Article

Anarchist History

Trotskyist Lies on Anarchism

ItÕs fair to say that most marxists in Britain base their criticisms of the Spanish Anarchist Revolution of 1936 on the work of Trotskyist Felix Morrow. MorrowÕs book ÔRevolution and Counter-Revolution in SpainÕ, first published in 1938, actually isnÕt that bad Ð for some kinds of information. However, itÕs basically written as Trotskyist propaganda. All too often Morrow is inaccurate, and over-eager to bend reality to fit the party line.

The Bolshevik-Leninists, for example, an obscure sect who perhaps numbered 20 members, are, according to Morrow, transformed into the only ones who could save the Spanish Revolution Ð because they alone were members of the Fourth International, MorrowÕs own organisation. ÔOnly the small forces of the Bolshevik-Leninists...clearly pointed the road for the workersÕ (1); ÔCould that party [the party needed to lead the revolution] be any but a party standing on the platform of the Fourth International?Õ (2), etc.. The POUM Ð a more significant marxist party in Spain, though still tiny compared to the anarchists Ð is also written up as far more important than it was, and slagged off for failing to lead the masses to victory (or listening to the Bolshevik-Leninists). The Fourth Internationalists Ôoffered the POUM the rarest and most precious form of aid: a consistent Marxist analysisÕ (3) (never mind Spanish workers needing guns and solidarity!). But when such a programme Ð prepared in advance Ð was offered the POUM by the Fourth International representative Ð only two hours after arriving in Spain, and 1/4 of an hour after meeting the POUM (4) Ð the POUM werenÕt interested. The POUM have been both attacked (and claimed as their own) by Trotskyists ever since...

ItÕs MorrowÕs attacks on anarchism, though, that have most readily entered leftist folklore Ð even among Marxists who reject Leninism. Some of MorrowÕs criticisms are fair enough Ð but these were voiced by anarchists long before Morrow put pen to paper. Morrow, in fact, quotes and accepts the analyses of anarchists like Camillo Berneri (ÔBerneri had been rightÕ etc. (5)), and praises anarchists like Durruti (Ôthe greatest military figure produced by the warÕ (6)) Ð then sticks the boot into anarchism. Morrow obviously wanted to have his cake and eat it.

Typically for todayÕs left, perhaps, the most quoted sections of MorrowÕs book are the most inaccurate. HereÕs a detailed look at three of them:

¥ According to Morrow, ÔSpanish Anarchism had in the FAI a highly centralised party apparatus through which it maintained control of the CNTÕ (7). In reality, the FAI Ð the Iberian Anarchist Federation Ð was founded, in 1927, as a confederation of regional federations (including the Portuguese Anarchist Union). These regional federations, in turn, coordinated local and district federations of highly autonomous anarchist affinity groups. So, while the FAI may have had centralising tendencies, a Ôhighly centralisedÕ political party it was not.

Further, many anarcho-syndicalists and affinity groups were not in the FAI (though most seem to have supported it), and many FAI members put loyalty to the CNT (the anarcho-syndicalist union confederation) first. For instance, according to the minutes of the FAI national plenum of Jan-Feb 1936: ÔThe Regional Committee [of Aragon, Rioja, and Navarra] is completely neglected by the majority of the militants because they are absorbed in the larger activities of the CNTÕ. And ÔOne of the reasons for the poor condition of the FAI was the fact that almost all the comrades were active in the defence groups of the CNTÕ (report from the Regional Federation of the North). These are internal documents and so unlikely to be lies (8).

Anarchists were obviously the main influence in the CNT (which was anarcho-syndicalist long before the FAI was founded). But ÔFAI controlÕ was an invention of a reformist minority within the organisation Ð people like Angel Pestana, ex-CNT National Secretary, who wanted to turn the CNT into a politically ÔneutralÕ union movement. Pestana later showed what he meant by forming the Syndicalist Party and standing for Parliament/the Cortes. Obviously, in the struggle against the reformists, anarcho-syndicalists Ð inside the FAI or not Ð voted for people they trusted to run CNT committees. The reformists lost, split from the CNT, and ÔFAI dictatorshipÕ was born.

