Re: Carlos & Spanish Civil War

[iwp.ilo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (CEP )]

|>Querido camarada Carlos,
>
>I have not received yet your (scathing, I dare suppose) comments on my
views
>on the role of the communist party of Spain. However I can guess some
of
>their content by what you write concerning Charlotte's postings.
>
>
    Carlos answers:
    It is amazing how Lorenzo can "guess" what I wrote if he never saw
    it.  Since he doesn't even know me nor he know anything about my
    previous posting I should "assume" that he is a "medium" of sorts.
    An I'm sorry, but I'm not going to discuss politics whith somebody
    who can guess what I said and, I imagine, can guess what I will
    say.  So , Lorenzo I will let you "guess" what my answer is about
    what you post, to save everyone's time, so to speak.

    I also read that you commented on a movie without having even seen
    it.  This is amazing!  Can You tell me how you do it?

    Lorenzo also wrote:
.>
>      I'd like to be in agreement with you on at least one thing, but
>unfortunately not a single sentence you write on Spain seems to me
quite
>correct. Sorry, Carlos, I really dislike being so impolite, esp when
talking
>with a man who obviously shares my communist ideals and is against
capitalist
>injustice, as you clearly are.
>
    Carlos Replies:

    No , It doesn't bother me your impoliteness.  Not a bit.  Your long
    post doesn't include any correction of factual information (except
    the mention of the year 1935 (should have been 1936 -- An I did
    correct that before you even noticed in my second post-- thank
    you).  You only minimized the factual information and said that
    those were just insignificant events.

    Well, You had to suffer Francoism for 50 years or so. So I'm not
    going to have a flame war with you about whether those things I
    mentioned before were relevant, important or as big as a I posted.
    I would like to do something better. Listen up.

    I already committeed myself to make a report on the Spanish Civil
    War and Fascism.  I'm in the process of doing my writting.  When
    I finish it I will post my conclussions and I will include my
    sources of information and some quotations for you to verify.  Then
    I will expect to you to challenge those sources, give your opinions
    or simply shut it up.  Is that a deal?  By the way, let's put a
    deadline for that.  What about if I post my writting no later than
    the end of February? -- If you push me really hard, maybe I can
    post it before that day.

    Or, we may save everyone's time and you can "guess" what I'm going
    to write, which my sources will be and write your response
    tomorrow.  Your choice.

