The war in Spain 1936-39

[CharlieMcMenamin]

Brigg,
Yes, the generation before us faced different choices and different challenges. I have no doubt many people from all points of the political spectrum did despicable things under the immense pressure of the military and political nightmares of the 1930s and 1940s. Holding a party card, no matter what the party might be, has never been a guarantee of saint-like behaviour. & I have absolutely no idea what I personally may or may not have done under similar pressures.

But I do think that is a general point, not a specific one relating to a named individual. I think it quite important to refrain from repeating accusations against individuals unless one has some evidence. We can all, of course, occasionally fall short of this high standard in the heat of the moment, but to consistently* do is, I think , one of the hallmarks of argument in the classic Stalinist/McCarthyite style – a mode of argument by no means restricted to Stalinists or McCarthyites per se. Indeed, having grown up in more peaceful times I, personally, have mainly experienced  it from various species of Trotskyist, although I recognise that this may simply be an accident of my own atypical haphazard journey through the left.

Accusations that POUM or CNT were in the pay of the Fascists are clearly absurd. The accusation that their resistance to a unified and professional Republican army command weakened the resistance to the forces of darkness is a valid argument worthy of serious consideration. 

*I hope it is obviously I did not intend to accuse you of doing this and I am glad you disassociated yourself from these allegations. But I think we should all remember the general point.

[Brigg57]

Charlie,
could this be the first mature, adult conversation I've ever had about allegations, accusations, and nasty gossip? There's certainly been plenty of the latter about on these Spanish threads.

My regret is that Ramelson wasn't openly accused while he was alive. Then he could have defended himself! These weren't allegations made by some nasty Trotskyist with intent to hurt through innuendo. But it may well have been malicious innuendo taken seriously by my friend. I don’t know; never will.

Chinese whispers, some very nasty, abound on the left, abound in life. I've been fingered to the police on a conspiracy charge (to sit in - a one year sentence we were told was likely, but life was the max) while at university, along with several others, and was taken to the cop shop half way through my Finals to be told that the DPP had decided not to press charges (I was then expelled - temporarily). I know that whispers behind your back can have a killing effect, and that the Left specialises in these (even RPepper??). Better to bring them out in the open and get them sorted, or to just ignore them. Some hope.

Anarchism doesn't sit well with the need to fight bombers and tanks. When I put this at one Anarchist meeting in London back in 76, one guy got really angry, held his arms open and said that the people will fight the tanks with their bare hands and win. I looked at him silently, and nobody else spoke. I don't think they'd thought it through.

But there was a social revolution taking place in Spain at that time as well – the first Anarchist revolution, and it frightened the Brits at first (Churchill in particular). Only after a couple of months did they feel the situation was in hand. The CP worked form the start to undermine the social revolution – it was more than just the organisation of armies. Orwell saw that happening and seemed very aware of the politics involved; Chomsky’s documentation of the CP’s activities was one of the first responses from the Anarchist point of view to open up debate(in response to the standard liberal account of the war, by Gabriel Jackson in 1966). Perhaps the POUM/Libertarian Youth (the CNT were accepted as allies by the CP, I believe) could have been less alienated if less subject to harassment and accusations from the start. The social revolution could have been maintained as a base for a more organised and mechanised military response?? Now that i an argument..but not one the Spanish CP were interested in.

[Jon Teunon]

'Accusations that POUM or CNT were in the pay of the Fascists are clearly absurd. The accusation that their resistance to a unified and professional Republican army command weakened the resistance to the forces of darkness is a valid argument worthy of serious consideration.'

Fair enough Charlie. But it of course impossible to do this while people insist on calling them 'fascists.'

Even if this smearing stops there are still considerable difficulties to effectively give the point 'serious consideration.' How do we balance the obvious positives associated with a more efficient and unified command with the obvious negatives that thousands of workers resented having alien orders imposed on them? Without the spontaneous sacrifice made by so many people – with a large proportion consisting members of The CNT (and the UGT that had quite recently become far more militant than in previous decades) the Military coup would have probably been victorious within weeks.

