The Spanish Civil War: From Syndicalism to Fascism
December 11th, 2003
On July 19th, 1936 the CNT, an anarcho-syndicalist union, and the U.GT, a union affiliated with the Spanish Socialist party, called a general strike in response to a fascist coup led by General Francisco Franco. The left-wing socialists tried to get the government to release arms to the workers so they could put down the coup, but the government refused. So the workers broke into the barracks and took the weapons themselves. After the workers had put down the coup the government decided to release arms to them. Franco's coup was defeated in two-thirds of Spain; a civil war was then waged between the fascists and the anti-fascists for the next three years, which the fascists eventually won. In the aftermath of the defeat of Franco's coup the non-fascist parts of Spain underwent an anarchist social revolution, which was later suppressed by a counter-revolution led by the Spanish Communist party. This revolution shows an alternative to capitalism (and Stalinist tyranny) and that anarchy is possible; it worked in Spain. The counter-revolution is confirmation of the anarchist critique of the state and shows the treachery of Marxist-Leninists.
State power collapsed in the aftermath of the defeat of the coup. Parliament still existed, but it had no power. The army was in rebellion against the government and the police had dissolved in the wake of the fighting. Power lay in the streets. The result was not chaos, but anarchy. Spain had a powerful anarchist movement organized mainly in the Iberian Anarchist Federation (FAI), a federation of anarchist affinity groups, and the National Confederation of Labor (CNT), an anarcho-syndicalist union. Anarcho-syndicalism is a form of anarchism that focuses on unions and the labor movement. They advocate forming revolutionary unions that fight for improvements in the short term (better wages, working conditions, etc.) and revolution in the long term. These unions would not be a normal bureaucratic union like the AFL-CIO but would be run along non-hierarchical lines, without a bureaucracy and based on decentralized direct democracy. Once these unions were large enough they would declare a general strike, bringing capitalism to a halt, the government would be overthrown & abolished, and the workers would take over the means of production (factories, mines, land, etc.).
That anarcho-syndicalist vision is mostly what happened after the defeat of Franco's coup. Throughout much of Spain workers seized the factories and peasants drove their landlords off the land. Non-hierarchical collectives were formed; workers ran the factories and peasants ran the farms. Self-management was implemented. Takeover of factories initially began as a response by workers to the abandoning of workplaces by their owners but soon spread to workplaces that hadn't been abandoned and shut down by their owners. Had this not happened the capital flight would have crippled the economy, but by taking over production the workers were able to get the economy back on its feet. Anarchists were not the only ones to carry out expropriation. Many members of the UGT expropriated their workplaces, even though the leadership of the UGT wanted nationalization not self-management. Thousands acted like anarchists even if they didn't regard themselves as anarchists.
The specific organization of urban collectives varied from collective to collective, but most followed a few basic outlines. A worker assembly operating on directly democratic principles ran the factory or workplace. Assemblies would usually elect a committee to take care of administrative and coordination tasks. These factory committees were recallable and mandated. They had to follow the instructions of their worker assembly and had no power of their own. Members of the committee worked as ordinary workers and had no more power or privileges than anyone else. All major decisions were made in the worker assemblies; committees would only implement those decisions. The collectives saved a good deal of money by abolishing owners and bosses, since they no longer had to pay them huge amounts of money. The wages of the lowest paid workers was usually increased to decrease inequality between workers. The collectives were able to quickly reorient much of the economy to a war footing, converting production into a war industry. Technicians and specialists (and sometimes former owners) were made advisors whose expertise was valued but they didn't have any power over others. Former owners who did not flee to the fascist side were usually made workers, equal to everyone else.
