<a name="sech216"><h2>H.2.16 Does the Spanish Revolution show the 
failure of anarchism?</h2></a>

<p>
The actions of the anarchists of the CNT and FAI during the
Spanish Civil War is almost always mentioned by Marxists when
they attack anarchism. Take, for example, Pat Stack:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"This question of state power, and which class holds it, was to 
prove crucial for revolutionaries during the Spanish Civil War and 
in particular during the revolutionary upheavals in Catalonia. Here 
anarchism faced its greatest test and greatest opportunity, yet it 
failed the former and therefore missed the latter. 
</p><p>
"When the government in the region under the leadership of Companys 
admitted its impotence and offered to dissolve, effectively handing 
power to the revolutionary forces, the anarchists turned them down. 
CNT leader and FAI . . . militant Garcia Oliver explained, 'The 
CNT and the FAI decided on collaboration and democracy, renouncing 
revolutionary totalitarianism which would lead to the strangulation 
of the revolution by the anarchist and Confederal dictatorship. We 
had to choose, between Libertarian Communism, which meant anarchist 
dictatorship, and democracy, which meant collaboration.' The choice 
was between leaving the state intact and paving the way for Franco's 
victory or building a workers' government in Catalonia which could 
act as a focal point for the defeat of Franco and the creation of 
the structures of a new workers' state. In choosing the former the 
anarchists were refusing to distinguish between a capitalist 
state and a workers' state . . . The movement that started 
by refusing to build a workers' state ended up by recognising a 
capitalist one and betraying the revolution in the process."</i> 
[<i>"Anarchy in the UK?"</i>, <b>Socialist Review</b>, no. 246]
</blockquote></p><p>
There are four key flaws in this kind of argument. First, there is the 
actual objective situation in which the decision to collaborate was 
made in. Strangely, for all his talk of anarchists ignoring <i>"material 
conditions"</i> when we discuss the Russian revolution, Stack fails to 
mention any when he discusses the decisions of the Spanish Anarchists. 
As such, his critique is pure idealism, without any attempt to ground 
it in the objective circumstances facing the CNT and FAI. Second, the 
quote provided as the only evidence for Stack's analysis dates from a 
year <b>after</b> the decision was made. Rather than reflect the actual 
concerns of the CNT and FAI at the time, they reflect the attempts
of the leaders of an organisation which had significantly departed
from its libertarian principles to justify their actions. While this
obviously suits Stack's idealist analysis of events, its use can be
flawed for this reason. Thirdly, clearly the decision of the CNT and
FAI <b>ignored</b> anarchist theory. As such, it seems ironic to blame
anarchism when anarchists ignores its recommendations, yet this is
what Stack argues. Lastly, there is the counter-example of Aragon,
which clearly refutes Stack's analysis. 
</p><p>
To understand why the CNT and FAI made the decisions it did, it is
necessary to do what Stack fails to do, namely to provide some
context. The decision to ignore anarchist theory, ignore the state
rather than smashing it and work with other anti-fascist organisations
was made immediately after the army had been defeated on the streets
of Barcelona on the 20th of July, 1936. It is this fact, the success
of a popular insurrection in one region against a <b>nation wide</b> 
military coup, which helps place the CNT's decisions into context. 
Catalonia is but one region in Spain. While the CNT had great strength, 
it was not uniform. Some areas, such as around Madrid and in Asturias, 
the socialist UGT was stronger (although the CNT had been making 
inroads in both areas). 