As you say it is hard for us understand 'the immense pressure of the military and political nightmares of the 1930s and 1940s' but equally it is hard for us to comprehend the excitement and solidarity which anarchist actions caused through struggling against the Nationalists and the creation of industrial and agricultural collectives. Support for the CNT immediately increased after the early days of the war, because of their heroic stand against the far better armed soldiers they faced. (And many women were involved in these actions too). Once people have felt this solidarity – they will suffer the kind deep psychological effects which will have a detrimental impact on morale.

And the CNT itself, was deeply split because of the undoubted compromises made by the CNT leadership, such as García Oliver (who was one of the anarchist ministers in Largo Caballero's government – and who encouraged the FAI-CNT militants to disarm during the May Days in Barcelona 1937. Consequently he is still blamed for compromising too much with the authorities by some anarchists today).

Even the communists belatedly realised the emotional power of 'libertarian communism' in parts of Spain -when as the war was coming to an end they tried to make a cult of Durruti for to try inspire the resistance to the Nationalist onslaught. But this was far too late in the day.
It is extremely difficult to see how a definitive answer to this contentious issue can be arrived at. My opinion is that the anarchists and syndicalists should have been left at the stage they had reached (there were no serious calls for further revolutionary gains to be made during the war – all demands were defensive) and that they should have been armed as well as the other militias – for the sake of unity.

But of course one of the most important (and relevant for us today) lessons of Civil wars in general is just how violent and repulsive they are. Which is why for the last few decades the emphasis has moved from the political study of who was to blame on the Republican side etc, to how such a terrible event began in the first place. This involves going back decades to examine the very diverse social and economic, factors that led to the extreme and confrontational state that led to such widespread violence and hatred overspilling into an internecine and bloody civil war with atrocities being committted on a daily basis.

[baslamak]

we've both grown up in a part of the world without war, and a world where political violence has rarely resulted in anyone being killed.

Briggs

Sorry but I cannot let you get away with that, although it does display the attitude many on the left take towards Ireland. A violent insurrection/civil war raged within the UK for 30 years in our lifetime, during which over 3500 people lost their lives and countless others had their hopes and dreams destroyed.

It is a sad fact of life we on the UK left seem more comfortable talking about distant Spain than certain events which occurred on our own doorstep. Imprisonment without trial, a rigged judiciary, shoot to kill, alternative methods of policing a community, and mass murder, all took place during those thirty years. This is important because if we fail to recognize or understand what has occurred on our doorstep, how can we possibly get a real understanding of what went on in Spain or any where else come to that.

The problem far to many of us display when looking back at Spain is we do so through ideological tinted glasses and take the human element out of the equation. Willp looks at that conflict through the eyes of the best of a 1930s communist party member, others do the same but using Trotskyist or other ideological tomes. I suppose why this issue is still important for the left is we still differ over the effectiveness of the popular front/united front. My problem with the Comintern policy on Spain was not the United Front, but they shut down the democratic space which would have made it an effective tool and without which it was bound to fail. That they moved to shut down agricultural communes and return the land to those landlords that had remained loyal to the Republic was crass stupidity which was bound to turn a large section of the peasantry against the central government.

Sadly as Briggs has mentioned them, what almost all sides do is ignore the anarchists contribution to the Spanish republic, which is a great shame as there is much we can learn from them if we truly wish to work towards a freer, more democratic form of socialism. Not least to trust the good judgment of the masses.

For me what stares us in the face about Spain is the total failure of both Leninist Stalinist and Leninist Trotskyism, if there is one lesson from Spain, it is socialism must be about widening the democratic envelope, not shutting this space down, otherwise it is not worth a candle. Sadly it is this lesson we have least learned since the Spanish civil war. (The same goes for Ireland) Once silence moves in, absolute certainty, hate, the spooks, the bullet in the back of the head, the call for pure ideology follows it as sure as night follows day.

