The Spanish Libertarian Movement & USENET Bickering

[Jamal Hannah]

The following text assumes that the reader has, to some extent, read
Bryan Caplan & James Donald's attacks on anarchism (usually calling
it "left-anarchism or "anarcho-socialism"), and attempts to replace
it with "anarcho-capitalism" or Libertarian Party support.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Not to beat a dead horse, but I'd like to mention that I find it appalling
that self-proclaimed "anarcho-capitalists" and Libertarian Party
advocates such as James Donald and Brian Caplan would brush aside
the crimes of the catholic church & the fascists they
supported in the Iberian peninsula, purely for ideological reasons
(that is, they single out the actions of anarchists in the civil war,
but downplay the actions of the fascists they were fighting.)
Here is a quote I found on a web page dedicated to a film version of Edgar
Allen Poe's "The Pit and the Pendulum":

"During 350 years, the Holy Inquisition destroyed 500,000 people in Spain
and Portugal alone. The total number of victims was never published"

- http://www.itserve.com/~tfitz/svank3.html

If a person does not consider the context of the Spanish Civil War, and
the widespread hatred of the Catholic Church in Spain at the time, they
might as well justify any kind of lie or exaggeration about the
Spanish anarchists and the killings of fascist-supporting members
of the Church in the opening phases of the civil war. I should add
that it was not being a Catholic specifically that generated hatred,
as the catholics in the Basque region of Spain opposed Franco and were
bombed by the Nazi Condor Legion. (and these catholics were of course
on the same side as the anarchists against Franco.)

The only reason the United States' Christian movement has not
been compared, at some time, to the crude barbarism of the church
in old Europe is specificaly because the Christians who came to
the United States were in fact outcasts from those european institutions.
(of course, there are some who are always trying to establish
a Christian order along those lines... imagine if every Christian
in the USA started to behave stricly on the basis of what Jack Chick
Publications claim Christianity is all about... or worse, Pat Buchanan.)

James Donald and Bryan Caplan may find it frustrating that history
reveals a different definition of anarchism than the (capitalist) one
they have concocted... but this hardly justifies
the kind of historical distortions, witch-hunt mentality,
and constant demonizations of anarchists that they wish to perpetuate.

A few points of note:

* Murder, terror, killings, etc. were not "typical" of the anarchists
of the FAI and CNT in Spain in 1936. There was a considerable amount
of killing done by members of every faction imaginable involved in the war-
not based on specific ideologies, but acts of passion and hatred
by members of the population that were the inevitable outcome of
a _civil war_ (the outbreak of a civil war, especially in modern times,
will always represent a spectacular breakdown of ethics, conduct,
negotiation and civility. Only a madman would consider initiating
a Civil War as a means to an end... which is precisely what Franco
did when he staged the military coup from Morocco. If the military of
the United States did the same thing today, the population would quickly
be polarized into people in full support and full opposition to
the milirary's action. There's a damn good reason why the founding fathers
did what they could to make sure the President, Congress, the Senate
and the Suprime Court had some amount of power that actualy counterbalenced
that of a bunch of generals and military officers, and president Eisenhaur
wasn't kidding when he said "Beware the military-industrial complex".)

* The anarchists of Spain were no more motivated by "irrational emotion"
than any of the people on USENET reading this text, let alone the
Libertarian Party, the Cato Institute, or the cult of Objectivism.
Certainly, reading James Donald's flame-filled, hysterical accusations
(such as that Noam Chomsky supported Pol Pot, etc.)
and shrill name-calling, it seems very strange that Caplan, a person who
presents himself as an intellectual would have anything to do with
him, let alone echoing his wacky conspiracy theories. People are
not motivated by emotion: they are motivated by their economic
conditions. So exploited workers will resist exploitation
and at times display this with outbursts of emotion... and
right-wing economists like Rothbard, Ludwig von Misus and the like will
attack any attempts to abandon capitalism by the workers
with, at times, heated emotion.

* It was not the propaganda of the FAI & CNT that made employers (mostly
fascist Sympathizers) in Spain to seem like "animals" to the workers,
but rather the behavior of the employers themselves. The fact that
the significant amount of leftist propaganda available today is
not causing workers to join leftist organisations in droves
is testimony to this: employers simply do not (currently) openly treat
their workers like trash the way they did 100 years ago, either because of
state regulations, or fear of the very real consequences of
completely depriving other human beings of happiness and liberty.
(it's bad enough that a worker has limited freedom in their place of
employment already). Of course undocumented workers are not
counted in this equation: they have no rights and protections to
begin with.

* There was in fact a very real libertarian movement in Spain. The
idea that somehow the "true" libertarian movement/movements
only exist or originate in the United States can only be
explained by a very narrow definition of what "liberty" in fact
means. If "liberty" is ONLY defined by the possession of property...
particularly factories, stocks, bonds, land and various means of
profit, then one might suppose that the leading economic power
would embody this definition. But most Americans in fact do not
_own_ any of these things... and even cars and homes are owned by banks
and paid for by mortgages and monthly installments... or land
and apartments are rented. Evidently a very large portion of the
American population do not, and never had what is defined as
"liberty" by right-wing economists. If, however, the definition
of a libertarian is one who resists authority, and seeks to
maximize human independence, the number of movements qualifying
as "libertarian" tends to be a good deal broader than the narrow
scope offered by the "Libertarian Purity Test". The fact that
some people here may be quite used to seeing the word
"socialism" repeatedly in close proximity of the word "fascism" in
pro-capitalist journals does not change the fact that there was
a very real socialist movement that effectively fused collectivism
and individualism, preventing one from corrupting the other. (i.e.
anarchosyndicalism)

* The right-wing Libertarian Party argument that no socialist can
be a "libertarian" is based on the definition of "libertarian"
as one who does not "initiate force". Therefore no-one who
resists capitalism could _EVER_ be considered a "libertarian"
by this narrow definition since resisting the status quo involves,
at some level, whatever capitalists choose to define as "coercion"
(considering that Ayn Rand and Robert Heinlein called hippie
poets, liberal voters, environmentalists, reformist social-democrats
and anyone else who disliked capitalism even the slightest bit
a "totalitarian", there's substantial proof that this definition of
"coercion" or "initiating force" is pretty damn broad.)

On the other hand, the original libertarian definition is
"one who is opposed to external authority". Bryan Caplan's attack
against the Spanish Anarchists, basically an expanded version of
James Donald's crude texts, insists that the term "libertarian"
was somehow incorrectly used by the Spaniards. Now this is
really bizarre, considering it flies in the face of thousands
of first-hand accounts of actual history, and actual people who
experienced actual events and followed actual principles.

* The fact that Benjamin Tucker was an individualist anarchist
(who heartily supported Peter Kropotkin, a self-proclaimed
anarchist communist, and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, basically
the founder of the libertarian socialist movement) who happened
to be situated in the United States does little to support
the assertion by Bryan Caplan in his dubious "anarchist theory faq"
that American anarchism was somehow originally a strictly anti-socialist
phenomenon. It should be noted that all of the people he
and others have used as examples of "founding fathers of
modern (right-wing) libertarianism" such as Ayn Rand, Ludwig
von Misus were not in fact anarchists or
libertarians, but right-wing economists & philosophers.
No amount of rewriting of history in the last 30 years
changes this fact.

For some reason, right-wing libertarians seem to have
come to the conclusion that ardent denunciations of whatever is labeled
"socialism" and support of private property are sufficient qualifications
for being a "libertarian"... but if this were true it would make
anyone who ever denounced worker's movements with flowery, intellectual
sounding language a "libertarian". Why Ayn Rand's critique of the
dictatorial USSR would somehow make her "more libertarian" than Emma Goldman,
who did the same much more effectively years beforehand (yet is
ignored because she was a libertarian socialist) is downright bizzare.