Again, following Morrow, marxists have often alleged that the Socialist and Workers Alliance strike wave, of October 1934, was sabotaged by the CNT.

To understand this allegation, you have to understand the background to October Õ34, and the split in the workersÕ movement between the CNT and the UGT (unions controlled by the reformist Socialist Party, the PSOE). >From 1931 (the birth of the Second Spanish Republic) to 1933 the Socialists, in coalition with Republicans, had attacked the CNT (a repeat, in many ways, of the UGTÕs collaboration with the Primo de Rivera dictatorship of 1923-30). Laws were passed, with Socialist help, making lightening strikes illegal and state arbitration compulsory. Anarchist-organised strikes were violently repressed, and the UGT provided scabs Ð as against the CNT Telephone Company strike of 1931. During and after CNT insurrections in Catalonia (north eastern Spain) in 1932, and the much wider insurrections of January 1933 (9,000 CNT members jailed) and December 1933 (16,000 jailed) Socialist solidarity was nil.

Socialist conversion to ÔrevolutionÕ occurred only after the elections of November 1933 Ð when they lost, and all the laws theyÕd passed against the CNT were used against themselves. When cabinet seats were offered to the non-republican right, in October 1934, the PSOE/UGT called for a general strike..

If the CNT, nationally, failed to take part in this Ð a mistake recognised by many anarchist writers Ð this was not (as reading Morrow suggests) because the CNT thought Ôall governments were equally badÕ, but because of well-founded, as it turned out, mistrust of Socialist aims. A CNT call, in February 1934, for the UGT to clearly and publicly state its revolutionary objectives, had met with no reply. Rhetoric aside, the PSOEÕs main aim in October seems to have been to force new elections, so they could again form a (mildly reformist) coalition with the Republicans (9). The CNT, in effect, were to be used as cannon-fodder to help produce another government that would attack the CNT.

The Ôworkers alliancesÕ were little better. These were first put forward by the marxist-leninists of the BOC (Workers and Peasants Bloc Ð later to form the POUM) after their attempts to turn the CNT into a bolshevik vanguard failed (10). PSOE interest began only after their election defeat Ð when the alliances were seen as a means of dominating the workers movement in areas the UGT was weak. The Socialist ÔLiaison CommitteeÕ, for instance, set up to prepare for insurrection, only allowed regional branches to take part in the alliances if they could guarantee Party control (11). And only one month after the first alliance was set up, one of its founder members Ðthe Socialist Union of Catalonia Ð left in protest over PSOE domination.

During October, apart from Catalonia (where the Catalan government arrested CNT militants the night before, then tried to declare Catalan autonomy), and Madrid (where a general strike was supported by the CNT), the only real centre of resistance was in Asturias (on the Spanish north coast).

Here, the CNT had joined the Socialists and Communists in a Ôworkers allianceÕ. But, against the allianceÕs terms, the Socialists alone gave the order for the uprising Ð and the Socialist-controlled Provincial Committee starved the CNT of arms. This despite the CNT having over 22,000 affiliates in the area (to the UGTÕs 40,000).

Morrow states that ÔThe backbone of the struggle was broken...when the refusal of the CNT railroad workers to strike enabled the government to transport goods and troopsÕ (12). Yet in Asturias (the only area where major troop transportation was needed) the main government attack was from a seaborne landing of Foreign Legion and Moroccan troops Ð against the port and CNT stronghold (15,000 affiliates) of Gijon. Despite CNT pleas the Socialists refused arms, Gjon fell after a bloody struggle, and became the main base for the crushing of the entire region. This Socialist and Communist sabotage of Anarchist resistance was repeated in the Civil War, less than two years later.