The rural collectives tended to implement more radical policies than the urban collectives. Peasant assemblies based on directly democratic principles ran the collective. Most collectives elected a committee to take care of coordination and administrative tasks. Committees only carried out the decisions of the assemblies; the peasant assemblies made all major decisions. Those who did not want to join the collectives did not have to; they were given their own plot of land but no more then they could farm themselves. Just as they could not buy slaves they also could not employ wage-labor. Within the collectives land was cultivated in common and the produce shared equally. Supplies and necessities were usually stored in a common warehouse(s) from which things would be dispensed. Some collectives abolished money and implemented distribution based on the principle "from each according the ability to each according to need." People could freely take goods of which there were plenty; goods that were scarce were rationed. Most collectives that did not abolish money attempted to approximate the same principle by paying individuals on an egalitarian basis. Some collectives printed their own local money. Some started building their own small agro-industries. Many local doctors joined the collectives, providing their services for free and receiving the same as all collective members. Many collectives had a retirement age, after which members did not have to work, and some even set up special homes for the retired. Some of the retired grew bored, however, and chose to do some labor anyway. In most cases, the only external incentive to do productive labor was peer pressure. And it worked - many collectives produced even more than the old system.
Collectivization was not coerced and did not cover the whole economy, although it covered most of it. Many small businesses were not immediately collectivized but stayed under private ownership. Because collectivization was not based on coercion the decision to collectivize or not was up to the workers in each workplace and some of them didn't immediately expropriate their workplaces, although the expropriation of big businesses was near universal. The remaining petty bourgeoisie (small business owners) were fearful and paranoid about collectivization, often bringing them into conflict with the anarchists. Unlike full-blown capitalists, many small business owners are not ultra-rich and actually weren’t greatly harmed by collectivization. They went from being a small business owner to being a worker equal to all others. In many cases collectivization did not adversely affect the former small business owners and may even have improved their lot. In Barcelona both the workers and owners of all the hairdressing parlors voluntarily decided to collectivize. At a general assembly they decided to shut down all the unprofitable shops and modernize all the remaining ones. The distinction between workers and owners was obliterated and, with the money saved, wages were raised. Former owners were not negatively affected, the workers were better off and the customers got better service. Despite the fact that small business owners didn't lose much in collectivization many were still paranoid and feared collectivization destroying their power over the few subordinates they had. Those small business owners who remained became significant backers of the counter-revolution led by the Communist party. The anarcho-syndicalists did not win the petty bourgeoisie over to their cause or persuade them of the benefits of collectivization.
Initially market relations continued to exist in revolutionary Spain; markets were used to coordinate production between collectives. Self-managed collectives sold most of their products on the market, at first. Sometimes they would barter with each other, other times money was involved. This was a version of mutualism, not capitalism, because wage-labor was abolished even though market relations continued to exist. There was some inequality between collectives during this initial period, though this was much less inequality than exists in any capitalist society. It also led to a "factory patriotism" where members of different collectives tended to look out mainly for their own collective instead of the whole system. This was the case in the initial period; there were several forms of non-market non-hierarchical coordination between collectives established in the months following expropriation. Coordination started on a local basis and later built on a larger basis. Immediately after the civil war started forms of loose coordination appeared to fight the war. Many collectives converted their workplaces to war production and others sent either money or useful materials (such as food) to both the militias fighting the war and the collectives on war production. In some cases there were joint assemblies with the workers of multiple workplaces. Sometimes industries were reorganized so as to be more efficient, shutting down inefficient plants and using more efficient ones more fully. Later greater coordination was established between collectives by establishing confederations based on mandated and recallable delegates. Regional federations were formed such the Levant Federation of Collectives, formed just a few weeks after the revolution began; in June 1937 a Plenum of peasant collectives was held. Equalization funds were established to reduce the inequality between collectives and sometimes there were direct transfers of resources between collectives. There were even instances of large groups of people moving from one collective to another in order to help out the poorer collectives. These measures were successful in reducing “factory patriotism” and inequalities between collectives. All of this was organized from the bottom up, with decision-making power in the hands of the assemblies. All major decisions were made in the popular assemblies running the collectives, delegates and committees simply carried out the instructions of the assemblies.