* Socialism is not a polar-opposite of capitalism, but is built
_on top_ of it. The collectives of Barcelona were in fact socialist,
regardless of what James Donald may insist (he seems to assume
that since they actually worked, and since they were "libertarian"
collectives, they MUST have been "capitalist", or nothing at all.)
The existence of money, wages, personal possessions or
the production of commodities are not the defining factor here-
it is _worker's democratic control of the means of production_ that
is. An achievement of actual economic democracy, where workers themselves
have a real effect on production, rather than simply the employer,
management, or shareholders is an incredible difference from what we have
today in capitalist businesses, large or small. This is why the collectives
in Barcelona are called an example of "anarchism in action". It is
interesting to note that Donald flip-flops on this issue... alternately
claiming the collectives were a shambles or a failure, or, if this
argument doesn't hold, claiming that they were not libertarian socialist,
but in fact more like his personal version of capitalism (!)

* Let's me just say one thing about "anarcho-capitalism". If it could have
ever happened that capitalism could exist in modern industrial
society without an authoritarian force to perpetuate it, it would have
had to have happened before the establishment of corporations and
other vast economic structures that effect many people. There is
absolutely no indication that a version of capitalism without any state
structure at all would mark the end of the corporation - in fact,
criticisms of corporations and corporate-welfare are pathetic
or non-existent from the Libertarian Party-ists, Objectivists and so
on. To these people, a single anarcho-syndicalist worker is considered
a greater enemy then the entire McDonald's or Microsoft empire.

Article Unavailable

[James A. Donald]

hol...@california.com (Howard Olson) wrote:
> No anarchist,or libertarian , for that matter, can ignore the
> historical atrocities of Church and State in Spain. Any attempt to do
> so is suspicious at best. The anarchists were clearly Retaliating
> against institutionalized Statism and Church Hierarchical Rule.

By murdering innocent members of the clergy, and by violently
suppressing the practice of religion by ordinary people.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.

http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ James A. Donald jam...@echeque.com

[Howard Olson]

ja...@bronze.lcs.mit.edu (Jamal Hannah) wrote:

> - http://www.itserve.com/~tfitz/svank3.html

>No amount of promises that corporate welfare will be abolished
>_after_ the Libertarian Party is established as the government
>hold any weight: why aren't these people spending money, time
>and resources to oppose corporations right _now_? It is utterly
>impossible that capitalism could become "nice" while protecting
>and defending the "bad" version along the road to a promised "nice"
>capitalism. (ironically, capitalism is only tolerable to workers now
>_because_ of the existence of government as it is, with it's regulations
>and protections... proposing a system devoid of federal protections
>and made up of xenophobic "walled communities" and private police-
>forces to keep the "rabble" safely away from private property is
>a twisted way of making capitalism seem more palatable to the
>average human being. I'm reminded of the movie "Blade Runner"... not
>a very nice world to live in.)

>Anyway, that's all I have to say, for now.

> - Jamal Hannah
>ja...@bronze.lcs.mit.edu

>Liberty for the People page:
>http://tigerden.com/~berios/liberty.html

The ethnocentric attitude of some Libertarian Party members vis a vis
the anarchists of Spain is indeed appalling. They are behaving in a
blatantly McCarythyite way that is inconsistent with libertarian
principles. Selective memory about the Spanish Anarchists versus that
of their oppressors in Church and State is blatant "Context-Dropping".

No anarchist,or libertarian , for that matter, can ignore the
historical atrocities of Church and State in Spain. Any attempt to do
so is suspicious at best. The anarchists were clearly Retaliating
against institutionalized Statism and Church Hierarchical Rule.

Anarchists need to focus on ending statism and hierarchy (which
inevitably creates it)! The time has come to repudiate Statist ,
Racist, Sexist and hierarchical ruling class obfuscation in our ranks
and seek the end of the State forever.Some "Anarcho-capitalists" seem
determined to maintain the same relations of production created by
Mercantilism in particular and Statism in general.

No long-winded pseudo-scientific diatribe can change the fact that
statism and capitalism are inextricably linked. Anarchists must seek
the end of ALL ruling classes, "bourgeois", "proletarian" or
otherwise.

[Lazarus Long]

hol...@california.com yammered in a message to All:

hc> No anarchist,or libertarian , for that matter, can ignore the
hc> historical atrocities of Church and State in Spain. Any attempt to
hc> do so is suspicious at best. The anarchists were clearly Retaliating
hc> against institutionalized Statism and Church Hierarchical Rule.

The Role
Played by the Priests and Nuns
of the
Roman Catholic Church in
Catalonia

In the conflict between the fascists, nationalists and
anarchists of Catalonia, the Roman Catholic Church played
an important role in assisting the fascists maintain the
grasp of power. From rarely seen or mentioned archives of
the church, documents have been found that tell of the
until now, role played by the priests and nuns, a role
that went far beyond what has been previously thought.

It has been claimed by the socialists that the Catholic
hiearchy actively took part in the suppression of the
working class, and proof of this exists within the
archives of the Church.

According to Church records, the Santa Barbara Field Canon
battery was used in bombarding the socialist held
positions, firing their 75mm Canons in a 12 hour barrage
on August 9, 1936. Other Catholic actions have been
recorded, including the use of Catholic Mercenaries from
the United States. The arrival of "The Fighting Irish", an
Ecclesiastical Combat unit from the Midwest signified an
intensification of the Churches role in the Civil War. The
brigade landed in late August and by early September, led
by Brigadier-Bishop Klute Rockne, had laid seige to a
major Anarchist held position. On September 20, assisted
by the Joshua Combat Engineers, the Brigade successfully
captured the position. Early in the morning, in a plan
taken from a very old church tactic called Operation
Jericho, the Joshuas marched about the position uttering
prayers until finally(and some say with Divine
Intervention) a loud blast was played on their trumpets
and the fortifications came crashing down, allowing the
Fighting Irish to launch a bayonet assault.

One of the most despicable organisations, one so horrid
that the church has stricken the names of the leaders from
the records, was the little known Carmelite Castrators, A
shadowy groups said to be led by the Mother Superior of
one of the convents in Aragon. This group practiced the
art of "trimming" in dealing with captured Anarchists.
Operating "snatch" patrols, they used the methods of the
Inquisition to gain intelligence on the movements and
plans of the anarchists and socialists.

Rumors that The Knights of the Templar were involved in
Cavalry charges against anarchist positions seem to be
just that..rumour. No evidence found amongst the archived
histories of the Church supports the rumour. Evidence is
also lacking that that the Cardinals invoked secret church
spells and incantations to cause plagues or unnatural
phenomenoma

... After the next expresso...the revolution begins! You go first.

Visit the Rational Anarchist HomePage
http://vaxxine.com/rational/lazarus.html

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims
may be the most oppressive." (C.S. Lewis)

[Lazarus Long]

andre...@geocities.com whined over a cup of Expresso in a
message to All:

ag> Lazarus Long wrote:

> The Role
> Played by the Priests and Nuns
> of the
> Roman Catholic Church in
> Catalonia

ag> Yet again we see how the right while crying crocidile tears
ag> over the murders carried out be regimes that oppose them see the
ag> massacres carried out by theose they think to be on
ag> their side as something to laugh about. This 'comic' posting by
ag> Lazarus was made in response to someone pointing out that the
ag> inquisition carried out by the Spanish church had killed commonly by
ag> torture or burning at least 500,000 people.