I can understand perfectly how Bert might end up as a jailer of Nin, in extraordinary times, good people often do bad things, the real problem arises when we refuse to recognize this fact.

[Free Radical]

Baslamak - a good thoughtful post, thanks.

[Brigg57]

bas...you hit me on a sore point. Ireland. Of course. We were all affected by the violence and the atrocities there.

But not living there, I wasn't thrown in. I never had to deal with informers or suspected informers, never felt the need to arm myself or face the might and sophistication of the British Army. In that sense, I have lived in a part of the world which wasn't affected by war.

But you are absolutely right..I lived on the edge of that world, and my political activities in Troops Out etc gave me a little taste of the fear that goes with that.

I'm glad you caught what I was saying about Bert Ramelson. The contradictions of growing up in a family in whihc one side was dedicated CP affected me. I could easily have been writing of one of my relatives, all of whom I love.

[Jon Teunon]

Excellent post basmalak - I don't comment on Ireland because I don't feel I am qualified enough to do so - even in a 'theoretical' sense from reading any signficant books or commentaries about it. And I was born after the 'troubles' started. But I completely understand the significance of your overall point:

'Imprisonment without trial, a rigged judiciary, shoot to kill, alternative methods of policing a community, and mass murder, all took place during those thirty years. This is important because if we fail to recognize or understand what has occurred on our doorstep, how can we possibly get a real understanding of what went on in Spain or any where else come to that.'

And of course I agree with:

'For me what stares us in the face about Spain is the total failure of both Leninist Stalinist and Leninist Trotskyism, if there is one lesson from Spain, it is socialism must be about widening the democratic envelope, not shutting this space down, otherwise it is not worth a candle. Sadly it is this lesson we have least learned since the Spanish civil war. (The same goes for Ireland) Once silence moves in, absolute certainty, hate, the spooks, the bullet in the back of the head, the call for pure ideology follows it as sure as night follows day.'

Having to consult and listen to the people, and gain both their trust and consent, is fundamental to any genuine left democratic revolution.

[Brigg57]

Bas,
having re-read your post, I see some problems, and if possible I’d like to discuss them out.

I’m not a pacifist, but I think violence has to be avoided at almost any cost –not just political violence.

I don’t think that the active involvement of the community in violence makes it any better, though in certain situations (Russia in March, 1917, Iran in Jan-Feb 1979) it can crack an army, or as in Belfast and Derry in August 69, it can stop the violent incursions of armed police (the B Specials) into the community.

When two communities are involved in violence against one another, the violence can be appalling. When i worked in the Civil Service in a lowly position for a year or two, I grew to have great respect for an Indian colleague of mine who was a child when his family fled form communal violence in the newly-created Pakistan. He told me quite dramatically that he was about 7 when he saw a man, “as near as you are to me now”, torn limb from limb. The screams still stayed with him.

When the protestant community feel on the Catholic community in Belfast in 1920, the results were equally horrifying, I read, with sledgehammers being used on men while their children watched.

You’re right to point to the sinister executions carried out by organised armies and police forces in a war situation, whether NIreland or Spain. I’m sure your belief that a military campaign is most effective when backed by popular participation is also correct, though how long that participation can keep going before exhaustion sets in is a question.

But popular participation couldn’t stop Franco’s Spanish Army in the south of Spain in July, 36, where Anarchists and Socialists were butchered with knives as well as guns; only in Barcelona and areas outside the military onslaught was the popular community able to assert control – at great cost to human life. I’m not sure how a popular rising could have dealt with the Blitzkrieg in Poland or France in 1939-40. Guerrilla activity in Russia against the Nazis was very heroic, and in Stalingrad popular resistance played a crucial role, but it was an organised army which defeated the Nazi machine. Without that army, the popular resistance could have been handled for a long time at least.

