How did we lose? Anarchist vs Communist?
In the times of revolution we have to unite not fight each other.
How did we lose? Anarchist vs Communist?
How did we lose? Anarchist vs Communist?
You lost because of the failures of Stalinism and Anarchism. Stalinists scuppered the movement. The anarchist leadership didn't know what to do with power when it was in their grasp.
By the end, most of the CNT (leading Anarchist faction) had formed compromises with the bourgeois liberals and sold out the working class. The few honest anarchists left were moving more and more towards the 4th International, as they saw the failings of their anarchist ideas in practical reality.
You should read Felix Morrow's history of the Spanish Civil War. It's widely regarded as a definitive Marxist classic of analysis on the piece. Morrow was a genuine revolutionary, not some academic theorist.
So much bullshit
Expand further, this is retarded.
Lmfao, CNT-FAI was obligated to collaborate with the republic, PSUC, etc. for the greater good. Sectarianism would have ended the revolution much sooner. CNT-FAI did nothing wrong. It was really no different from the DFNS-U.S. collaboration in Rojava, it's all realpolitik.
CNT-FAI successfully collectivised Catalonia, what is you tahm bout
You mean four people.
Found the problem.
Well, the split obviously didn't help things, but I think the fact the nationalists had pretty much the entire army+lots of support from italy and germany are a bigger factor in the republican defeat.
But failed to prevent the rise of fascism…
Seriously, what's wrong with Felix Morrow? Those four people were some of the leading figures in the CNT, this move confused the membership and the masses, and ultimately came as a betrayal.
The will of god was with us
We didn't know which groups under the banner of socialism were compatible with which other; it was still very early in our practical experimentations. Turns out Leninists ideologues (as non-Russians much later learned through belated translations) were completely hostile to worker-lead confederal movements. The anarcho-syndicalists and anarcho-communists of Spain didn't know that well enough at the time and temporarily allied with the relatively new figure on the international arena: Stalin and his imperial army that attempted to subordinated the Spanish socialist movement to his red fascist command from a continent away, leading to internal conflicts within the Spanish socialist revolution and the eventual win of the nationalists.
Luckily these ideologues have largely died out since the fall of the USSR and most probably will play a minuscule role in the unfolding of this century, as the international preference of state-socialist authoritarians have shifted towards Latin-American style Marxist "democratic" socialism.
The tears of the fallen in Catalunha won't help
nationalists had overt support from Italy & Germany, republicans had far less outside help
nationalists had most of the army on their side, and as far as I remeber there was a serious early strategic mistake on the republican side in not preventing the amassing of returning overseas nationalist forces
anarchists were… unpractical at times
pic source is Kitchen, M: Europe Between the Wars
Are you role playing as we speak?
You forgot the Lizard people, the Chaos Space Marines and the Freemasons.
Seriously, in what kind of fantasy world do anarchists live in?!
The Leninists are the ones shouting all power to the Soviets. Regardless, during a time of war production and distribution must be planned and well under control.
This is just retarded.
Anyone who unironically uses "red fascist" is a brainlet.
You're aware both Spain and Russia are considered European, right?
Ah yes, Latin America, the region where every fucking nucleus of genuine socialist thought is instantly consumed by pink Social Democracy, and where socialism is treated as where the government does shit.
All power to the soviets?
No, one party dictatorship!
- Vladimir Lenin, 1921
We did not lose. The Spanish people won. That's all.
The very fact that there was a division between communists and anarchist proves that we were not ready to rule. You can not establish a rule of the people when the people are divided.
The CNT collaborated with the government in hopes of getting arms, but instead got repression.
They were defeated by the bourgeois forces of the government and their Stalinist collaborators, not the fascists.
The communists were imported from the Soviet Union. In Catalonia the people supported the anarchists.
"All power to the Soviets!" was an anarchist slogan that the Bolsheviks recuperated.
So Stalin is personally responsible for the success of any revolution in world? It's truly telling you'd blame a far away country with its own problems and limited capacities first instead of trying to find mistakes made by the revolutionaries at the place we are taking about. This whole idea "if Stalin had done that, then X would have succeeded" is bullshit and trying to whitewash people who did some very serious mistakes that led to the collapse of their movement.
Marxist-Leninists constantly agonize over what could have done better, anarchists never do that, they always blame their big other, the USSR, for their own failures. Never once have I heard a balanced critique Makhno, the CNT-FAI or even Rojava, it's always just 100% praise with the evil tankies crushing them somehow by not pandering to them.