Yet again, we see how Andrew Flood displays his inability to
read English(perhaps he should concentrate on learning basic
skills, rather than playing Usenet Revolutionary).
The post I responded to, referred to the role of the Catholic
Church in Spain, leading up to the Civil War. While the
Inquisition did torture many thousands of people, that occured
some centuries before the Civil War.

But then, facts and accuracy are capitalist tricks, according
to Comrade Flood, and therefore, facts have no relevance in the
delusional world of theftism.

... Excuse me, I have to go oppress a few serfs and foreclose on a widow

[Andrew Flood]

Lazarus Long wrote:

> The Role
> Played by the Priests and Nuns
> of the
> Roman Catholic Church in
> Catalonia

Yet again we see how the right while crying crocidile tears

over the murders carried out be regimes that oppose them see

the massacres carried out by theose they think to be on

their side as something to laugh about. This 'comic' posting

by Lazarus was made in response to someone pointing out that
the inquisition carried out by the Spanish church had killed
commonly by torture or burning at least 500,000 people.

--
----************************************-----
For lots about anarchism
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/2419

What are revolutions?
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/2419/revoindx.html

[Tim Starr]

In article <32919B...@geocities.com>,

Andrew Flood <andre...@geocities.com> wrote:
>Lazarus Long wrote:
>
>
>> The Role
>> Played by the Priests and Nuns
>> of the
>> Roman Catholic Church in
>> Catalonia
>
>Yet again we see how the right while crying crocidile tears
>over the murders carried out be regimes that oppose them see
>the massacres carried out by theose they think to be on
>their side as something to laugh about. This 'comic' posting
>by Lazarus was made in response to someone pointing out that
>the inquisition carried out by the Spanish church had killed
>commonly by torture or burning at least 500,000 people.

Over how many centuries? About 400 years, at least? How does that compare to
the "anarchist" democide rate in the Spanish Civil War?

Are you really trying to say that the "anarchist" democide was OK or "under-
standable" because of killings that occurred centuries before?

I just love it how you commies go apeshit over right-wing death squads in
Latin America, then fall all over yourselves trying to exculpate the left-wing
death squads of your heroes, the "anarchists" of Spain.

The "anarchists" who were so "socialist" they immediately raised their wages
& prices when the workers took over their shops so they wouldn't have to pay
for unemployment relief. The "socialists" who not only didn't bring idle
workplaces & factories back into production to relieve unemployment in the
middle of the Great Depression but actually stopped some of them from
operating.

The "anarchists" who dispatched death squads to kill all the innocent Catholic
nuns & priests they could get their hands on & haul 'em off in trucks to be
shot right next to ditches & pits which would become their mass graves. The
"anarchists" who then dispatched their death squads to the rural area to
forcibly collectivize agriculture, exploiting most of the peasants so that a
few commissars could swagger around with guns giving orders to everyone &
getting fat of the work of others & sending all food except that needed for
bare subsistence to the front.

Truth hurts, eh?

*******************************************************************************
"That rifle on the wall of the laborer's cottage or working class flat is the
symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there!" - George
Orwell, 1940, in the democratic socialist weekly "Tribune," quoted in "Orwell:
The Authorized Biography," by Michael Shelden

"Yes, I do." - St. Anne Pearston, leader of the British "Snowdrop" Victim
Disarmament campaign, when asked if she wanted to live in a slave state on the
Jim Hawkins show, 5/17/96, by Sean Gabb, editor of Free Life, the journal of the
Libertarian Alliance.
*******************************************************************************

Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! Think Universally, Act Selfishly

Assistant Editor: Freedom Network News, the newsletter of The International
Society for Individual Liberty (ISIL), 1800 Market St., San Francisco, CA 94102
(415) 864-0952; FAX: (415) 864-7506; is...@isil.org, http://www.isil.org/

Liberty is the Best Policy - tims...@netcom.com

[dckom]

On Wed, 20 Nov 1996 12:17:01 GMT c.e., tims...@netcom.com (Tim Starr)
wrote :

>
>Are you really trying to say that the "anarchist" democide was OK or "under-
>standable" because of killings that occurred centuries before?

Centuries? When was Franciso Ferrer executed? Salvador Segui? And remember,
these were libertarian socialists that used non-violent tactics.
The FAI pistoleros weren't always over-nice, and probably did some foolish
things, but they were in a fight for there lives. The semi-feudal state in
Spain had been more then willing to use violence against any,and all,
critics.
>

You certainly didn't learn your history from Orwell.

*******************************************************************************
>"That rifle on the wall of the laborer's cottage or working class flat is the
>symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there!" - George
>Orwell, 1940, in the democratic socialist weekly "Tribune," quoted in "Orwell:
>The Authorized Biography," by Michael Shelden
>
>"Yes, I do." - St. Anne Pearston, leader of the British "Snowdrop" Victim
>Disarmament campaign, when asked if she wanted to live in a slave state on the
>Jim Hawkins show, 5/17/96, by Sean Gabb, editor of Free Life, the journal of the
>Libertarian Alliance.

She sounds like a fool. An honest fool, but, never the less...

>*******************************************************************************
>
>Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! Think Universally, Act Selfishly

David Christian

Workers Solidarity Alliance
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Property is Theft!
Steal this Post!

[dckom]

On Fri, 22 Nov 1996 23:56:26 GMT c.e., dc...@atlcom.net (dckom) wrote :

>On Wed, 20 Nov 1996 12:17:01 GMT c.e., tims...@netcom.com (Tim Starr)
>wrote :
>
>
>
>>

>You certainly didn't learn your history from Orwell.

>*******************************************************************************
>>"That rifle on the wall of the laborer's cottage or working class flat is the
>>symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there!" - George
>>Orwell, 1940, in the democratic socialist weekly "Tribune," quoted in "Orwell:
>>The Authorized Biography," by Michael Shelden

Now who do you suppose George had been hanging out with, just a short while
before he wrote this? Those nasty,priest-killing Spainish revolutionaries?
Nope,surely not them!

>>
>>"Yes, I do." - St. Anne Pearston, leader of the British "Snowdrop" Victim
>>Disarmament campaign, when asked if she wanted to live in a slave state on the
>>Jim Hawkins show, 5/17/96, by Sean Gabb, editor of Free Life, the journal of the
>>Libertarian Alliance.
>
>She sounds like a fool. An honest fool, but, never the less...

umm, Tim, peace for a moment, o.k.? who and what are the snowdrop, etc?

[Tim Starr]

In article <32983785...@news.atlcom.net>, dckom <dc...@atlcom.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 20 Nov 1996 12:17:01 GMT c.e., tims...@netcom.com (Tim Starr)
>wrote :
>
>
>
>>

>>Are you really trying to say that the "anarchist" democide was OK or "under-
>>standable" because of killings that occurred centuries before?
>
>Centuries? When was Franciso Ferrer executed? Salvador Segui? And remember,
>these were libertarian socialists that used non-violent tactics.

How many of these "libertarian socialists that used non-violent tactics" were
executed by the nuns & priests murdered by the "anarchist" death squads?

*******************************************************************************
"That rifle on the wall of the laborer's cottage or working class flat is the
symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there!" - George
Orwell, 1940, in the democratic socialist weekly "Tribune," quoted in "Orwell:
The Authorized Biography," by Michael Shelden

"Yes, I do." - St. Anne Pearston, leader of the British "Snowdrop" Victim

Disarmament campaign, when asked if she wanted to live in a slave state on the
Jim Hawkins show, 5/17/96, by Sean Gabb, editor of Free Life, the journal of the
Libertarian Alliance.