Anarchism doesn’t sit well with modern military wars. The sacrifices of the Spanish Anarchists put to shame the mockery of one individual on this board, though. When he started denouncing Housman’s for hosting fascist meetings, it put him right outside the pale, for me anyway.

[baslamak]

Briggs,

The subject you have raised is something I have been thinking a lot about of late after watching the Winnie Mandela drama documentary on TV. When the majority of folk engage in a popular insurgency or begin to strike back against their oppressors, they do not act in an ordered or well thought through way. The reach out for the nearest vehicle they believe may bring them some respite from their suffering. In Spain for millions of workers that was the anarchists, as they had a long track record of courageously opposing the exploitative class.(The CPS was still a minor player in 36) In the north of Ireland it was the IRA who had a track record of resisting British/unionist rule. Unlike intellectuals workers when they enter into a life and death struggle have little time for debating the fine political detail, they correctly just wish to get on with the job.

If you are at the sharp end of an insurgency, as Mrs Mandela undoubtedly was, informers are a curse who have your very life in their hands, and a necklace may seem a good idea at the time as it sends a clear message to those who, for what ever reason, (The poor retched souls they are) may have been considering taking the man in the big houses shilling. Of course it is not an accident that Mrs Mandela is still regarded highly by the SA masses, they see her as one who endured along side them and I doubt her human frailties came much of a surprise to them, as only the gods and master the historians portray seem to have none, the Lenin's, the Stalin's, the Mandela. (Incidentally this partially explains why nationalists are often willing to forgive Gerry Adams his sins.)

You mention Russia and Iran 79 and I wonder if this is because history has tied these revolutions up in a neat bow as they were successful. I think you are correct about modern war fare being just to absolute for it to be defeated by an insurrection alone. But the whole point about SA and the north of Ireland was the State could not declare outright war, although it did the nearest thing, as it would have looked to the outside world the UK had declared war on its own people. Gaza is a good example here, Hamas knew firing rockets into Israel was more trouble than it was worth, however they were unable to resist their peoples demands to strike back at their tormentors.

The IRA faced a similar connundrum when the UK State used its loyalist conduits to carry out the sectarian murders of Catholics in the hope this would drive a wedge between the nationalist working class and the Provos. The IRA came under enormous pressure to strike back in kind from both their W/C nationalist supporters and their own volunteers and to take the pressure off they authorized an attack on the Shankill. Its aim was not in itself sectarian but it turned out to be so as like Elvis their targets had left the building.

Insurgencies whether successful or not are violent and bloody, I am critical of Trotsky's history, which although a very fine book in which whilst he portrays the debates in the Soviets well, he covers over the true nature of a revolution. Which is a shame as in many ways it means he excludes the masses and makes far to many 'revolutionaries' intellectualize revolutionary change, believing violent revolution should be our first option, not our last.

It seems to me it is 'almost' impossible to engage in an insurrection without some form of communal violence, as you point out even Gandhi could not stop the communal violence that broke out at the stroke of midnight. Although it is to his and other Indian leaders credit they never tried to cover it up.

I understand your feelings expressed in your last sentence but I would just add this, none of us come to politics with fully formed ideas, this is especially true of working class people like myself who have had little formal eduction and when we first realize there were people like us who have fought successfully against our tormentors, a whole new world opens up to us and in the process we gain enormous self confidence in our class and our new found political beliefs.

The downside is of course we are only gradually able to take in the full picture as we accumulate more information and knowledge. In my case this has taken almost a lifetime. For example I once would have seen informers as scum, whereas to day I see them as victims of the State agencies. (Although still a major irritant and danger) I will not continue as I know you understand all this, I suppose what I am trying to say some of us do not change out political perspective after an email exchange, it is a far deeper process than that.

To give you an example, when I first became politically active I once had a massive public row with an older activist who had been the youngest person to serve in the British battalion of the international brigades.(I did not know this at the time) Funny enough it was about organizing the anti racist movement as a broad 'popular front,' vicars, trade unions etc. Something at the time I opposed 'vigorously,' [and still to a lesser degree feel uncomfortable with] believing back then violence was the only way to deal with Nazis. Looking back I embarrassed myself as I was not knowledgeable enough about the subject or the man I was abusing, yet it took a long time for me to realize this, and if at the time anyone had pulled me to one side and told me that, I would have told them to fuck off.