    Comradely,

    Carlos




>Carlos:
>>  IMHO, the Spanish Civil War was not an anti-fascist resistance but
>>  a revolution attacked by fascism. Quite different in fact.
>
>As so often, in depends on what you mean by the terms you use. If by
>`revolution' you mean a social anticapitalist struggle for the
overthrow of
>bourgeois power and the establishment of a dictatorship of the
proletariat
>(or something like that), there was no such thing in Spain. Nor would
>anything of the sort have happened without Franco's uprising (barring
other
>unpredictable events). The domination of the ruling class, the
bourgeoisie,
>was secure and solid. In fact much more secure than in many other
`European'
>countries (I say `European' with inverted commas because `Europe' is
an
>artificial pseudo-concept with no objective geographical substance at
all).
>
>      Since Spain had remained neutral during WW I, its only serious
source
>of instability being the absurd mini-colonialistic war in Morocco (as
a
>puppet of France, since it served no other purpose except furthering
the
>military career of individuals like Franco), there was no grand
upheaval
>threatening the system.
>
>      Admittedly Primo de Rivera's dictatorship had been imposed by
the king
>in order to prevent debates over the crown's deeds and misdeeds in the
>Moroccan war, which was extremely unpopular. Admittedly the bourgeois
>Republic had promulgated (but failed to apply) a land reform act,
which by
>its very nature posed no menace for the capitalistic system at all.
>Admittedly there were strikes, as there were in Switzerland, Belgium,
>Holland, France, England etc. Admittedly there was an
anarco-syndicalist
>movement (which was losing ground and, BTW, turning to the right,
little by
>little, step by step). Admittedly a communist party existed (with a
few
>hundred members when the Republic was established on April 14 1931).
And so
>what? Every bourgeois regime had to cope with those things and worse.
>
>      The ruling class's domination was not threatened by a small
communist
>party, by an aging anarco-syndicalist movement, by a right-wing pro-
>bourgeois, socially reactionary, `socialist workers party', which had
>retained only the name of socialism, nothing else. Nor was it
threatened by
>the peasants, the overwhelming majority of which only demanded a
stretch of
>land within the framework of existent relations of production.
>
>      Not is the fact that industrially Spain was a little less
developed
>than France or Germany at that time (real economic backwardness would
begin
>in the 50's as a result of Franco's tyranny) a sufficient ground for a
>catastrophe like the civil war. No, the reason was the conjunction of
>Hitler's and Mussolini's ambitions and the fanatic monarchism of the
land-
>lords, the Catholic Church, the military and some elements of the
>bourgeoisie.
>
>      An exasperated situation was artificially created in order to
justify
>the uprising which had been prepared ever since April 1932 (you fail
to
>mention Sanjurjo's uprising in Seville at the beginning of the
Republic
>period, when no pretext could be offered as a supposed danger for the
>established social order). Even so I can tell you that when the
military
>rebelled on 17-18 July 1936, the huge majority of Spaniards were taken
aback.
>They had never imagined anything like that, because life was quite
normal,
>barring a few minor incidents as happened everywhere.
>
>Carlos:
>>  The revolution started with a massive wave of strikes after the
>>  fall of Primo de Rivera in 1930. In April of the same year the
>>  Republic is proclaimed, after Alfonso XIII abdicated. These were
>>  the results of insurrectionary strikes and uprisings.
>
>Well, Carlos, plural and singular are different. There was one small
uprising
>(at Jaca), which had no practical consequence (and  which was a
bourgeous-
>republican military pronunciamiento by a few military officers,
nothing
>else), plus a practically insignificant defiant flight by a brother of
the
>future despot (the military pilot Ramoncito Franco, at some times
free-mason,
>anarchist, and finally fascist, always in good terms with his
staunchly
>ultra-reactionary monarchist brother). Strikes there were.
Insurrectionary
>they were not. (Not that many strikes, by the way.) Alfonso XIII did
not
>abdicate. He was compelled to leave Spain (he tried to use force
against the
>people; the municipal elections had just been won by the republicans;
he was
>told the troops may fail to obey, so he left, but never abdicated in
his
>life).
>
>      The transition from monarchy to Republic was a peaceful, legal,
>democratic one. No violence. (Only a few communists bruised here or
there
>when, demonstrating in groups of ten or so, they chanted `Down with
the
>bourgeois Republic, all power to the Soviets!' -- Where are the
soviets,
>people replied.)
>
>Carlos:
>>  But the left suffered a defeat in the electoral arena few years