*******************************************************************************

Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! Think Universally, Act Selfishly

Assistant Editor: Freedom Network News, the newsletter of The International

[Tim Starr]

In article <32a95dd9...@news.atlcom.net>, dckom <dc...@atlcom.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 22 Nov 1996 23:56:26 GMT c.e., dc...@atlcom.net (dckom) wrote :

>>On Wed, 20 Nov 1996 12:17:01 GMT c.e., tims...@netcom.com (Tim Starr)
>>wrote :
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>

>>You certainly didn't learn your history from Orwell.

>>*******************************************************************************
>>>"That rifle on the wall of the laborer's cottage or working class flat is the
>>>symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there!" - George
>>>Orwell, 1940, in the democratic socialist weekly "Tribune," quoted in "Orwell:
>>>The Authorized Biography," by Michael Shelden

>Now who do you suppose George had been hanging out with, just a short while
>before he wrote this? Those nasty,priest-killing Spainish revolutionaries?
>Nope,surely not them!

If you read his essay "Notes on the Spanish War," the first thing you'll find
is that he says he has no direct evidence of atrocities committed by either
side. There's nothing wrong with fighting for a cause you believe in if you
don't know what's wrong with it.

>>>
>>>"Yes, I do." - St. Anne Pearston, leader of the British "Snowdrop" Victim
>>>Disarmament campaign, when asked if she wanted to live in a slave state on the
>>>Jim Hawkins show, 5/17/96, by Sean Gabb, editor of Free Life, the journal of the
>>>Libertarian Alliance.
>>

>>She sounds like a fool. An honest fool, but, never the less...
>umm, Tim, peace for a moment, o.k.? who and what are the snowdrop, etc?

Pearston's a lawyer who circulated a petition all over the UK demanding a ban
on handguns from the British government. It was called the "Snowdrop"
petition.

Yes, she IS a fool. An honest one? Perhaps, I don't know.

[dckom]

On Sat, 23 Nov 1996 10:48:01 GMT c.e., tims...@netcom.com (Tim Starr)
wrote :

>In article <32983785...@news.atlcom.net>, dckom <dc...@atlcom.net> wrote:
>>On Wed, 20 Nov 1996 12:17:01 GMT c.e., tims...@netcom.com (Tim Starr)
>>wrote :
>>
>>
>>
>>>

>>>Are you really trying to say that the "anarchist" democide was OK or "under-
>>>standable" because of killings that occurred centuries before?
>>
>>Centuries? When was Franciso Ferrer executed? Salvador Segui? And remember,
>>these were libertarian socialists that used non-violent tactics.
>
>How many of these "libertarian socialists that used non-violent tactics" were
>executed by the nuns & priests murdered by the "anarchist" death squads?

In the best known case, the assassination of the Archbishop of Zarregosa,
it was belived by those doing the shooting, and those who gave them the
go-ahead, the archbishop had been paying for assassination's of
strikers.Bye the way, that's the only documented case of priest killing by
anarchists, I've encountered, and it occurred several years before the out
break of total war.
There's nothing wrong with fighting for what you believe in, even if,
you *know* for a fact some people have committed errors, of judgement, or
ethics.
What exactly, would you have had the Spanish working class do? Simply allow
Franco to sweep into Madrid, and Barcelona unopposed?
"Comrades, we must disband and go hang our heads in shame. someone shot the
wrong person!" Remember, the "rifle on the cottage wall" isn't a quaint
decoration.
War, in the view of this anarcho-syndicalist, is evil. All ways, and in all
circumstances. However, there are far worse evils.Allowing murderous
injustice, of the type Spain had been infamous for , to continue would have
been worse.
All inconsistancies in the above are expalined by lack of coffee.

David Christian
Workers Solidarity Alliance

Now, who are the snowdrop, etc? please??

>*******************************************************************************
>"That rifle on the wall of the laborer's cottage or working class flat is the
>symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there!" - George
>Orwell, 1940, in the democratic socialist weekly "Tribune," quoted in "Orwell:
>The Authorized Biography," by Michael Shelden
>
>"Yes, I do." - St. Anne Pearston, leader of the British "Snowdrop" Victim
>Disarmament campaign, when asked if she wanted to live in a slave state on the
>Jim Hawkins show, 5/17/96, by Sean Gabb, editor of Free Life, the journal of the
>Libertarian Alliance.
>*******************************************************************************
>
>Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! Think Universally, Act Selfishly
>
>Assistant Editor: Freedom Network News, the newsletter of The International
>Society for Individual Liberty (ISIL), 1800 Market St., San Francisco, CA 94102
>(415) 864-0952; FAX: (415) 864-7506; is...@isil.org, http://www.isil.org/
>
>Liberty is the Best Policy - tims...@netcom.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[James A. Donald]

dc...@atlcom.net (dckom) wrote:
> In the best known case, the assassination of the Archbishop of Zarregosa,
> it was belived by those doing the shooting, and those who gave them the
> go-ahead, the archbishop had been paying for assassination's of

> strikers. Bye the way, that's the only documented case of priest killing by

> anarchists, I've encountered, and it occurred several years before the out
> break of total war.

According to Ronald Fraser, a historian fairly sympathetic to the
"anarchists" seven hundred and three priests and clergy were
assassinated in Barcelona, all churches were desecrated, and there
were public burnings of religious icons, rosaries, and stuff.

> What exactly, would you have had the Spanish working class do? Simply allow
> Franco to sweep into Madrid, and Barcelona unopposed?

They could have fought for freedom, instead of suppressing it in a
manner pretty much indistinguishable from that of Franco.

[Andrew Flood]

James A. Donald wrote:
>

> According to Ronald Fraser, a historian fairly sympathetic to the
> "anarchists" seven hundred and three priests and clergy were
> assassinated in Barcelona, all churches were desecrated, and there
> were public burnings of religious icons, rosaries, and stuff.

Actually Frazer does not say this as anyone who looks up "Blood
of Spain' will find out. Nor is Fraser sympathetic to
Anarchism, if you read his foreward he is clearly hostile!!

[Andrew Flood]

Lazarus Long wrote:

>This 'comic' posting by
> ag> Lazarus was made in response to someone pointing out that the
> ag> inquisition carried out by the Spanish church had killed commonly by
> ag> torture or burning at least 500,000 people.
>
> Yet again, we see how Andrew Flood displays his inability to
> read English(perhaps he should concentrate on learning basic
> skills, rather than playing Usenet Revolutionary).
> The post I responded to, referred to the role of the Catholic
> Church in Spain, leading up to the Civil War. While the
> Inquisition did torture many thousands of people, that occured
> some centuries before the Civil War.

See my post in the 'Socialism loves death squands' (sic) thread
for examples of how the church still played key role in having
people killed before, during and after the Spanish revolution

And Lazarus, your the one with reading problems as it was you
that was replying to the inquisition post (not me) and so
was confusing the two time periods!!!

[Lazarus Long]

andre...@geocities.com yammered in a message to All:

> Yet again, we see how Andrew Flood displays his inability to
> read English(perhaps he should concentrate on learning basic
> skills, rather than playing Usenet Revolutionary).
> The post I responded to, referred to the role of the Catholic
> Church in Spain, leading up to the Civil War. While the
> Inquisition did torture many thousands of people, that occured
> some centuries before the Civil War.

ag>
ag> See my post in the 'Socialism loves death squands' (sic) thread for
ag> examples of how the church still played key role in having people
ag> killed before, during and after the Spanish revolution

ag> And Lazarus, your the one with reading problems as it was you that
ag> was replying to the inquisition post (not me) and so
ag> was confusing the two time periods!!!