Just some rambling thoughts on your post.

all the best comrade

[rodge]

There is a protracted civil war going on in this neck of the woods ...40 odd years in fact.My only contact with it is the odd partisan roadblock....where i am cheerily waved through with an inevitable "hey joe"! Do i look American?..2nd hand,just down the road near the farm ,there had been a shooting....2 hapless day labourers ,not locals,had been shot.Mercifully superficial wounds. I asked our neighbour all about it....it seems the 2 fellows had bought army gear from local post from impoverished soldiers and fully decked out were making way back to hut in darkness when they were shot. i asked who did it, he said peoples army....."are you sure?".."They tended wounds...rushed them to hospital....paid all their bills....called at farmer who employed them to offer compensation! " "definitely not government soldiers".The last example,2nd hand,we were inspecting a truck at a depot ....chatting with owner and his mechanic joined us.he stood out from the crowd...not least because he was black...and a good 6ft tall muscular about 25yrs old and with engaging smile.we all chatted and on the way home wifey said did you notice the white spots on his hands .i said yes very noticeable i tried not to look ....".insect bites?" no she said...cigarette burns...how ?why? It seems he went to live in a contested area and locals took him to be an intelligence "asset".It all slipped into place...he was every inch his fathers son....he could have been on a US marine recruitment poster...his father was a US army sergeant and had married a local girl.......but he was 100% local.I asked his boss later ..he just said he avoids the area now....and has no animosity..just got back on with his life .! I might pick up some red pepper badges next time i am back...knowing my luck though...I'll get shot by the army soldiers................!!!!!

[Johnnywas]

Although the tendency here is to portray Stalinists as arch sectarian, the reality was that Trotsky's politics were just as divisive

       " the popular front.. is a gigantic brake, buildt and set in motion by traitors and servile scum"
                          Trotsky 'The Task in Spain 1936'

I think that the Civil War is best remembered as socailist and democratic

I'm sure that the trotskyists fought the fascists as bravely as anyone else but compared  with the popular front or  even he romantic vision of the CNT - their leadership provided a  pretty uninspiring vision for Spain

but Trotsky wasn't content with rubbishing the elected government he also regularly denounced Nin and the POUM for 'social democratic treason'

a comparison could be made with Emma Goldman who although she shared the criticisms of Stalin defended the decision by leaders of the CNT and FAI to join the Republican Government



   
 

 




 

 

[rodge]

JW.......well expressed ! Infact 100s of 1000s did just that......joined the government and army ...the communists were the 1st to disband their militias....and reaped tremendous dividends for themselves...which they were quick to exploit.They put their money where their mouth was ,or put another way led by example.propaganda was not all one way vis the anarchists.....on the ground ...general Lister heaped military praises on anarchist columns formations who showed grit...officers and men !Many of the new formations infact had anarchist history but communist commissars and leadership.....or socialist leanings..SOMEBODY MUST HAVE BEEN DOING SOMETHING RIGHT .It seems they simply just got on with it...with or without TROTSKY.War can change people for the better !!

[baslamak]

Nothing wrong with a bit of romance in politics. To place anarchists under the command of communist commissars was tantamount to declaring war on them, come on, the Bolsheviks slaughtered their comrades in Russia. The fact is the sensible way to deal with these comrades, 'within reason,' would have been to give them their head, to have treasured and nurtured them, after all with their politics, unlike some the CPS got into bed with, the anarchists were never going to go over to the Nazis, not if they valued they're heads.

I find the period the anarchists were in government most interesting, to place an anarchist in charge of Justice was sheer genius and Garcia Oliver stepped firmly up to the mark, his statements on law and prisons still bring a tear to my eyes, magnificent.