</p><p>
This meant any decision to introduce libertarian communism in Catalonia 
would have, in all likelihood, meant isolation within Republican Spain 
and the possibility that the CNT would have to fight both the Republican 
state <b>as well as</b> Franco. So the decision to collaborate was obviously 
driven by fear of Franco and the concern not to divide the forces fighting 
him. As a 1937 CNT report put it, the union had a <i>"difficult alternative: 
to completely destroy the state, to declare war against the Rebels, the 
government, foreign capitalists . . . or collaborating."</i> [quoted by 
Robert Alexander, <b>The Anarchists in the Spanish Civil War</b>, vol. 2, 
p. 1156] 
</p><p>
As such, the <b>real</b> choice facing the CNT was not <i>"between leaving 
the state intact . . . or building a workers' government in Catalonia 
which could act as a focal point for the defeat of Franco"</i> but rather 
something drastically different. Either work with other anti-fascists 
against Franco so ensuring unity against the common enemy and implement 
anarchism after victory <b>or</b> immediately implement libertarian 
communism and possibly face a conflict on two fronts, against Franco 
<b>and</b> the Republic (and, possibly, imperialist intervention against 
the social revolution). This situation made the CNT-FAI decide to
collaborate with other anti-fascist groups in the Catalan <b>Central 
Committee of Anti-Fascist Militias</b>. To downplay these objective 
factors and simply blame the decision on anarchist politics is a 
joke. This dilemma was the one which was driving the decisions of the 
CNT leadership, <b>not</b> any failings in anarchist politics.
</p><p>
Similarly, the Garica Oliver quote provided by Stack dated from July 1937.
They were made as justifications of CNT-FAI actions and were designed for 
political effect. They cannot be taken at face value as they are totally 
contradictory. He was arguing that libertarian communism (a society based 
on directly democratic free associations organised and run from the 
bottom up) was an <i>"anarchist dictatorship"</i> and <b>less</b> 
democratic than the capitalist Republic he had been fighting against 
between 1931 and 1936! Moreover, libertarian communism <b>was</b> 
the revolution. As such, to choose it over capitalist democracy to stop 
<i>"the strangulation of the revolution"</i> makes no sense, as the 
revolution which was created by the rank-and-file of the anarchist 
movement after the defeat of Franco was based on libertarian communist 
ideas and ideals!
</p><p>
It is safe to take Garica Oliver's words with a large pinch of salt. 
To rely upon them for an analysis of the actions of the Spanish 
Anarchists or the failings of anarchism suggests an extremely 
superficial perspective. This is particularly the case when we 
look at both the history of the CNT and anarchist theory. As 
noted in <a href="secH1.html#sech14">section H.1.4</a>, 
according to anarchist ideas, the social revolution, to quote 
Bakunin, must <i>"totally destroy the State,"</i> expropriate 
capital and the land <i>"on behalf of workers' associations"</i> and
create <i>"the federative Alliance of all working men's associations"</i> 
which <i>"will constitute the Commune."</i> [<b>Michael Bakunin: Selected 
Writings</b>, p. 170] As can be seen, the CNT ignored these recommendations. 
Given that the CNT did <b>not</b> destroy the state, nor create a federation 
of workers' councils, then how can anarchist theory be blamed? It seems 
strange to point to the failure of anarchists to apply their politics as 
an example of the failure of those politics, yet this is what Stack is doing.
</p><p>
As we discuss in 
<a href="secI8.html#seci811">section I.8.11</a>, 
the CNT leadership, going against
anarchist theory, decided to postpone the revolution until <b>after</b> 
Franco was defeated. As the Catalan CNT leadership put it in August 
1936:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"Reports have also been received from other regions. There has been
some talk about the impatience of some comrades who wish to go
further than crushing fascism, but for the moment the situation in
Spain as a whole is extremely delicate. In revolutionary terms,
Catalonia is an oasis within Spain.
</p><p>
"Obviously no one can foresee the changes which may follow the
civil war and the conquest of that part of Spain which is still
under the control of mutinous reactionaries."</i> [quoted by Jose
Peirats, <b>The CNT in the Spanish Revolution</b>, vol. 1, pp. 151-2]
</blockquote></p><p>
As can be seen, concern that Catalonia would be isolated from the
rest of the Republic is foremost in their minds. Equally, there is
the acknowledgement that many CNT members were applying anarchist
politics by fighting fascism via a revolutionary war. This can
be seen by the rank and file of the CNT and FAI ignoring the 
decision to "postpone" the revolution in favour of an anti-fascist
war. All across Republican Spain, workers and peasants started to 
expropriate capital and the land, placing it under workers' 
self-management. They did so on their own initiative. They also 
applied anarchist ideas in full in Aragon, where the <b>Council of 
Aragon</b> was created in October 1936 at a meeting of delegates 
from CNT unions, village collectives and militia columns. In 
other words, the creation of a federation of workers' 
associations as argued by Bakunin. Little wonder Stack fails 
to mention what happened in Aragon: it would undermine his
argument against anarchism to mention it.
