuseppi Fanelli to Spain in October 1968 to get a Spanish chapter for the International. It's not really put together very well, for there's a shoestring budget and Fanelli (odd enough for an Italian) sucks at Spanish. But, in Madrid he's able to talk to a few people and they are amped up and convinced to start a Madrid chapter of the International. There's a guy called Anselmo Lorenzo. He's very influenced by Fanelli and will in turn be a great influence on Spain, principally Barcelona and Andalusia (powerful centres of Anarchism). Lorenzo evetually gets known as "the grandfather of Spanish Anarchism" (14). So despite Fanelli's crappy start, "his brief journey was to have far-reaching influence, providing the catalyst for what was not only the most widespread workers' and peasants' movement in modern Spain, but the largest Anarchist movement in modern Europe" (12).

There's a lot in this that sounds mythical. "But even that is important because it shows the passionately imaginative elements that enter into Spanish yearnings for freedom. And, we shall see, Spain was uniquely susceptible to Anarchist visions of liberation" (16).

Hugh Thomas Ch 1 "Prologue" pgs 3-10

On 16 June 1936 there was a meeting in Parliament. It was intense because the antagonising forces and parties throughout the country were coming to a head. Thomas stylistically has a bunch of people from the different parties and factions talk about Spain's politics.

There was no bourgeois revolution in Spain until the 1930's (though of course the socialists were everywhere given "combined development" or whatever). Before the new bourgeois republic could become like the republics in America or France, it was hit by the fascist &c. movements. There was seriously a lot of shit going down in Spain: 160 churches ... had been burned ... 269 mainly political murders ... 69 political centres had been wrecked, there had been 113 general strikes and 228 partial strikes..." (4). All that had happened since the elections in February 1936. HOLY SHIT

This government was "composed exclusively of the liberal republicans" while depending on working-class groups, which were more revolutionary than ever. There were also nearly 2 million "Anarchist workers" in Barcelona and Andalusia, "roughly organised in the CNT, and directed by a secret society, the FAI" (6). They were as hostile to the left government as to any.

Dolores Ibarruri was a Communist who was a fantastic orator. She was widely percieved as a saint, or a great threat by the Right. She was the only speaker for the Spanish Communist Party, which was small in Spain. Despite her rebellious reputation, "her personality was less strong than it publicly appeared since she was unrebellious in her adherence to the party instructions from Moscow

Murray Bookchin "The 'Idea' and Spain" pgs 17-31

Well, he goes into Anarchism itself in this chapter, and only in the last pages does he really make it relevant to the Spanish Anarchists. So, I only have like one or two notes.

The Spanish Church had always been wrapped up with the ruling class, quite directly. Therefore, the rebels attacked the church before any influence from prim and proper Anarchism. As early as 1835, before Proudhon introduced the term 'anarchist,' churches were burned in rebellions against the ruling class. So, the atheistic and anti-clerical ideas of Bakunin were widely accepted because of this natural opposition to the openly and clearly hostile church. It was easy to convince the Spanish of their already anti-clerical sentiment.

Spaniards were also receptive to the ideas of direct action, because of their reliance on it already as a method given their political disenfranchisement. "...The use of the ballot in Spain was to become meaningless, even after universal suffrage had been introduced. In many Spanish villages, local political bosses, the caciques (generally, landowners, but often lawyers and priests) held absolute control over political life." The Spanish didn't need convincing from Bakunin, an aristocrat, "their education came directly from the arrogant land magnates and bourgeoisie of their own country" (31).

[It's worthwhile noting that the current largest religion of Spain is 70% Catholic (as of 2011)]

Hugh Thomas Ch 2 "Divisions of the Nineteenth Century" pgs 12-19

The universal male (women couldn't vote) franchise was introduced in 1890. "The results of the elections were always faked through the agency of local political bosses, the caciques.  The mass of the people of Spain therefore came to look upon the parliamentary system as a means of excluding them from all political articulation" (14).  [This is reiterating what Bookchin was saying about how the Spanish were already at some Anarchist conclusions]

The Catalan Question became more important because the industrial growth was mainly in Barcelona.  The growing bourgeoisie there bcame Catalan nationalists and Catalon culture became revived.  [It's interesting how this the reason for the development of Catalan revival and patriotism.  Here, as always, is the political and cultural shadow following the economic reality]

Note that that Primo de Rivera dictatoship wasn't necessarily fascist.  Once it fell apart, the king Alfonso XIII that stepped into the place of control wasn't able to maintain it.  The Republican movement was charging ahead strong and the Army was no longer in support of the king.  Despite a rigged election supposed to have won the monarchy approval of a plebliscite, the massive protests in Madrid showed the king and his advisors that he should abdicate.  So the 2nd Republic could get started as the king went into exile.

Bookchin, Murray. The Spanish Anarchists. New York, NY: Free Life Editions, 1977. Print.

Dolgoff, Sam. The Anarchist Collectives. New York, NY: Free Life Editions, 1974. Print.

Kaplan, Temma E. "Spanish Anarchism and Women's Liberation." Journal of Contemporary History 6.2 (1971): 101-10. JSTOR. Web. 19 May 2012. .

Payne, Robert.  The Civil War in Spain. New York, NY: Capricorn Books, 1970. Print.

Rocker, Rudolf. The Tragedy of Spain. New York, NY: Freie Arbeiter Stimme, 1937. The Anarchist Library. EPUB.

Thomas, Hugh. The Spanish Civil War. New York, NY: Harper and Brothers, 1961. Print.