>>  down the road and the anti-working class measures of the new
>>  government produced the insurrections of Madrid, Barcelona and of
>>  the self-proclaimed Asturian commune, followed by a widespread
>>  repression of the working class in 1935.
>
>
>      The 1933 elections brought a majority of `radical republicans'
(in fact
>an extremely corrupt party which was regarded as the least republican
amongst
>the republicans) supported by the clerical CEDA. When the CEDA entered
the
>government, one insurrection occurred, in Asturias as you rightly say.
The
>events of Barcelona amounted to nothing except a gesture. No
insurrection in
>Madrid, I don't know what your source for that may be. In fact the
Asturian
>uprising was a terrible and tragic mistake led by people out of touch
with
>reality. There is room to speculate whether they allowed themselves to
be
>provoked by those who tried to artificially bring about a climate
justifying
>a military coup (well I'm sure that was the case).
>
>Carlos:
>>  In Octuber 1935 the Socialists allied themselves with the
>>  Republicans and in 1936 they signed a joint electoral left
>>  program. In February of 1935 the Popular Front wins the elections
>>  and a wave of strikes shake Spain: the working class wanted to
>>  advance even further. April 1935, the Socialist and Communist
>>  youth fused. They are reports of thousands of violent seizures
>>  of lands. The peasantry has joined the working class.
>
>
>      You have written `1935' when you meant `1936', but that is BTW.
>
>      No wave of strikes shook Spain. There were some strikes, here
and
>there. What you portray reminds me of the Francoist radio propaganda
in 1961.
>Each day: `Han pasado 25 anyos, tal dia como hoy, los rojos hicieron
tal y
>cual atrocidad; las huelgas ...'. When you ask people about their
>recollections, no such climate is remembered. No, life was normal,
things
>went on as usual. Yes, a few seizures of land were violent, because
land
>workers demanded the application of the land reform act, which was
perfectly
>legal.
>
>Carlos:
>>  In JUly 1935 the military launched an insurrection against the
>>  Republic and the Civil War began. Like fire in the prairie,
>>  soviets and dual power emerge in vast areas of the Republic.
>
>
>      Again, it is 1936, not 35. Look, Carlos, what you have read
about those
>events must be a novel. There were no soviets (well, of course, it
depends
>on what you call a `soviet'). There was a confuse mixture of local
>committees, militias, groups of all sorts. Not dual power. No power.
Mob rule
>in some cases. In others everybody's rule. Until little by little a
new power
>emerged, chiefly thanks to the activity of the communist party of
Spain.
>
>      What you call the Republic (Spain was the Republic) is the
territory
>the rebels were initially unable to occupy.
>
>Carlos:
>>  That is hardly an anti-fascist, therefore defensive struggle.
>>  It was a revolution attacked by the fascists.
>
>
>      No, no, all those different and conflicting actions were the
result of
>Franco's uprising, measures taken in order to crush the uprising.
>
>Carlos:
>>  As I explained before, was a revolution. The CP *retreated"
>>  from the revolution, disarmed the soviets, joined in a bourgeois
>>  government with the "shadow of the bourgeoisie" and adopted the
>>  program of democracy *instead* of the revolution.
>
>
>      Well, Carlos, the CP created its own militia, the Quinto
Regimiento,
>which was the core of the new popular army. It proposed to join all
militias
>into a united antifascist army, instead of perpetuating anarchy and
>disorganization. The PC could not and did not disarm the soviets. For
one
>thing, there were no soviets to disarm. For another, it was the
government's
>task to constrain all different paries and militias to join into a
single
>army. If and when communist men were ordered to obey the government's
orders
>here or there compelling undisciplined remnant militias to behave in
>accordance with the new regulations, they did (as Lister did in
Aragon). Even
>a number of anarco-syndicalists acted in the same way.
>
>      The PC's program was not `democracy instead of revolution'. The
CP
>retained its maximal program, communism, a society in which everybody
>receives according to their needs. For the time being, the immediate
task was
>defeating fascism.
>
>      If now I'm going to brush my teeth, I'm not renouncing
revolution or
>betraying the proletariat. No, it's just that right now I need my
teeth
>brushed, even if I want to demonstrate tomorrow in the streets in
solidarity
>with the immigrants or whatever. (A time to sow, a time to harvest, a
time
>to make revolution and a time to resist fascism.)
>
>>  The higher peak of this betrayal of the Spanish CP consisted,
>>  on May 3, 1937 of the smashing of the Barcelona's insurrection.
>>  That day, the military forces of the CP, the Republicn Guards and