</p><p>
To contrast Catalonia and Aragon shows the weakness of Stack's 
argument. The same organisation, with the same politics, yet 
different results. How can anarchist ideas be blamed for what
happened in Catalonia when they had been applied in Aragon? Such 
a position could not be logically argued and, unsurprisingly, 
Aragon usually fails to get mentioned by Marxists when discussing
Anarchism during the Spanish Civil War. The continuity of what 
happened in Aragon with the ideas of anarchism and the CNT's 1936 
Zaragoza Resolution on Libertarian Communism is clear.
</p><p>
In summary, how could anarchism have <i>"failed"</i> during the Spanish
Revolution when it was ignored in Catalonia (for fear of fascism) 
and applied in Aragon? How can it be argued that anarchist politics 
were to blame when those very same politics had formed the Council 
of Aragon? It cannot. Simply put, the Spanish Civil War showed
the failure of certain anarchists to apply their ideas in a
difficult situation rather than the failure of anarchism.
</p><p>
Needless to say, Stack also claims that the <b>Friends of Durruti</b>
group developed towards Marxism. As he puts it:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"Interestingly the one Spanish anarchist group that developed the 
most sophisticated critique of all this was the Friends of Durutti [sic!]. 
As [Trotskyist] Felix Morrow points out, 'They represented 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, and the necessary state measures of 
repression against the counter-revolution.' The failure of the 
Spanish anarchists to understand exactly that these were the stark 
choices workers' power, or capitalist power followed by reaction."</i>
</blockquote></p><p>
That Stack could not bother to spell Durruti's name correctly shows how 
seriously we should take this analysis. The <b>Friends of Durruti</b> 
(FoD) were an anarchist grouping within the CNT and FAI which, like a 
large minority of others, strongly and consistently opposed the policy 
of anti-fascist unity. Rather than signify a <i>"conscious break"</i> 
with anarchism, it signified a conscious <b>return</b> to it. This can 
be clearly seen when we compare their arguments to those of Bakunin. As 
noted by Stack, the FoD argued for <i>"juntas"</i> in the overthrow of 
capitalism and to defend against counter-revolution. Yet this was 
<b>exactly</b> what revolutionary anarchists have argued for since 
Bakunin (see <a href="secH2.html#sech21">section H.2.1</a> for details). 
The continuity of the ideas of the FoD with the pre-Civil War politics 
of the CNT and the ideas of revolutionary anarchism are clear. As such, 
the FoD were simply arguing for a return to the traditional positions 
of anarchism and cannot be considered to have broken with it. If Stack 
or Morrow knew anything about anarchism, then they would have known 
this.
</p><p>
As such, the failure of the Spanish anarchists was not the <i>"stark
choice"</i> between <i>"workers' power"</i> and <i>"capitalist power"</i> 
but rather the making of the wrong choice in the real dilemma of introducing 
anarchism (which would, by definition, be based on workers' power, 
organisation and self-management) or collaborating with other 
anti-fascist groups in the struggle against the greater enemy of 
Franco (i.e. fascist reaction). That Stack does not see this
suggests that he simply has no appreciation of the dynamics of
the Spanish Revolution and prefers abstract sloganeering to a
serious analysis of the problems facing it.
