‘Living Utopia (The Anarchists and the Spanish Revolution)’ – Film (Norwich)
- This topic has 18 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Saturday, 9 July 2016 – 3:00pm
Venue: The Reindeer Pub, 10 Dereham Road, Norwich NR2 4AY
Directions: About 20 minutes walk from Norwich rail station
East Anglian Regional Branch will show the film 'Living Utopia (The Anarchists and the Spanish Revolution)' with introduction by Darren Poynton.
Followed by discussion
Free admission
All welcome
An early report indicates there was a packed room (27 people) at The Reindeer in Norwich for this film shown today…
Perhaps someone who attended could offer a brief summary of the ensuing discussion which i am sure would have been as stimulating and provocative as the film.
There were lots of new faces at the meeting. General opinion of the film seemed to be very good, with the topic being new to some of the visitors, including a couple of Spanish natives.Discussion ranged from the nature of the "Spanish Revolution", anarchism, socialism, where the classical "mass working class" is today (China) and how to achieve socialism.The film can be watched here:https://vimeo.com/43639159
KAZ wrote:And, since the involvement of the anarchists in the Generalitat was, if anything, detrimental, what can be the place of the political revolution (the 'Parliamentary Road')?Is what way was it detrimental? I would have thought it made sense to have some control over the official machinery of government if only in order to prevent it being used against events on the ground — as in fact happened after they were excluded and the so-called "Communists" took over control of it.The lesson must be that it is vital to gain control of political power at some stage of the socialist revolution. Incidentally, I don't like the term "the parliamentary road". I know we have used it, but we shouldn't really as it gives the mistaken impression that we think socialism can be legislated into being by an Act of Parliament (or even a series of Acts, as most in fact of those who use the term envisage). Whereas in fact we only want to use parliament as a stepping stone to gaining control of political power to use it to uproot capitalism.
ALB wrote:KAZ wrote:And, since the involvement of the anarchists in the Generalitat was, if anything, detrimental, what can be the place of the political revolution (the 'Parliamentary Road')?Is what way was it detrimental? I would have thought it made sense to have some control over the official machinery of government if only in order to prevent it being used against events on the ground — as in fact happened after they were excluded and the so-called "Communists" took over control of it.
Involvement in the Generalitat (Catalonian regional government) was detrimental to whom or what?I'm in agreement with Bookchin on this. The anarcho-syndicalists controlled the economy of Catalonia but they allowed the "socialists" to remain in control of a significant portion of the state machinery. This would come back to haunt them later, and would seem to confirm what we say about the necessity of gaining state power.http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2015/no-1336-december-2015/book-reviews-next-revolution-killing-fields-ineq
KAZ wrote:The meeting in Norwich yesterday (film showing of 'Living Utopia (The anarchists and the Spanish Revolution)' was well attended and the film very informative. But…
Was it socialism? Did the Spanish anarchists really achieve libertarian communism (aka socialism) in 1936? Or was it, as the organiser 'fessed up later, nowt but worker-run capitalism?
Since there was clearly a wide range of distributive mechanisms – from a full on cash economy through LTVs to free access – what does that say about the role of money in the revolution?My main thoughts. You need to watch more than that film to get enough information.
1. If it wasn't for the swift action that was lead by the CNT the military rising would have succeeded much more rapidly than it did, and it is doubtful that the repression would have been less.
2. Communism is a society where the "law of value" has been superseded.
3. Rationing and occasionally free access did exist within the collectives but the collectives exchanged commodities with other collectives according to the law of value. I.e goods are valued according to the amount of socially necessary labour time to reproduce them. There were "rich" collectives with more resources and "poor" ones. Therefore the problem of capitalism, that human labour gets allocated according to the needs of capital accumulation and not directly to solve human need, still persisted.
4. Strictly speaking, the revolution in the countryside was neither "libertarian" or "communist". Some peasants went along with it because it agreed with their communal values, others because they were afraid that if they did not they would be shot as fascists.
5. A significant amount of the population did think they were building the new society, and this gave them the necessary enthusiasm to continue the war effort. This enthusiasm was crushed after the "May Days"
6. I think the problem tracks back to the problem of "revolutionary unionism". See the last chapter of Vernon Richards "Lessons…" or I could elaborate if you need me to.
Could it have lead to socialism? In the conditions of the time, most notably the workers movement had already been defeated in the rest of Europe, the answer is absolutely not. But for the average prole the choice would have been to risk slaughter at the hands of the fascists, if you surrendered or not, or to rot away in a concentration camp in France. It's far to easy to pass smug judgment from the distance of history. Even now the "Spanish Revolution" does contain elements that inspire revolutionaries of today and the future.