>>  "special divisions" of the KGB attacked the dual power organs of
>>  the Catalonian working class led by the "Amigos of Durruti", the
>>  left wing of the Anarchist CNT and the POUM, a centrist Marxist
>>  organization. Amigos de Durruti-POUM's alliance was supported
>>  by the working class that declared a general strike, They
>>  expressed the desires of the working class to advance the revolu-
>>  tionary movement.
>
>
>      There was no insurrection in Barcelona in may 1937, Just some
scuffles
>and tumult: were skirmishes, barricades; some people died. The friends
of
>Durruti were completely isolated even among the anarco-syndicalists.
They
>were regarded as eccentric, erratic, unreliable hot heads. Nor was the
POUM
>all that clear on what position to adopt. Its official inflammatory
>proclamations did not truly reflect its practical actions, and they
were used
>by people obsessed with the Trotskyist danger (they were not
Trotskyists,
>Trosky criticized them harshly).
>
>      Nor was there anything like a dual power in Catalonia. What is
more,
>Catalonia was of secondary importance in the war, far from the
front-line at
>that time. Such events could have little or no effect on the war as a
whole.
>As to what the trouble-makers wanted, it is not even what you say. As
with
>so many other such squabbles, the advanced reasons were confused and
>hesitant. Rather the riots started as a result of mutual suspicions,
as is
>inevitable when no united mutually respected authority has been
established.
>
>>  Thousands of workers were murdered. The leaders of the anarchists
>>  and POUM were "judged" by "special tribunals" orchestrated by
>>  the Stalinist CP and killed. There were no more than a repetition
>>  of the Moscow trials. As a matter of fact, they accussed the
>>  working class leaders of "complicity with fascism"
>
>
>      No, Carlos, nothing of the sort happened. An insignificant
handful of
>POUM leaders were judged by a Republican Court, most of them
acquitted.
>Andres Nin was indeed kidnapped, possibly by Komintern agents. However
since
>several NKVD's agents in Spain defected to the West there is room to
wonder
>what the whole affair really was. As far as I know nobody has been
able to
>clarify the Nin case.
>
>      No repetition of the Moscow trials, either. No similarity at
all. No
>accused man talking like Bukharin. And no Wyshinsky either, BTW. Only
a few
>were convicted, and then not of being fascist agents but of provoking
>disturbances in order to bring about the downfall of the government
(even
>that was an overstatement, to say the truth). All in all the POUM was
so
>small an organization that its significance was almost none. They
mainly
>existed in the obsessed minds of some Komintern people like Palmiro
Togliatti
>(Ercole Ercoli). The same patters which has been repeated over and
over and
>over again: there is a purge going on, so in order to be a good
militant you
>had better produce your own quota of purging, and you must find people
to
>purge. (Same as in China under the counter-100 flowers afterwave,
1957-58;
>well, and same as thousands upon thousands of times in history.)
>
>>  In other cities, the disarming of the left wing, the murder of
>>  its leaders and the massacre of workers who demanded revolutionary
>>  action instead of political surrender to the bourgeois order,
>>  continued. That was the policy of the Popular Front. Was this
>>  policy that opened up the road to the victory of Franco's forces.
>
>
>      What cities? What left wing was disarmed and by whom? Which
leaders
>were murdered? Which workers were massacred? That is pure fantasy with
no
>basis, not even an ever so remote one. The POUM was a small handful of
people
>in Catalonia and in Majorca (which was from the beginning under
Franco's
>control). Elsewhere it was completely absent.
>
>
>      The remainder of your posting is equally fantastic and
other-worldly,
>Carlos. I bears no likeness, not even a distant one, to reality.
Enough said,
>Comradely yours, Lorenzo
>
>|^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^|^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^|
>| Prof. Lorenzo Penya            |  Fax & Voice Tph #
(home):+341/8030948 |
>| Editor of SORITES
+----------------------------------------+
>+--------------------------------|    Main Tel (w): +341/4117060, ext
18  |
>| Regular Mail Address:          | Altern. Tel (w): +341/4111098, ext
286 |
>| CSIC - Institute of Philosophy |         Fax (w): +341/5645252
   |
>| Pinar 25
+----------------------------------------+
>| E - 28006 Madrid, Spain        |  E-address:
Laurentius@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~
>ftp://olmo.csic.es/pub/sorites/Editorial.Cabinet/Lorenzo.Penya/Profile.
html
>_______________________________________________________________________
____
>
>
>     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>



     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---

     ------------------