Even during the initial period of mutualism the collectives were economically productive as many eyewitness accounts attest. Overall the collectives worked at least as well as private capitalism, in some cases much better. Most of the cases where collectives were less productive than before expropriation were caused by the war though being bombed, shortages of raw material, etc. Even some opponents of the anarchists admitted that collectivization appeared to be a success. Rodolfo Llopis, a leader of the Socialist party, admitted that the collectives who were able to get the economy going after the defeat of Franco's coup. Luis Portela, a leader of the Party of Marxist Unity (POUM), also conceded that the collectives saved the economy at the start of the civil war.
In addition to these economic aspects of the revolution, there was also a cultural and social aspect. Many new schools were set up based on the ideas of Francisco Ferrer and libraries proliferated. Stratification in all areas decreased. Women's rights increased dramatically. Anti-Fascist Spain at the time probably had greater equality between the sexes than any other country in the world. Women were involved in all parts of the revolution - the collectives, the militias and elsewhere. Attitudes towards women changed greatly; no longer were women viewed as inherently inferior to men. Women could talk to strangers without being thought loose. This change was brought about as much by the sense that the destruction of the class system should naturally lead to the end of women's subordination as by the organized women's movement. Although the rural collectives were more radical economically, the urban collectives went further in destroying patriarchy. The CNT and other anarchist organizations had paid lip service to women's liberation for a long time, but many male "anarchists" prior to the revolution continued to harbor sexist behavior. Shortly before the revolution female anarchists had begun organizing Mujeres Libres (Free Women) in response to male sexism to fight for women’s' freedom and anarchy. This organization played a significant role in attacking patriarchy. At one point it had around 30,000 members. Although there were great strides made for women's equality the revolution was crushed before it could achieve total equality.
Anti-fascists of both genders organized militias to fight the civil war against the fascists. The militias were based on military democracy. Officers in the normal sense were abolished; instead all commanders were elected and recallable. Commanders had no special privileges. There were no uniforms. Where ever possible decisions were made directly democratically, using soldier assemblies and federations of soldier assemblies. The militias were a revolutionary people's army based on participatory democracy. One of the major organizers of the militias was Buenaventura Durruti, who died defending Madrid from the fascists, a defense in which anarchists played a significant role. These militias succeeded in liberating much of Aragon and defending the revolution from the fascists.
The Spanish anarchists were faced with a difficult situation. They had defeated the fascist coup but were now in a civil war with the fascists. Although the anarchist movement was very strong there were still many anti-fascist Spaniards who were not anarchists and the revolution risked igniting a three-sided civil war between the fascists, anarchists, and Republicans. They believed they were faced with a choice: either complete the revolution now and wage a revolutionary war, or form an alliance with other anti-fascists and put the revolution on hold. They opted for the later. The CNT decided to be pragmatic and put defeating fascism ahead of ideological purity; compromising their anarchist principles and allowing the state to be gradually restored in order to form an alliance with other anti-fascist groups. The CNT and the anti-fascist political parties formed a coalition government, with anarchist members. Anarchist ministers entered the new government in September 1936; collaboration with local governments had already begun before that. At first the state existed in name only, it had no real power, but over the months that followed it gradually reasserted its authority.
The CNT hoped that collaborating with the state, and basically putting the revolution on hold, would enable them to defeat the fascists with the help of their statist (republicans, Marxists, etc.) allies. They was also hoped to obtain support from the western 'democracies' by compromising, since the US & UK obviously would not provide aid to an anarchist revolution. But this support never materialized - western governments were more worried about a workers revolution than another fascist victory. The only alternative to this collaboration was to divide the anti-fascists camp against each other by launching a civil war within a civil war, with anarchists vs. fascists vs. the republic. This decision to collaborate was a violation of anarchist principles; had they been followed to their logical conclusion the CNT & FAI would have launched such a multi-sided civil war and not collaborated with the state. They believed that circumstances required they compromise - first defeat the fascists, then finish the revolution. The decision to collaborate and restore the state was supported by a majority of the Spanish anarchists, but there was a minority opposed to it. Anarchists such as Camillo Berneri, Buenaventura Durruti, and the Libertarian Youth (a federation of anarchist youth organizations) argued instead for a 'revolutionary war' strategy to fight against fascism, the republic and any interference by the imperialists.