Not at all, but then we have long seen how you twist things and
snip quotes to create your own reality. Like the little lies
that you were posting about the greek communists... funny how
you let that die, when you were denounced over that.

Better go back to being describing common theft as anarchism,
dear boy.

... Socialist.. a person with a low opinion of the working class

[James A. Donald]

>James A. Donald wrote:
>>
>
>> According to Ronald Fraser, a historian fairly sympathetic to the
>> "anarchists" seven hundred and three priests and clergy were
>> assassinated in Barcelona, all churches were desecrated, and there
>> were public burnings of religious icons, rosaries, and stuff.

Andrew Flood <andre...@geocities.com> wrote:
> Actually Frazer does not say this as anyone who looks up "Blood
> of Spain' will find out. Nor is Fraser sympathetic to
> Anarchism, if you read his foreward he is clearly hostile!!

Andrew Flood lies on both counts, as he does in pretty much every
post: The statement that seven hundred and three priests and clergy
were assassinated in Barcelona occurs on page 152 of "Blood of Spain"
by Ronald Fraser, and Fraser clearly favors the anarchists. He
condemns the fascists as fascists, and the communists as
insufficiently communist, and his criticisms of the anarchists are
along the lines of complaining that they were too kindly to rule with
a sufficiently iron hand.

[Staffan Vilcans]

jam...@echeque.com (James A. Donald) wrote:

>By murdering innocent members of the clergy, and by violently

======== ?

>suppressing the practice of religion by ordinary people.

That is the key word.

-- My views are shared by millions, but my employer may not be one of them. --
________
/ / / / / Powered by The colour of freedom is black!
/_/_/_/_/ ZX Spectrum http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/
------------------------ Neither master nor slave ---------------------------

[James A. Donald]

Lazarus Long wrote:
>> Like the little lies [Andrew Flood was]

>> posting about the greek communists... funny how
>> you let that die, when you were denounced over that.

Andrew Flood <andre...@geocities.com> wrote:
> I stand by my original post that Stalin opposed rather
> then supported a revolution in Greece, Italy or France
> at the end of WWII.

After the communists lost an election and a referendum, ELAS, the
armed forces of the Greek communist party, fought to impose a
dictatorship on Greece, with substantial moral and material support
from the Soviet Empire, from 1946 to 1949, causing considerable loss
of life. This was one of the first proxy wars between the United
States and the Soviet Union.

Stalin did not overtly give material support to ELAS, as this would
have openly violated the division of the world agreed at Yalta, but
Albania, Bulgaria, and Yugoslavia, which were at that time
substantially subordinate to Stalin, did give material support.

Still, I am relieved to hear that these days you are telling tall
tales about Stalin and his puppets, rather than tall tales about the
Spanish anarchists.

[Andrew Flood]

Lazarus Long wrote:
>
> andre...@geocities.com yammered in a message to All:

> Like the little lies
> that you were posting about the greek communists... funny how

> you let that die, when you were denounced over that.

Lazarus being a good student of the Gobbels 'great lie' school
tries out another of its axims, if you repeat a lie often
enough it will be belived. As anyone who bothers to check
up on that thread it DejaNews will see I've answered this
'accusation' of Lazarus a few times already but here
goes again

I stand by my original post that Stalin opposed rather
then supported a revolution in Greece, Italy or France

at the end of WWII. This was the major point of the
post and one Lazarus seems to have shut up on. As
to the specific point of whether or not some members
of the Greek CP actually welcomed the Nazi invasion
in 1941 because they Hitler and Stalin were in a pact
at the time I again repeat that the Hitler Stalin
Pact is a undisputed fact of history but that on
checking my original source I find that it merly
states this is a fact without citing evidence. Lazarus
must be desperate if he imagines that this one line
(of about 200) from my original piece which I am
uncertain of (and honest enough to admit it) is
damning. {I'll eamil the whole piece on the
Greek CP to anyone whose interested, otherwise
check DejaNews}

[Andrew Flood]

Tim Starr wrote:

> I just love it how you commies go apeshit over right-wing death squads in
> Latin America, then fall all over yourselves trying to exculpate the left-wing
> death squads of your heroes, the "anarchists" of Spain.

Throw enough mud and pray that some will stick and put people
off researching Spain themselves. Well it's a time
honoured method and one of course Orwell wrote about
in 1984. For the record

According to 'Blood of Spain' which is what our capitlist
fans quote in these arguments (but have either not read
or are being entirely dishonest in spinning their story
around the quotes) it is certainly true that many priests
were killed in the republican zone. But why were
they killed, who killed them and what attitude did the
anarchist take to these killings and church burnings.

I looked up Blood of Spain in the libary the other day
and here is the story it tells

1. Why were they killed

The Catholic Church was hated by almost all progressives
in Spain as the bastion of reaction. This included
anarchists but also included the democratic minded
capitalist parties. It was even disliked by many
practising Catholics at the time.

Frazer himself explains the background when on page 525
he says
"From the preceding period of absolutism, the church provided
the ideological categories to justify the repression and intolerance
necessary to maintain the system"

The church was also an enormous burden for the peasantry to
carry, not only did it own vast lands and get money from the
state but it represented tens of thousands of idle hands the
peasants had to feed. According to Frazer before the war there
were 30,000 priests, 20,000 monks and 60,000 nuns.

So even before the Civil war the church was resented, often
even by religious people who saw it as not living Christ's
teachings. This even included priests like

Regulo Martinez (page 528)
"I agreed with the dissolution of the Jesuits [under the republic]
...one preached a sermon saying that any woman who applied
for a divorce was no better then a whore"

The republican government at the start of the 30's which the
anarchists deeply opposed and which in turn repressed the
anarchists, jailing and killing many was in itself anti-clerical,
the dissolution of the Jesuits was just one example.

Indeed on May 11 1931 an anti-clerical wave centred on Madrid
swept through Spain in which convents were burned.

The fascists side conducted atrocities as a matter of policy
throughout the war, commonly slaughtering more then
10% of towns, the fascists made no secret of these, the
policy was announced on radio for instance

Blood of Spain page 154
"Let us repeat the phrase so often pronounced by our
illustrious general Quiepo de Llano: the words 'Pardon'
and 'Amnesty' must disappear from the Spanish
dictionary" ABC (Seville 1 Sept 36)

page 128
"I order and command that anyone caught inciting
others to strike, or striking himself, shall be shot
immediately"
General Queipo de Liano on Seville Radio, 22 July 1936

These killings were often carried out in a barbaric manner and
being a Civil War those living in the republican zones often
knew those who had been murdered as friends, relatives or
comrades.

Large numbers of deaths become dehumanised statistics but
this execution by Francoist forces in the first days of the
Civil War at Castilla de Pino as reported by a boy whose father
had been killed by republican forces gives a flavour of the
brutality

page 153
"an anarchist couple... was taken to a village 25km away and
shot. From a falangist who was present I later heard that the
women had been raped by the whole Moorish firing squad
before being executed"

The Church encouraged those carrying out these killings as
reported by a Falangist (fascist)
page 122
"Rafarel Garcia Serrano and his falangist comrades had been sent
to a convent for food "Eat all you want, my son" a friar had said
to him "for you are going to die for religion and us poor friars"

or in another example where
Dionisio Ridruego, falange chief of Seiguia quotes a sermon he
heard in the Cathedral that he thinks was directed at him because
he was trying to prevent executions
"The fatherland must be renewed, all the evil weed must be
uprooted, all the bad seed extirpated - this is not the time for
scruples"

This attitude led to the situation where on the 15th of August,
the feast day of the Virgin suspected republicans were
slaughtered throughout the fascist zone

For those living in modern democracies where the church
lacks any real power except over the faithful the depth of
hatred for the Spanish church can be hard to understand,
the above examples show why this hatred existed but lets
move on to a more central question

2. Who carried out the church burning and killings

The propaganda of the right internationally at the time
put these killings at the hands of communists and
anarchists. It is no surprise that the right today in
its internet manifestation tries to repeat the
same claims today to scare people from anarchism,
but was it in fact the anarchists who carried out
or even ordered these killings or the church
burning?