Is workers controlled capitalism the route to socialism? I would say that something like that could possibly occur as the amount of conscious socialists increases, but in itself I don't think it necessarily would lead to socialism or that the route to socialism has to take this path.
n'est-ce pas?DJP wrote:I'm in agreement with Bookchin on this. The anarcho-syndicalists controlled the economy of Catalonia but they allowed the "socialists" to remain in control of a significant portion of the state machinery. This would come back to haunt them later, and would seem to confirm what we say about the necessity of gaining state power.http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2015/no-1336-december-2015/book-reviews-next-revolution-killing-fields-ineqIn that book Bookchin makes a valid point but seems to be suggesting that the CNT did not enter the regional government of Catalonia but surely they did, even if only as the junior partner (as, for a while, did the POUM). Did they or didn't they?
According to Paul Preston (pg 235 onwards of 'The Spanish Civil War') there was some ambiguity with regards to the question of the relationship of state power and the power of the workers organisations.President Companys, on 20th July 36, when met with a delegation of the CNT, offered to step down and to give total control to the CNT. Unsure of how to deal with the situation the CNT delegation allowed him to stay on. The CNT was then offered a place on the Anti-Fascist Militia Committee, which was in effect a sub-committee of the regional government. In September 36 this committee was dissolved as the CNT directly took a minority position in the regional government.Bookchin's criticism is that the anarchists allowed political power to flow away from them and unwittingly gave it to their opponents.
DJP wrote:Bookchin's criticism is that the anarchists allowed political power to flow away from them and unwittingly gave it to their opponents.In which case, to return to KAZ's original question, it was the non-participation, not the participation, of the CNT in the regional government of Catalonia that would have been "detrimental".
Libcom review of the meeting.
Quote:"I attended here yesterday, spent the afternoon and evening with Auld Bod, Battlescarred and some other very friendly and interesting comrades which was terrific.The film was amazing, truly inspirational. To see the sort of organisation of society in the way I already envisage it and the beautiful humanity of the people involved was real lump in the throat stuff. The music ain't too shabby either."Hopefully, EARB will be able to choose other insightful movies for future occasions and garner around them more potential members and sympathisers. And for those who wish to watch Living Utopia on You Tube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPl_Y3Qdb7Y&feature=youtu.be
This contemporary article (from 1937), by someone who had an intimate knowledge of Spain and what was happening there, explains why the Spanish revolution was not going to succeed and what would have happened had the CNT succeeded in implementing its plan for trade union control of the Spanish economy:http://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.co.uk/2006/09/spain-turns.html
Quote:The Spanish Revolution – and a revolution is taking place – is limited by the following conditions:1. The unsocialist outlook of the population of Spain. 2. The unsocialist outlook of the population of the rest of Europe. 3. The low level of the economic development of Spain, working for the eventual defeat of revolutionary action that is limited to Spain.Quote:Functioning for any length of time in the midst of the world market, the industrial enterprise taken over by the Catalonian trade union and coordinated into a national system through the "Federation of Industry," must undergo the same influences that act on any producers' cooperative. They must "pay." They must be profitable in the capitalist sense, the only sense possible or go under. Effected on a national scale, complemented by the State or Federation monopoly of the country's foreign trade and by this single control of the economic-financial activity of the nation, such "socialization" might work again, in the capitalist sense. For as a result of this monopoly, the national "cooperative" would assure itself of a constant market at home and thus subtract itself, on the domestic field, from the laws of competition. But the national "cooperative" will not be able to escape the laws of competition in the international arena. There it will have to stand up against all comers all other sellers and buyers in order to dispose of its goods at a profit and to pay for credit. …. In order to be able to do that, the National Federation of Industry its central control will have to adopt toward its workers the erstwhile free cooperators the same attitude that any capitalist entrepreneur takes to his employees. The national cooperative soon the national capitalist will have to squeeze out of the producers working in the total national enterprise enough surplus-value to realize at least an average rate of profit on the world market. It will have to do that or drop out of the world market and collapse into backward sel-sufficiency.Sad but true. That was the tragedy of the Spanish Revolution. It was never going to succeed.
alanjjohnstone wrote:And for those who wish to watch Living Utopia on You Tube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPl_Y3Qdb7Y&feature=youtu.beThere's an upload with better sound and video quality on Vimeo https://vimeo.com/43639159
ALB wrote:Sad but true. That was the tragedy of the Spanish Revolution. It was never going to succeed.It is true. But without the initial actions of the Syndicalists the republic would have initially lost a whole lot more of ground and very likely not been able to hold out for as long as it did. The "Revolution" was forced by the actions of the military, and would not have happened when it did had the rising of the military not taken place. The workers were right to resist, as the fascist repression was no less severe in areas which did not offer up a fight.As the woman at the end of the film says, I think their success was to show the world what was possible, if only for a short while and in an incomplete form. This success still lives on today.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.