</p><p>
Stack ends by summarising:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"The most important lesson . . . is that whatever ideals and gut 
instincts individual anarchists may have, anarchism, both in 
word and deed, fails to provide a roadworthy vehicle for human 
liberation. Only Marxism, which sees the centrality of the working 
class under the leadership of a political party, is capable of 
leading the working class to victory."</i>
</blockquote></p><p>
As a useful antidote to these claims, we need simply quote Trotsky 
on what the Spanish anarchists should have done. In his words: 
<i>"Because the leaders of the CNT renounced dictatorship <b>for 
themselves</b> they left the place open for the Stalinist dictatorship."</i> 
Hardly an example of "workers' power"! Or, as he put it earlier in the 
same year, a <i>"revolutionary party, even having seized power (of 
which the anarchist leaders were incapable in spite of the heroism 
of the anarchist workers), is still by no means the sovereign ruler of 
society."</i> [our emphasis, <b>Writings 1936-7</b>, p. 514 and p. 488] 
Rather than seeing <i>"democratic organs of power, juntas or soviets, 
in the overthrow of capitalism"</i> as being the key issue, Trotsky 
considered the party as being the decisive factor. At best, such 
organs would be used to achieve party power and would simply be a 
fig-leaf for its rule (see <a href="secH3.html#sech311">section H.3.11</a> 
for more on this).
</p><p>
Clearly, the leading Marxist at the time was not arguing for the
<i>"centrality of the working class under the leadership of a political
party."</i> He was arguing for the dictatorship of a "revolutionary"
party <i><b>over</b></i> the working class. Rather than the working class 
being "central" to the running of a revolutionary regime, Trotsky saw 
the party taking that position. What sort of <i>"victory"</i> is 
possible when the party has dictatorial power over the working class 
and the <i>"sovereign ruler"</i> of society? Simply the kind of 
"victory" that leads to Stalinism.
</p><p>
Anarchists reject this vision. They also reject the first step along 
this path, namely the identification of party power with workers' power. 
Simply put, if the "revolutionary" party is in power then the working 
class is not. Rather than seeing working class organisations as the 
means by which working people run society, Leninists see them purely 
in instrumental terms - the means by which the party can seize power.
As the Russian Revolution proved beyond doubt, in a conflict between
workers' power and party power Leninists will suppress the former
to ensure the latter.
</p><p>
To paraphrase Stack, the most important lesson from both the Russian
and Spanish revolutions is that whatever ideals and gut instincts 
individual Leninists may have, Leninism, both in word and deed, fails 
to provide a roadworthy vehicle for human liberation. Only Anarchism, 
which sees the centrality of the working class self-management of the 
class struggle and revolution, is capable of ensuring the creation of a
real, free, socialist society. 
</p><p>
Therefore, rather than see the failure of anarchism, the Spanish 
Revolution showed the failure of anarchists to apply their politics 
due to exceptionally difficult objective circumstances, a mistake
which almost all anarchists acknowledge and have learned from. 
This does not justify the decision, rather it helps to explain 
it. Moreover, the Spanish Revolution also has a clear example of 
anarchism being applied in the Council of Aragon. As such, it is 
hard to blame anarchism for the failure of the CNT when the same 
organisation applied its ideas successfully there. Simply put, 
Marxist claims that the Spanish Revolution shows the failure of 
anarchist ideas are not only wrong, they are extremely superficial 
and not rooted in the objective circumstances of the time.
</p><p>
Lastly, it could be argued that our critique of the standard Leninist 
attack on anarchism during the Spanish Revolution is similar to that 
presented by Leninists to justify Bolshevik authoritarianism during 
the Russian one. After all, Leninists like Stack point to the objective
circumstances facing Lenin's regime - its isolation, civil war and 
economic problems - as explaining its repressive actions. However,
this is not the case as the defeat of the Spanish Revolution was due
to anarchists <b>not</b> applying our ideas while, for Russia, it was
due to the Bolsheviks <b>applying</b> their ideology. The difficulties
that faced the Russian Revolution pushed the Bolsheviks further down
the road they where already travelling down (not to mention that 
Bolshevik ideology significantly contributed to making many of these
problem worse). As we discuss in <a href="secH6.html">section H.6</a>,
the notion that "objective circumstances" explains Bolshevik tyranny is
simply unconvincing, particularly given the role Bolshevik ideology 
played in this process.
</p><p>
For more discussion of the Spanish Revolution and its lessons for
anarchists, see <a href="secI8.html">section I.8</a>. In addition, 
the appendix <i><a href="append32.html">"Marxists and Spanish 
Anarchism"</a></i> has a much fuller discussion of this issue 
(including whether the <b>Friends of Durruti</b> broke with 
anarchism).
</p>