As already pointed out all progressives hated the church,
its widely know that the anarchists were strongest in
Catalonia so you might expect this to have been the
centre of attacks, if they were due to them, but even in
the convent burning of 1931 Frazer is forced to
acknowledge that

page 529
"In Catalonia, homeland of industrial anarcho-syndicalism,
no churches or convents had been fired in 1931"

One could simply blame the other political parties but
would even this be accurate. Other observers have commented
that those who supported the republican and left parties or
were members of the unions were also commonly religious.
I've already commented on how many religious people saw
a huge gap between the practise of the church and what they
saw as the practical example of the life of Christ.

Maurio Serrahina, was a leading member of the Catalan Christian
democratic party and who in the Civil War was to be arrested and
threatened by a self-described FAI (anarchist) patrol who
suspected him of hiding church money and monks. How
did he see the church burnings?

page 153
Maurio Serrahina "I always maintained that deep down these
burnings were an act of faith...In protest against the churches
submission to the propertied classes"

Some of the anarchists Frazer quotes were clear enough as to the
source of the burnings and killings, they saw that the legacy
of the church and its encouragement of atrocities in the
fascist zone created a situation where

page 151
"There was a deep, very deep wave of popular fury as a result
of the military uprising which followed on so many years of
oppression and provocation"
CNT journalist, Jucinto Barrus

Of course there were two million anarchists in Spain at the
time, it would be foolish to claim that none of them took
part in the burning of churches or killings of priests
as individuals. But what were their organisations
saying, if anything, at this time.

3. What was the role of the anarchists in this situation

The most infuriating aspect of the use of "The Blood of
Spain" by the anti-anarchist gang is that they are incredibly
dishonest as they seek to imply Frazer would have agreed with
them in painting the anarchist organisations as the villains
in this piece. To do so they have to ignore all the evidence
Frazer presents that the anarchist organisations tried to stop
the popular fury on the streets and at the front from killing
innocent victims. Frazer is hostile to anarchism in his
assumptions but he at least tries to be fair in describing
their actions.

At the front for instance
page 132
During the advance of the Militias on Saragossa the village of
Calacite was taken. Soon afterwards the church was set on fire,
according to Frazer the "CNT leader gathered the column and
villagers in the square" and told them "you are burning the
churches without thinking of the grief you are causing your
mothers, sisters, daughters, parents in whose veins flows
Christian Catholic blood"

The CNT understood well that such actions could only alienate those
who would otherwise support them. They hated the church but saw
that with the state out of the way it was a battle of ideology and not
a physical battle that was needed. They moved to stop the acts
of revenge that had broken out on the streets. Frazer recognises
this when he says

page 141
"Little did it matter that leading CNT militants, like Joan Peiro,
fulminated openly against such actions; not that both the CNT
and FAI issued statements categorically condemning
assassinations....Anyone proven to have infringed peoples rights
would be shot - a threat which was carried out when some
anarcho-syndicalist militants were executed"

This is Frazers view of the real situation, not as our 'new speak'
friends would have you believe that the organisations were
secretly carrying out the repression. Instead they went so
far as to execute some of their own militants who had
carried out assassinations.

The revolution in Spain was marked by a massive propaganda
offensive of the right, which presented the revolution as
being a godless, communist monster slaughtering priests
left right and centre. To do this they had to ignore the
fact that in the Basque country the Catholic church supported
the republican government. At the time this propaganda met
with some success, the fascist Blueshirts who left Ireland to
fight for Franco were blessed on the quay sides by the Irish
bishops before they departed.

It is no coincidence that the pro-capitalists today seek to
resurrect the same lies to smear anarchism with but the
actions of the anarchists speak for themselves. The
anarchist organisations may not have been able to
prevent all revenge killings but as the Christian
democrat Maurio Serrahina said of Barcelona which
they controlled

page 154
"People were being assassinated - though in far fewer
numbers then propagandistically had been claimed; in
fact relatively fewer then in other republican cities like
Madrid"

In this brief piece I have not gone into the constructive
work the anarchists carried out. It is this constructive
work that the anti-anarchist gang are trying to scare
you from with their horror stories. If you want to find
out about it have a look at the Spanish section of
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/2419/revoindx.html

Andrew

[Staffan Vilcans]

Lazaru...@2-100-1.rational.vaxxine.com (Lazarus Long) wrote:

> The Role
> Played by the Priests and Nuns
> of the
> Roman Catholic Church in
> Catalonia

Poor old Lazzie! He can no longer tell fact from fiction. Just to add some
more fiction I'll post something I found in the Spunk Press Archives
(http://www.lysator.liu.se/~mc/spunk.html). It also has more to do with
anarchism then Lazzie's childish fantasies.

SP000621.TXT

Revolting Peasants - From the film 'Monty Python and the Holy Grail'.

ARTHUR and PATSY riding. They stop and look. We see a castle in the
distance, and before it a PEASANT is working away on his knees trying
to dig up the earth with his bare hands and a twig. ARTHUR and
PATSY ride up, and stop before the PEASANT

ARTHUR
Old woman!

DENNIS
Man!

ARTHUR
Man. I'm sorry. Old man, What knight live in that castle
over there?

DENNIS
I'm thirty-seven.

ARTHUR
What?

DENNIS:
I'm thirty-seven ... I'm not old.

ARTHUR:
Well - I can't just say: "Hey, Man!'

DENNIS
Well you could say: "Dennis"

ARTHUR
I didn't know you were called Dennis.

DENNIS
You didn't bother to find out, did you?

ARTHUR
I've said I'm sorry about the old woman, but from the behind
you looked ...

DENNIS
What I object to is that you automatically treat me like
an inferior ...

ARTHUR
Well ... I AM king.

DENNIS
Oh, very nice. King, eh! I expect you've got a palace and fine
clothes and courtiers and plenty of food. And how d'you get that?
By exploiting the workers! By hanging on to outdated imperialist
dogma which perpetuates the social and economic differences in our
society! If there's EVER going to be any progress ...

An OLD WOMAN appears.

OLD WOMAN
Dennis! There's some lovely filth down here ... Oh!
how d'you do?

ARTHUR
How d'you do, good lady ... I am Arthur, King of the Britons ...
can you tell me who lives in that castle?

OLD WOMAN
King of the WHO?

ARTHUR
The Britons.

OLD WOMAN
Who are the Britons?

ARTHUR
All of us are ... we are all Britons.

DENNIS winks at the OLD WOMAN.

... and I am your king ....

OLD WOMAN
Ooooh! I didn't know we had a king. I thought we were
an autonomous collective ...

DENNIS
You're fooling yourself. We're living in a dictatorship,
A self-perpetuating autocracy in which the working classes ...

OLD WOMAN
There you are, bringing class into it again ...

DENNIS
That's what it's all about ... If only -

ARTHUR
Please, please good people. I am in haste. What knight lives in
that castle?