Every major Marxist group supported the decision to collaborate with the state. Both the Socialist party and the Communist party participated in the coalition government. The Party of Marxist Unity (POUM) applauded the CNT's decision to collaborate, calling it a move towards a more Marxist conception of power. POUM is sometimes misidentified as Trotskyist but that is not accurate, although they were very close to Trotskyism. Many of the founders of POUM, Andres Nin and Andrade for example, were Trotskyists until 1934 when they broke with him. Trotsky wanted them to join the Socialist party and form its revolutionary wing; they refused. Andres Nin, etc. then merged with the Bloque Obrera y Campesino, another Marxist group, to form the Partido Obrero de Unificacion Marxista or POUM. They were anti-Stalin Leninists with politics close to Trotskyism, though not identical.
The new government, headed by Largo Caballero as Prime Minister, was a left-wing coalition of anarchists, revolutionary Marxists, Communists/Stalinists, reformist socialists and Republicans. The appointment of this left government saved the Republic; without it the state would have been destroyed. In the short term, worker self-management continued under Caballero but his government took many actions to limit worker and peasants power and to push the revolution back. Caballero was a reformist and member of the socialist party for most of his life. He was a minister in the Republican government that ruled Spain in the early '30s and persecuted anarchists. The right won elections in 1934 and he, along with much of the Socialist party, became revolutionaries now that they were no longer in power. He was arrested after the revolts in 1934. In prison he became radicalized and adopted a revolutionary Marxist position, coming to the conclusion that 'the reformist and parliamentary democratic socialism of the Second International' was as dead as 'the Moscow-inspired revolutionary socialism of the Third.' Once out of prison he called for a dictatorship of the proletariat and became the leader of the left wing of the Socialist Party. He enjoyed a large amount of popularity and confidence from the working class, which was a big part of why he was chosen to head the new government.
As a result of their entrance into the government the CNT became more hierarchical and centralized. The higher committees pursued their own policies, became isolated from the membership, and sometimes interfered with the work being done by the rank and file. The CNT’s practice came closer to representative democracy, rather than the system of direct democracy using mandated & recallable delegates they advocated, although there were still strong elements of direct democracy involved (it changed over time during the civil war). The centralization of the CNT actually confirms anarchist theory about the state and representative 'democracy.' Both are forms of minority rule, even when anarchists are the ones in power.
After the "anarchists" entered government the state gradually reorganized and restored its power, rebuilding the police and bureaucracy. The remnants of the capitalist class, and the petty bourgeoisie, began gathering their forces against the revolution. The Spanish Communist Party (PCE) was a small party at the start of the civil war but grew by leaps and bounds by riding this growing counter-revolutionary wave. The PCE opposed the revolution and called on workers and peasants to respect private property. This position won them the support of the more conservative elements in the Republic, including the petty bourgeoisie, who joined and supported the party in droves. The international Communist press even claimed that there was no revolution, that it was simply a civil war between fascism and democracy. Mexico and Soviet Russia were the only foreign powers to aid the Republic; Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy aided Franco with weapons, supplies and troops. In exchange for all of Spain's gold reserves the USSR sent weapons and supplies to assist the Republic. The PCE used this as leverage to gain greater power. Militias were required to adopt a traditional military hierarchy, a hierarchy increasingly dominated by the PCE, or they would not receive any arms. Stalinist propaganda portrayed Russia and the PCE as fighting to defend democracy from fascism, but the opening of the Soviet archives has conclusively disproved that claim. The actual goal of Russia and the PCE (acting under Russia's orders) was to impose a one-party dictatorship controlled by Russia, not to defend democracy let alone support the working class revolution then underway.