Finally, Morrow claims that the Friends of Durruti Ôrepresented a conscious break with the anti-statism of traditional anarchism. They explicitly declared the need for democratic organs of power, juntas or soviets, in the overthrow of capitalism..Õ(13). Typically, in MorrowÕs topsy-turvy world, all anarchists like the Friends of Durruti (Morrow also includes the Libertarian Youth, the Ôpolitically awakenedÕ CNT rank and file, local FAI groups, etc.) who remained true to anarchism and stuck to their guns (often literally) Ð represented a break with anarchism and a move towards marxism, the revolutionary vanguard party (no doubt part of the 4th International), and a fight for the Ôworkers stateÕ...

Those anarchists, on the other hand, who compromised for Ôanti-fascist unityÕ (but mainly to try and get weapons to fight Franco) are the real anarchists because Ôclass collaboration...lies concealed in the heart of anarchist philosophyÕ (14).

The Friends of Durruti were formed, in March 1937, by anarchist militants whoÕd refused to submit to Communist-controlled ÔmilitarisationÕ of the workersÕ militias. During the Maydays Ð the government attack against the revolution two months later Ð the Friends of Durruti were notable for their calls to stand firm and crush the counter-revolution. They did not Ôbreak withÕ anarchism Ð they refused to compromise their anarchism in the face of ÔcomradesÕ who thought winning the war meant entering the government. Their leaflets, in April Õ37, called for the unions and municipalities to Ôreplace the stateÕ and for no retreat (15). Their manifesto, in 1938, repeated this call (Ôthe state cannot be retained in the face of the unionsÕ), and made three demands: For a National Defence Council, elected and accountable to the union rank and file (including those at the front), with all posts up for regular recall; for Ôall economic power to the unionsÕ; and for the Ôfree municipalityÕ to cover those areas outside the unionsÕ mandate (16). More recently, Jaime Balius, one of the FoDÕs main activists, has stated: ÔWe did not support the formation of Soviets; there were no grounds in Spain for calling for such. We stood for Òall power to the trade unionsÓ. In no way were we politically orientatedÕ (17). (ÔPoliticalÕ here meaning Ôstate-politicalÕ Ð a common anarchist use of the word).

MorrowÕs book may bring comfort to those marxists who look for ready-made answers and are prepared to accept the works of hacks at face-value. Those who want to learn from the past Ð instead of re-writing it Ð will have to look elsewhere.

Notes & References

1) Felix Morrow, ÔRevolution and Counter-Revolution in SpainÕ, 2nd Edition 1974, p191.

2) Morrow p248.

3) Morrow p105.

4) Morrow p139.

5) Morrow p153.

6) Morrow p224.

7) Morrow p100.

8) Juan Gomez Casas, ÔAnarchist Organisation Ð the history of the FAIÕ, p165 and p168. Most of the information on the FAI comes from this. Also see Murray Bookchin, ÔThe Spanish Anarchists, The Heroic Years, 1868-1936Õ.

9) See for instance Adrian Schubert ÔThe Asturian Revolution of October 1934Õ , in ÔRevolution and War in SpainÕ ed. Paul Preston.

10) Paul Preston, ÔThe Coming of the Spanish Civil WarÕ p117.

11) See Schubert (above). Most of the rest of this section comes from Preston ÔThe Coming of the Spanish Civil WarÕ, Bookchin (above), and Abel Paz ÔDurruti, the People ArmedÕ.

12) Morrow p30.

13) Morrow p247

14) Morrow p101

15) Quoted in Paul Sharkey, ÔThe Friends of Durruti Ð a ChronologyÕ.

16) ÔTowards a Fresh RevolutionÕ. The idea of a National Defence Council wasnÕt the radical break with the CNT that some claim. Before the civil war the CNT had long has its defence groups, federated at regional and national level, and the CNT insurrection Ð of December 1933 Ð had been coordinated by a National Revolutionary Committee. During the war a national plenum of regions, in September 1936, called for a National Defence Council, with majority union representation and based on Regional Defence Councils. The Defence Council of Aragon, set up soon after, was based on these ideas. The need for coordinated revolutionary defence and attack is just common sense.

17) Letter to Ronald Frazer 1976 Ð in FrazerÕs book ÔBlood of SpainÕ p381.