OLD WOMAN
No one live there.

ARTHUR
Well, who is your lord?

OLD WOMAN
We don't have a lord.

ARTHUR
What?
DENNIS
I told you, We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune, we take
it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week.

ARTHUR
Yes.

DENNIS
... But all the decision of that officer ...

ARTHUR
Yes, I see.

DENNIS
... must be approved at a bi-weekly meeting by a simple majority
in the case of purely internal affairs.

ARTHUR
Be quiet!

DENNIS
... but a two-thirds majority ...

ARTHUR
Be quiet! I order you to shut up.

OLD WOMAN
Order, eh -- who does he think he is?

ARTHUR
I am your king!

OLD WOMAN
Well, I didn't vote for you.

ARTHUR
You don't vote for kings.

OLD WOMAN
Well, how did you become king, then?

ARTHUR
The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite,
held Excalibur aloft from the bosom of the water to signify by
Divine Providence ... that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur ...
That is why I am your king!

DENNIS
Look, strange women lying on their backs in ponds handing out
swords ... that's no basis for a system of government. Supreme
executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from
some farcical aquatic ceremony.

ARTHUR
Be quiet!

DENNIS
You can't expect to wield supreme executive power
just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!

ARTHUR
Shut up!

DENNIS
I mean, if I went around saying I was an Emperor because some
moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, people would
put me away!

ARTHUR
(Grabbing him by the collar)
Shut up, will you. Shut up!

DENNIS
Ah! NOW ... we see the violence inherent in the system.

ARTHUR
Shut up!

PEOPLE (i.e. other PEASANTS) are appearing and watching.

DENNIS
(calling)
Come and see the violence inherent in the system.
Help, help, I'm being repressed!

ARTHUR
(aware that people are now coming out and watching)
Bloody peasant!
(pushes DENNIS over into mud and prepares to ride off)

DENNIS
Oh, Did you hear that! What a give-away.

ARTHUR
Come on, patsy.

They ride off.

DENNIS
(in the background as we PULL OUT)
Did you see him repressing me, then? That's what I've
been on about ...

[Staffan Vilcans]

tims...@netcom.com (Tim Starr) wrote:

>The "anarchists" who dispatched death squads to kill all the innocent Catholic
>nuns & priests they could get their hands on & haul 'em off in trucks to be
>shot right next to ditches & pits which would become their mass graves. The
>"anarchists" who then dispatched their death squads to the rural area to
>forcibly collectivize agriculture, exploiting most of the peasants so that a
>few commissars could swagger around with guns giving orders to everyone &
>getting fat of the work of others & sending all food except that needed for
>bare subsistence to the front.

>Truth hurts, eh?

Is that the reason you write this? Did it hurt so much that you had to
invent something that didn't hurt you?

[Lazarus Long]

staffan...@ortivus.se yammered in a message to All:

so> From: staffan...@ortivus.se (Staffan Vilcans)
so> Newsgroups:
so> alt.society.anarchy,alt.anarchism,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.poli
so> tics.libertarian,alt.fan.noam-chomsky
so> Subject: Re: The Spanish Libertarian Movement & USENET Bickering
so> Organization: Ortivus Medical AB

so> Lazaru...@2-100-1.rational.vaxxine.com (Lazarus Long) wrote:

> The Role
> Played by the Priests and Nuns
> of the
> Roman Catholic Church in
> Catalonia

so> Poor old Lazzie! He can no longer tell fact from fiction. Just to
so> add some more fiction I'll post something I found in the Spunk Press
so> Archives (http://www.lysator.liu.se/~mc/spunk.html). It also has
so> more to do with anarchism then Lazzie's childish fantasies.

Poor little staff..Hmmmm isn't Staff, a bacterial infection that can be cured
with antibiotics? I digress..

Interesting that Stiff can't discern the difference between a spoof and a
factual post.

... Your proctologist called...he found your head!

[Tim Starr]

In article <32971c0...@news.atlcom.net>, dckom <dc...@atlcom.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 23 Nov 1996 10:48:01 GMT c.e., tims...@netcom.com (Tim Starr)
>wrote :
>>In article <32983785...@news.atlcom.net>, dckom <dc...@atlcom.net> wrote:
>>>On Wed, 20 Nov 1996 12:17:01 GMT c.e., tims...@netcom.com (Tim Starr)
>>>wrote :
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Are you really trying to say that the "anarchist" democide was OK or "under-
>>>>standable" because of killings that occurred centuries before?
>>>
>>>Centuries? When was Franciso Ferrer executed? Salvador Segui? And remember,
>>>these were libertarian socialists that used non-violent tactics.
>>
>>How many of these "libertarian socialists that used non-violent tactics" were
>>executed by the nuns & priests murdered by the "anarchist" death squads?
>

>In the best known case, the assassination of the Archbishop of Zarregosa,
>it was belived by those doing the shooting, and those who gave them the
>go-ahead, the archbishop had been paying for assassination's of
>strikers.

"BELIEVED"?!?

You mean there wasn't any proof?

You mean your heroes, the Anarco-Statists of Spain, were murdering people
without first putting them on trial to ascertain whether they were guilty of
any crime?

>Bye the way, that's the only documented case of priest killing by
>anarchists, I've encountered, and it occurred several years before the out
>break of total war.

Well, if there weren't any trials then there can hardly be any court records,
now, can there?

>There's nothing wrong with fighting for what you believe in, even if,
>you *know* for a fact some people have committed errors, of judgement, or
>ethics.

You'd have made a great defense attorney at Nuremburg.

>What exactly, would you have had the Spanish working class do?

Fight for freedom instead of tyranny.

>Now, who are the snowdrop, etc? please??

The "Snowdrop Petition" was circulated by a dimwitted Scotswoman to get
the British Parliament to ban handguns in the UK in the wake of the
Dunblane massacre.

[Tim Starr]

In article <329DAF...@geocities.com>,

Andrew Flood <andre...@geocities.com> wrote:
>Tim Starr wrote:
>
>>I just love it how you commies go apeshit over right-wing death squads in
>>Latin America, then fall all over yourselves trying to exculpate the left-wing
>>death squads of your heroes, the "anarchists" of Spain.
>
>Throw enough mud and pray that some will stick and put people
>off researching Spain themselves.

So THAT's what you've been doing! I get it now. Here I was wondering why you
hadn't been answering my questions.

>According to 'Blood of Spain' which is what our capitlist
>fans quote in these arguments (but have either not read
>or are being entirely dishonest in spinning their story
>around the quotes) it is certainly true that many priests
>were killed in the republican zone.

What happened to the line that the "only documented killing of a priest by an
anarchist was before the war"?

>1. Why were they killed
>
>The Catholic Church was hated by almost all progressives
>in Spain as the bastion of reaction. This included
>anarchists but also included the democratic minded
>capitalist parties. It was even disliked by many
>practising Catholics at the time.

"...hated... as the bastion of reaction..."

So, that's justification for massacring people?

Shall we look into how people felt about, say, Allende's communist Chilean
government? Or Ortega's Nicaraguan government?

If they were hated as bastions of tyranny, too, will that then justify the
dispatch of death squads to assinate their supporters?

>Frazer himself explains the background when on page 525
>he says
>"From the preceding period of absolutism, the church provided
>the ideological categories to justify the repression and intolerance
>necessary to maintain the system"

What about the people who provide "the ideological categories to justify
the repression and intolerance necessary to maintain" communism? Shall
we take an "understanding" attitude towards death squads dispatched to
assasinate every Marxist in American academia? To massacre everyone who
subscribes to Marxist theories of the exploitation inherent in interest
& wage labor?