Hugh Thomas Ch 3 "The Coming of the Second Republic" 21-30

The cabinet of the Second Republic in 1931 was diverse and full of liberals and radicals. Most were anti-clerical, "if not atheist" (21). The foreign minister, Alexander Lerroux, used to be a big revolutionist sounding youth. In his youth he was called "The Emperor of the Paralelo" (brothel district of Barcelona) and in 1905 he demanded his followers to rise up from the Barcelona slums against the Church and their employers in the most fiery of language: "Young barbarians of today! Enter and sack the decadent civilisation of this unhappy country! Destroy its temples, finish off its gods, tear the veil from its novices and raise them up to be mothers! Fight, kill and die!" (22). {Who doesn't love that quote?} Having him and other anti-clerical folks naturally scared the shit of the Spanish ruling elements (hierarchy).

There were two socialists in the cabinet. They represented the UGT and the Spanish Socialist Party. The Socialists had started small in number and couldn't organise in Catalonia because the Anarchists had already rooted themselves so powerfully. Therefore they had to "found their chief strength among the typographers and iron workers of Madrid, among miners of Asturias, and in the industrial areas growing up in the Basque provinces around Bilbao" (25). Pablo Iglesias, founder of the Spanish Socialist Workers' Party (PSOE) had followed in the tradition of the split in the First International, adhering to Marx of course, the old kind of Socialists. {So, not coming out of the Bolshevik tradition} Indeed, in 1921, the PSOE decided not to join the Comintern and severed connexions with the Russian Bolsheviks when they "despatched Fernando de los R[i]os to Russia as a rapporteur.  'But where is liberty?' asked the bearded individualist from Andalusia. 'Liberty,' replied Lenin, 'what for?'" (26, 1st ft. nt.).  Once the PSOE had done this, however, a small faction of socialists and "discontented Anarchists" (26) founded the Spanish Communist Party (PCE, Communist Party of Spain).

 In 1908 the UGT numbered 3,000.  Two things would make the membership rise significantly over the years.  One is the creation of casas del pueblo, which were Socialist clubs with cafes, libraries, and committee rooms of the local trade unions branches.  Second, was the first world war.  It brought Spain prosperity (25 {eyebrow rising, nicht wahr?}) and a greater interest in national and European affairs.  By 1920, the UGT numbered 200,000.

All five members of the cabinet were freemasons.  Those lodges had become very popular in Spain,a nd to join one was a political act.  The lodges were usually anti-clerical and anti-religious.  They'd been used as meeting places for the overthrow of Primo de Rivera and became centres for the some of the Left.  Fascists and Jesuits attacked them as trying to subvert religion and trying to institute Communism.  They of course weren't, and were not unified politically and would become conflicted.

The greatest triumph for the anti-monarchists in the elections was in Barcelona and Catalonia.  The victory came from the popular petty-bourgeois progessive partry, Esquerra (Catalan for "Left").  They had won to such an extent, and the Catalan spirit was such, that an independent Catalonia was near possible.  The leader of Equerra had "the city of Barcelona ... in his hands." The leaders would be persuaded to "await the passage of a Calatan stute of home rule by the new Cortes," (29) the Spanish parliament.  The large bourgeois Catalan Party had become afraid of the strong "Anarchist faith of most of the workers" (28) and allied themselves with the Right.  They had become big enough to no longer worry about the national question and became more centralist.  {I love so much the recognition of economic incentive in political positions!}

In my essay or my work on the Spanish revolution, I should beforehand set out on the one hand what aprts of the civil war I want to investigate and on the other hand, what I'd want and essay like that to do.

Obviously, what I want to focus on is how the Anarchist Revolution was made, what it looks like, and I'll probably get that by looking through Sam Dolgoff's anthology on the collectives. I want to look at what institutions were used and what were created to work on the revolution.

But most important would be how and why the revolution was destroyed and how the destruction of the revolution could have been prevented. So in this way, the research will be doubly fruitful, as the information shows how to preserve revolution and the essay will perhaps offer steps for the future.

Also important and connected is how a revolutionary movement in S[pain was formed and developed to such an extent that when the fascists made their move, the tide came to shore.

S this way, the essay will detail ways of both laying the foundation and defending a revolution.

This means that the books I should begin to research are books that detail: How the revolutionary movements developed; How the Revolution looked - what the revolution consisted of; and how the revolution was defeated, what was done to defeat it.

Addition of 5 May 2012:

I also want to look at the scope of the revolution, so examining in what ways the revolution limited itself and what ways it was innovative, viz. women's and queer rights, &c.

The Spanish Revolution is clearly a crazy clusterfuck, where there's a shit load of crazy-ass bullshit flying e'erywhere.

Seriously, though, the Spanish Revolution clearly has more facets to it, is more complicated, because there are more dimensions in European politics in the 1930's than in the 1910's. There are mainly two phenomenon which complicate things, the Stalinist communism of the USSR, and the fascist movements in Spain, Germany, and Italy. The revolution was also complicated further in that there was a fucking war going on. The Civil War demanded an unceasing defense of the Republic agaist the fascist armies while the revolution demanded uncompromising positions. A really hard place for the Anarchists, and it's easy to see how Gaston Leval could see in 1936 that the revolution was doomed.

As either Puente or Leval had said, the war against the fascists had to come first. So then the revolution was able to be quickly perverted and destroyed by the Stalinist Communists. (I still don't really get why Stalin was against the revolution.... I should probably fix that by either reading Chomsky or Rocker).