As Briggs said the other week on education, we need to raise our bar about the type of society we wish to build in the future, and that is just what the Spanish anarchists were about. Not for them some dark, centrist, dictatorial regimented society, they would have installed a Minister of fun and free love. I am not an anarchist, I am far to conservative a chap for that, but any government which had no place for the Spanish anarchists, who had the support of millions of workers, was a disgrace.

To be blunt the failure of the Stalinist's in Spain was they demanded the workers loyalty and discipline, yet all they promised the workers was a bourgeois Republic, more of the same. Whether there was an alternative, at the time was debatable, but not to day for us, surely?

I am just re-reading E H Carr's The Comintern and the Spanish Civil War, and I am finding it a reasonable take, comrades like Togiatti come out of the book well and there is no doubting the commitment and courage of the communists. By the way I have for some time been searching for an English language biography of Togliatti but can find none, anyone know of one.

[Brigg57]

Bas, sorry, no knowledge of any Togliatti biog in English, but that doesn't mean there isn't one. You tried searching Amazon or ABE books

Jwas, Rodge - to quote the song, I'd like to say a word for the cowboy.

Trotsky was quite an attractive figure in the 20s - isolated, hunted, yet writing acute analyses of the situation Germany and Spain. Isaac Deutscher was right to entitle the third volume of his hagiog - sorry biography, The Prophet Disarmed - a Cassandra figure. He's not the last word on the nature of German Nazism, but his writings on the idiocy of Stalin's tactics in seeing the Social Democrats as a bigger menace than Hitler was so acute because accompanied by a growing awareness of what a menace Stalinism was posing internationally. One of my problems with Trotsky is that he never recognised that maybe he, Trotsky, was himself bound up with the development of that menace through his own strict Leninism.

On Spain, Trotsky had a number of quite valid points to make - one of them was the Spain was an imperialist power with a dire colonial record in Latin America and in Morocco. The Spanish had only recently been fighting a vicious war within Morocco to keep it as part of Spain. Franco launched his insurrection from Morocco, and Moroccan troops were part and parcel of the cruel atrocities inflicted on Anarchists and Socialists in Seville. Trotsky demanded that the Republican govt declare Morocco independent, both because it was right in principle, and because it was right tactically – it would undermine Franco’s forces. In keeping Morocco as part of the (once powerful) Spanish Empire, the Republican govt was showing the same face to Moroccans as Franco himself. The same problem confronted the French Left, as Blum and later in the 50s the Marxist Mollet tried to deal with problems (and later a vicious war) with Algeria (Tunisia, IndoChina, etc).

Part of the problem was that unfortunately Trotsky had no impact on Spanish politics, or the Spanish Left, at all. If he had, the problem of Morocco could have been raised seriously. He was on the sidelines, used by the Stalinists as the Hitlerite bogeyman to justify real atrocities against other non-Trotskyist sections of the Left like the POUM, and to undermine the social revolution which created a real basis of support for the resistance to Franco, but which embarrassed Stalin’s tactics of a Popular Front with Eden and Blum.

I’m all for unity – of any left, anywhere. But not if it involves a silencing of criticism, both internal and open.

[Jon Teunon]

Brigg is completely right to remind us of the disastrous consequences of the Republican government not giving Morocco its independence.

I also agree with Bas's points about the anarchists - which I would like to reinforce by emphasising the utmost importance of a Popular army gaining and holding the support of the general population - including the non-combatants, whose role is to maintain essential supplies  etc. So we shouldn't just consider the CNT's importance in just military terms - but in the wider context of civilian morale. (Not all the 1,500,000 plus actual members would have been at the front).

It should also be remembered that two of the most influential anarchists, Durutti and Francisco Ascaso, were both dead by November 1936, (and many more besides - fighting the far better armed Military uprising, particularly in the early days, caused many casualties to the bravest anarchists who were always among the first to oppose it) which would have depleted the overall power of the CNT-FAI. Bas is right though to highlight the importance of García Oliver, and I would also add Frederica Montseny's contribution.