Surely that's why you as an ML are denying any fault of Stalin right now.
The only way you could actually believe this would be by not reading a anarchist literature. If you actually did, like a balanced, non-dogmatic person, you would know that since the Spanish revolution the anarchist movement have over-critiqued the efforts of the anarcho-syndicalists to such an extent that there are hardly any sizable orgs left, rather anarchists have turned to theoretically and practically pure informal insurrectionism. But again, you don't read anarchist literature or texts, you read Marxist historical negationisms on anarchists and their socialist movement.
Mate, your Stalinist pals in the government forced through anti-anarchist laws one after the other instead of fighting the fascists and the Pravda celebrated the repression of anarchists while staying silent about how your commie troops were humiliated by the fascists. Blaming the Soviets for the anarchists' collapse is not some boogeyman, it's a historical fact. They were defeated in an internal power struggle against Stalin and his bourgeois allies and not by the fascists. The anarchists learned their lesson, which is why "the red and the black" will never again "unite."
Maybe if you don't understand Socialism in One Country.
This sounds good, but is ultimately idealistic and false. Revolution is always a large minority imposing it's will on the majority.
The ideology of whatever epoch is the ideology of the ruling class. Today is the epoch of liberalism. The overwhelming majority of people today will be liberal and will only change once the proletarian dictatorship is formed.
I think this was actually proven false. Either way, all I can say is so?
If it was an anarchist revolution, then the revolution was already doomed.
Then why did Franco win? He was opposed to the establishment at least as much as to the communists.
>If it was an anarchist revolution
PROTIP: don't speak authoritatively on matters you haven't informed yourself about, you goddamn clown.
anarcho-trotskyst sabotage plus succdem cowardice
so much for left unity.
and look how well that turned out
A. Fascism is far more friendly to the current liberal status quo than Communism
B. That wasn't my point. Both the Nationalists and Republicans were divided. My point is that liberalism is the ideology of this age. The majority of people will be liberal.
Fuck off you brain let. There were factions ranging from social democracy to anarchy to Marxism-Leninism to Syndicalism and Anarcho-syndicalism.
And the major one was the CNT. Prove me wrong, solarbrain.
The revolution was purely anarchist. You are confusing it with the entirety of the civil war.
Seeing as the liberal status quo fought an actual war against fascism, I'd say that's pretty fucking debatable
absolute bullshit, Franco was very much the representative of the established powers, even more so than Fascists and Nazis. Not all right-wing reactionary anticommunists are the same and they shouldn't be lazily lumped together.
He fucked off about 400 years ago m8.
YOU WERE SAYING ?
It is our duty to kill the moor
The picture I posted is of the Spanish Armada getting it's shit kicked in you larping spic.
Wew lad it is not like we don't sort of hated the spanish , friendemies at best .
Too much hatred for nothing
It might've just been an inevitable result of the Nationalists have more arms and soldiers. If it wasn't, then it was a failure of not bringing the revolution far enough.
That's not true. The CNT-FAI collaborated with the Secretariat out of fear that not doing so would weaken the war effort and prevent foreign aid.
The CNT-FAI failed precisely because they weren't applying anarchist ideas; they were constantly compromising them for the sake of the war effort.
They collaborated out of fear, and in doing so they compromised their principles and possibly the revolution ever succeeding.
The workers did, the CNT-FAI were hesitant and only approved it after the workers went ahead and did it.
While dismantling them.
What a great song. I wish more Leftist music was as good as David Rovic's.
The liberals sat on the other side of the water while the USSR did all the actual work, then rushed in and took a share when the nazis were already fucked.
Alright I am dropping my shitposting for this but you can't be serious right?
Even if republic had been united, it still would have been far too weak to win the war.
Franco had the very experienced army of Africa at his disposal and had significant military support from Germany and Italy in both equipment and volunteers.
The Soviet Union was pretty unwilling to support the republic, and dropped out entirely when Stalin signed the non-agression pact with the nazis.
Anarchists were annoying brainlets in the past too, you know. It's not a recent phenomenon.
You can't even attribute the failure to an ideological shortcoming of anarchism. It's the other way around; anarchism attracts dumb and weak people, so of course they're going to lose.
The anarchists were purged by their allies and yet the republicans still lost.
read george orwells book about spanish civil war
Fascists were better funded from outside sources, had support from military, and there was little organizational or preemptive measures from Republican forces.
When one group wants to work with the bourgeois and the other wants to collectivize, you're not going to get unity.
You have to go back.