At first the state was very week but in the months that followed it gradually consolidated its power. As this happened the right, including the Communist Party, Republicans and the right wing of the Socialist Party, gained power and campaigned against the collectives. They pressured Caballero to outlaw the POUM, suppress the anarchists, and attack the collectives but Caballero refused. The consolidated state clashed with the collectives in the famous Maydays in May 1937. Open fighting broke out in Barcelona, with anarchists and POUM pitted against government forces. A virtual civil war within the civil war existed. Many of the anarchists who had been appointed to government positions had been co-opted into supporting the system and were able to prevent a large number of fellow anarchists from joining the revolutionary opposition. A new anarchist group, the Friends of Durruti, played a significant role in the Maydays. The FoD were opposed to the collaboration with the state and advocated revolutionary war instead. POUM, the Libertarian Youth and the Friends of Durruti were in virtual control of the Catalan capital for a while. However, the CNT regional committee opposed this move and the situation was eventually diffused in favor of state authority. The PCE took advantage of the crisis to persuade parliament to force Caballero out of power and put in power a new government headed by Juan Negrin. Negrin was a right-wing socialist and a member of the capitalist class.
The new government was dominated by those opposed to the collectives, including Republicans, right wing Socialists and especially Stalinists; it launched a full-fledged counter-revolution. Militant revolutionaries were jailed and/or killed, revolutionary organizations were suppressed, revolutionary publications were censored and the collectives were forcibly destroyed. Torture chambers were set up. POUM was outlawed and its leaders murdered. Many anarchist militants, including Camillo Berneri, were murdered and anarchist publications were censored. The left-wing of the socialist party was purged and Caballero put under house arrest. Troops and resources were diverted away from the front to break up the collectives by force. In some collectives private property was restored; in others nationalization was used as a weapon against the workers - smashing the collectives and putting part of industry under state control. The destruction of the collectives caused morale to drop and the economy to get worse. The counter-revolutionary government even chose to slow the destruction of the collectives because it was hurting the economy too much. Once the left was suppressed the Stalinists started suppressing other opposition groups one by one. In 1939 this culminated in a virtual one-party state, with the Communist party monopolizing political power. Shortly before the civil war ended a coup deposed this dictatorship, but by then it was too late. The Stalinists and their liberal allies claimed that implementing a traditional military hierarchy, not waging a revolution with a democratic militia, would enable them to defeat the fascists and save (bourgeois) 'democracy.' They got their counter-revolution and their traditional military hierarchy, but were nonetheless unable to win the civil war. The fascists won and wiped out all remnants of the revolution. The Stalinist/liberal strategy was incapable of defeating the fascists and as a result Franco's dictatorship ruled over Spain for nearly four decades.
Spain’s counter-revolution was the outcome of the restoration of the state. The state is an organization with a monopoly of legitimate violence based on centralization of power; this inevitably makes it the organ through which a small minority dominates the majority. It is the minority in the upper levels of the state hierarchy who hold actual power, the rest have to obey them. The authority of the state was threatened by the collectives, who challenged its authority. Once the state had cemented its rule it smashed the collectives. CNT ministers were first used to restore the state and then, once they had done that, discarded and thrown out of the government as it suppressed the revolution. Although the Communist party played a major role in the counter-revolution, something similar would probably have happened even if the PCE had not existed, although it might have taken a different form and/or taken longer. Some other group would have organized it, perhaps the right-wing socialists.