[willp]

Brigg wrote on 2 February, “I was told, but again can't swear to it, that Bert Ramelson, who became Industrial Organiser of the British CP, was part of the Comintern squad in charge of torturing Nin.” Here, Brigg publicised an anonymous allegation made with no evidence, in a private conversation.
On 3 February, Charlie wrote, “It is a very, very serious allegation and I really don’t think you can slip it into a wider discussion such as this without some supporting evidence.” Brigg replied, “Charlie, this isn't my allegation.” But he had passed it on, nonetheless.
The very same day, Brigg wrote of one of Tito’s partisans, “My guess is that he tortured people, too.” Again, no evidence, just gossip, which he passed on, without knowing or caring whether it was false.
As Brigg wrote, “Chinese whispers, some very nasty, abound on the left, abound in life.” Indeed.
Brigg, on 4 February, wrote, “When he [willp] started denouncing Housmans for hosting fascist meetings, it put him right outside the pale, for me anyway.”
This is another … misrepresentation: I criticised Housmans for promoting the slogan Ni Bush Ni Chavez in an advert for their meeting.
As Housmans wrote, “the posting of a picture of a Venezuelan anarchist waving a placard "No Bush, No Chavez", which was used to illustrate a recent event at Housmans from a Venezuelan anarchist taking a critical look at Chavez and his administration.”
I responded, “'Ni Chavez' sounds to some of us like a call to get rid of Chavez, which chimes neatly with the US ruling class's position.
I would certainly hope that any discussion would be 'far from an outright attack on Chavez'. Hopefully, the discussion even included some outright support for Chavez.” That is not a denunciation of Housmans for hosting ‘fascist meetings’.
On 1 February, Brigg wrote, “If people on the Left are fascists, then they are legitimate targets – fifth columnists as our friend Rodge reminds us. It justifies terror.” This is to imply that here in Britain, in 2010, I am urging terror against ‘people on the left’.
This is just another unsubstantiated smear. The evidence of my contributions to this forum shows that I pursue the democratic course of stimulating thought and debate.
Previously, Brigg wrote that I used the Chinese communist technique of patiently explaining, which is more accurate, but not consistent with his present accusation.
He should be more wary of making accusations, given that when he falsely accused me of plagiarism the RP moderator found that Brigg had ‘made himself ridiculous’.

[Free Radical]

Willp writes:
"The evidence of my contributions to this forum shows that I pursue the democratic course of stimulating thought and debate."

Some selected contributions to 'stimulating thought and debate'...

http://forums.redpepper.org.uk/index.php/topic,1457.msg11227.html#msg11227
"If any of you experts on Spain ever get round to reading Landis' works, I would be interested to hear your opinion."

http://forums.redpepper.org.uk/index.php/topic,1457.msg11206.html#msg11206
"Some may dismiss these books (as 'Stalinist', etc.) without even bothering to read them, but then some judges hand out sentences before hearing both sides of the case."


http://forums.redpepper.org.uk/index.php/topic,1457.msg11344.html#msg11344
"JT seems unable to understand that Thatcher made Hugh Thomas a peer for very good reasons - she wasn't stupid about her class interests.
JT seems to think that only people who have an explicit ideology have any ideology.
He writes that Thomas and Preston have 'no explicit agenda ...' do you expect explicit agendas, and find their absence proof that there is no other agenda?
Do you expect Thomas to announce that he is a supporter of the Conservative Party?
So is everything what we are told it is?
Do you expect Blair, for another example, to say, 'Yes of course, I’m a pretty straight kind of a money mad, Catholic warmonger”?
And if he doesn't say so, does that mean he isn't a money mad, Catholic warmonger?
Anti-communist JT has repeatedly defended anti-communist Lord Hugh Thomas and the anti-communist Spanish anarchists.
Then JT claims that there is nothing in common between the anti-communist Lord and the anti-communist anarchists.
But that's not ideological, nooooooo."



Oh dear oh dear...

[Brigg57]

bas, FR,

I have great respect for your last post n this thread, speculating on the nature of violence, and the honesty with which you're trying to come to terms with your past. I do wish this honesty and ability to slowly break off the shackles of an analysis which doesn't hold to the rapidly changing world about us was shared by more on the Left (the past weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living. wrote Marx).

I think the situations in SAfrica, NIreland and Spain drawn by you do have parallels. They had in common a popular rising against the State in some way - and the State cracked in each case, though it reconstituted itself pretty quickly. That popular insurrection was accompanied by popular violence, some of which was pure vigilantism, and had to be ended by the organised politicos pretty quickly. Sometimes the politicos used the vigilantism to reassert the control of the State, unfortunately.

The Winnie Mandela analogy is a good one (the necklace is apparently one of the most painful ways to die). In Spain, there was a particular outrage against the police, the Guardia Civil, in one village; a cop was killed and had his eyes gouged out, leading to one lady urinating in the cop's empty sockets. This was taken up by Spanish society as an example of the absolute barbarity of the Anarchist peasants. An old play was revivied by the let about the village of Fuenteovejuna, where a similar incident ahd taken place, and when the judges came to ask who the villain was, the answer was simply "Fuenteovejuna". It was teh grinding poverty and violence committed over centuries ot teh poorest of society which created barbarism. Anyone who condemns popular violence has to bear that in mind. It was why one woman I once met who hailed from the Divis flats in Belfast said she voted Alliance and supported the IRA – she voted for peace but wanted defence against assault by Brits and Prods. Nobody in Britain could understand that.

The thing is that violence has to take place sometimes. It’s wrong, it’s barbaric, but sometimes it can’t be avoided – just self-defence.

But one thing which (I hope) makes the genuine Left better than our opponents is that we know that it’s wrong, even when it has to be undertaken – always in self defence, always to ge ended as soon as humanly possible.

The point I was making was that the democratic envelope you describe is no better than the bullet in the back of the dissident’s head from the Stalinist Commissar. Violence is violence, is wrong. But where I do agree with you is that the democratic control is essential to stop the real oppression exercised by the State once it gets a hold – when the dictatorship of the proletariat becomes the dictatorship over the proletariat, as in the Stalin nightmare.



FR, the man can infuriate. Now he’s bringing in Fiona as having taken his side in his infantile point-scoring.

Best to ignore him, and complain if he really goes over the top. He thrives on this mode of debate, sneering and insinuating, and then condemning people when they respond for sneering and insinuation. He and his party are one of the biggest wastes of DNA to have occurred on the Left. If anyone takse him or the seriously, it lowers them as people. Leave him to his constant sarcasm – he obviously has nothing better to do with his time.

[Free Radical]

Brigg

I appreciate where you are coming from, and we shouldn't waste too many words on this - but I took a slightly different view - that sometimes it is necessary simply to lay out some facts and let others judge.

[rodge]

brigg and jt ..good to raise issue of Moroccan independence...both because it was just and also as a possible wedge to place between Franco and his mercenary troops.The fact it was not taken up by the Republican government has much to do with the fact that France and Spain ruled the area as a protectorate.It was no doubt felt that it would antagonise Blum and embarrass his government.Both the communist party and POUM spoke for independence only to be overruled by the Spanish socialists and others. The Morrocans themselves had to wait another 10years for independence....while the Spanish had to wait many more decades to  be rid of Franco. On balance it seems the republican decision was right at the time....but it did not do them a great deal of good.
 One issue that i cant resolve ,is why the republicans lost the power to feed their people .I should be grateful of any pointers in that direction.
It must have been a total humiliation when Francos planes dropped bread rolls instead of bombs on Madrid and major towns ..a propaganda coup from the fascists. WE HAVE FOOD APLENTY.....YOU HAVE NONE .!!!!!!!!!!!