The decision of the anarchists to collaborate with the state was a huge mistake that cost them the revolution. The 'revolutionary war' strategy advocated by Durruti and others would have been a better option. The strategy of 'beat the Fascists first, then finish the revolution' obviously didn't work. Had they immediately seized the state's gold reserve they could have used it on the international market to buy arms prior to the embargo by the western 'democracies.' Morocco, a Spanish colony, was a major base for Franco. It should have been declared independent to disrupt Franco's rear. The Republic didn't do this and instead choose to appease French & British imperialism - the example of independent Morocco would have encouraged other nations to fight for independence. A revolutionary war strategy would have declared Morocco independent and thereby hurt Franco even more. In addition, the destruction of the collectives demoralized the population, enabling the Fascists to win with little in the way of popular resistance. The places where significant guerrilla activity continued the longest after Franco's victory were also places where collectivization had lasted the longest. The anarchists didn't get any of the advantages they thought they would get from collaboration - western aid did not arrive and the Stalinist counter-revolution ended up creating a virtual civil war within the civil war. Collaboration was complete failure, the fascists won anyway. The only chance at success they had was a revolutionary war; by making half a revolution they dug their own graves. Stopping the revolution halfway insured it would be defeated. Their only hope for victory lay in completing the revolution, disbanding the parliament, and waging a revolutionary war against the fascists.
The Spanish revolution shows that it is possible to organize society without classes or the state. State power was smashed; workers took over the factories and peasants the land. Anarchy was implemented and it worked. Not surprisingly, many histories portray the Spanish Civil War as merely a battle between fascism and democracy, a prelude to World War Two, and ignore or downplay the libertarian revolution that occurred. In the rare cases where it is mentioned it is often slandered or lied about, with little evidence to support such smears (see Noam Chomsky's "Objectivity and Liberal Scholarship" for a good analysis of this). The victors write history, and the victors happen to be strongly opposed to anarchism, so they ignore the revolution. Many people ask radicals what our alternative is. Look at the Spanish revolution, there is our alternative.
Recommended Readings
This is just a short overview of the Revolution & Civil War, a lot has been left out. For a more in-depth understanding, please see any of the following:
The Spanish Civil War by Antony Beevor - a good introduction to the Civil War/Revolution by a non-anarchist historian
Spanish Revolution Index - An excellent & large online collection
Anarchists in the Spanish Revolution by Jose Peirats - an anarchist history of the revolution
CNT in the Spanish Revolution by Jose Peirats - an anarchist history of the revolution focusing on the CNT's role
Homage To Catalonia by George Orwell - an eye-witness account; Orwell fought in a POUM militia
Anarchist Collectives edited by Sam Dolgoff - an anthology on the collectives
"Objectivity and Liberal Scholarship" by Noam Chomsky - Chomsky's take on the revolution
Spain Betrayed edited by Ronald Radosh, Mary Habeck, & Grigory Sevostianov - Soviet archive documents that prove the treachery of the Communist Party
Does revolutionary Spain show that Libertarian Socialism can work in practice? - the Anarchist FAQ on the revolution
Free Women of Spain by Martha Ackelsberg - the role of women in the revolution
Anarchists in the Spanish Civil War by Robert Alexander - A two-volume study by a non-anarchist historian
Spain 1936 - Anarchosyndicalism.org's index on the revolution
Lessons of the Spanish Revolution by Vernon Richards - Richards' analysis of the revolution
We, The Anarchists by Stuart Christie - A study of the FAI
Anarchist Organization by Juan Gomez Casas - A history of the FAI
To Remember Spain by Murray Bookchin - Bookchin on the revolution
Collectives in the Spanish Revolution by Gaston Leval - an account of the collectives by someone who was there
The Spanish Cockpit by Franz Borkenau - an interesting eyewitness account; hostile towards anarchism & socialism
With the Peasants of Aragon by Augustin Souchy - A first hand account of rural collectives in Aragon
The Spanish Anarchists: The Heroic Years by Murray Bookchin - A history of the Spanish anarchist movement before the civil war
Anarchism by Daniel Guerin - Has a good section on the revolution
No Gods, No Masters (book two) edited by Daniel Guerin - contains many documents on the revolution and other things