Or is it only left-wing massacres that get the benefit of being "understood"
in historical context? Is it only right-wing massacres that are to be held
up to an absolute standard for condemnation?

>2. Who carried out the church burning and killings

[Irrelevancies about stuff that happened before the war snipped]

>Of course there were two million anarchists in Spain at the
>time, it would be foolish to claim that none of them took
>part in the burning of churches or killings of priests
>as individuals.

Thank you.

>But what were their organisations saying, if anything, at this time.
>
>3. What was the role of the anarchists in this situation
>
>The most infuriating aspect of the use of "The Blood of
>Spain" by the anti-anarchist gang is that they are incredibly
>dishonest as they seek to imply Frazer would have agreed with
>them in painting the anarchist organisations as the villains
>in this piece. To do so they have to ignore all the evidence
>Frazer presents that the anarchist organisations tried to stop
>the popular fury on the streets and at the front from killing
>innocent victims. Frazer is hostile to anarchism in his
>assumptions but he at least tries to be fair in describing
>their actions.

Ah, the usual line of the apologists for the Anarco-Statists of Spain:
there were no death squads organized by the Anarco-Statists, there was
only a popular uprising which the Anarco-Statists valiantly did their
level best to stop.

>At the front for instance
>page 132
>During the advance of the Militias on Saragossa the village of
>Calacite was taken. Soon afterwards the church was set on fire,
>according to Frazer the "CNT leader gathered the column and
>villagers in the square" and told them "you are burning the
>churches without thinking of the grief you are causing your
>mothers, sisters, daughters, parents in whose veins flows
>Christian Catholic blood"

What evidence is there that this statement was representative of most
of the "anarchists"? Seems to me I've read a description of this very
quote as being unrepresentative.

>The CNT understood well that such actions could only alienate those
>who would otherwise support them. They hated the church but saw
>that with the state out of the way it was a battle of ideology and not
>a physical battle that was needed.

Note the conspicuous absence of any defense of the right of freedom of
religion in the reasoning used by those few who actually spoke out
against the massacres of nuns & priests. The only reasoning is that
it's strategically detrimental, not that there's anything morally
wrong with slaughtering nuns & priests.

....They moved to stop the acts

>of revenge that had broken out on the streets. Frazer recognises
>this when he says
>
>page 141
>"Little did it matter that leading CNT militants, like Joan Peiro,
>fulminated openly against such actions; not that both the CNT
>and FAI issued statements categorically condemning
>assassinations....Anyone proven to have infringed peoples rights
>would be shot - a threat which was carried out when some
>anarcho-syndicalist militants were executed"

A less sympathetic interpretation of this is that the "anarchists" felt a need
to try to make it look like they weren't the ones who organized & dispatched
the death squads, so they made some token statements against it & sacrificed a
few of their own to make it look like they were cracking down on it so they
could blame it all on others.

>This is Frazers view of the real situation, not as our 'new speak'
>friends would have you believe that the organisations were
>secretly carrying out the repression. Instead they went so
>far as to execute some of their own militants who had
>carried out assassinations.

The Nazis convicted some of their own of committing war crimes when they
invaded other countries, too. I distinctly recall reading an interview with
one German man who'd been in the Wehrmacht when they invaded Poland who was
convicted of raping a Polish woman, & served his full jail sentence for it.

I bet if we looked hard enough, we could find some Bosnian Serbs who got
convicted for carrying out their orders to rape their female Bosnian Moslem
prisoners as part of their duties in the Bosnian Serb Army.

[Andrew Flood]

James A. Donald wrote:

> >> According to Ronald Fraser, a historian fairly sympathetic to the
> >> "anarchists" seven hundred and three priests and clergy were
> >> assassinated in Barcelona, all churches were desecrated, and there
> >> were public burnings of religious icons, rosaries, and stuff.

> Andrew Flood lies on both counts, as he does in pretty much every

> post: The statement that seven hundred and three priests and clergy
> were assassinated in Barcelona occurs on page 152 of "Blood of Spain"
> by Ronald Fraser

Actually if you look you'll find Frazer cites this figure
from another book, it is not his figure and he makes no
claims as to its accuracy. Frazer is a bourgeoise historian
in no way sympatheic to anarchism as is clear from how he
refers to the ideas behind anarchism. In the figure
James quotes BTW does not include any claim it was the
anarchist organisations that killed these priests and
as I have shown elsewhere the organisations actually
argued against general attacks on the churches or the
priests. This is all quoted in Frazer but the anti-anarchist
James delibretly ignore it!!

BTW I've changed the heading to reflect the uncontested
fact that the 'capitalist' side in the Civil War
had an open policy of mass murder and killed far more
people!!

[James A. Donald]

James A. Donald wrote:
>> >> According to Ronald Fraser, a historian fairly sympathetic to the
>> >> "anarchists" seven hundred and three priests and clergy were
>> >> assassinated in Barcelona, all churches were desecrated, and there
>> >> were public burnings of religious icons, rosaries, and stuff.

Andrew Flood <andre...@geocities.com> wrote:
> Frazer is a bourgeoise historian
> in no way sympatheic to anarchism as is clear from how he
> refers to the ideas behind anarchism.

Lie:

After recounting some dreadful tale of murder and terror Fraser says
"this was a tragedy because it alienated the middle class from the
revolution". It never occurs to him that it might be a tragedy
because thousands of innocent people were casually murdered.

After recounting the forced collectivization of the Aragon peasants,
he complains that when the communists took over, they abolished many
of these constraints and controls.

"Peasant realism - the acceptance that war inevitably brought controls
and restrictions - suggested that communist polarization in defense of
the peasantry was unnecessarily sharp." (p373)

It never occurs to him that there is something a little strange about
"anarchists" forcibly imposing controls and restrictions on peasants,
and Stalinists seeking to permit peasants some small measure of
liberty.

> BTW I've changed the heading to reflect the uncontested fact that
> the 'capitalist' side in the Civil War had an open policy of mass
> murder and killed far more people!!

The "capitalist" side was national syndicalist, not capitalist, and
the forms of economic organization they imposed on industry were not
very different from those imposed by the "anarchists".

[Greg Alt]

In article <timstarrE...@netcom.com> tims...@netcom.com (Tim Starr) writes:
>So THAT's what you've been doing! I get it now. Here I was wondering why you
>hadn't been answering my questions.

Since you've decided to jump into this discussion, perhaps you can answer
some questions for me. A while ago, I was able to get James Donald to
explicitly state his claim that the anarchists in Spain murdered several
thousand people during the civil war. I tried to get him to name one
person that has made a similar claim in print. After countless exchanges
where he failed to provide such a source, I found more interesting things
to do and dropped the subject.

I can't remember who originally said it, but someone recently posted
claiming that the *anarchists* in spain *murdered* several thousand
*innocent* members of the clergy during the civil war. Is this the claim
that you are making? If not, could you please explicitly make your
claim? For example, if your claim was something like, "some people
who called themselves anarchists murdered some innocent clergy", I would
certainly agree with you, but that would hardly be shedding any light
on anything.

Greg
--
Visit the Utah Anarchism and Revolution Page at:
http://www.cs.utah.edu/~galt/revolt.html

[Greg Alt]

In article <timstarrE...@netcom.com> tims...@netcom.com (Tim Starr) writes:

>>What exactly, would you have had the Spanish working class do?
>
>Fight for freedom instead of tyranny.

Now THERE is an answer! Let's suppose you were in Spain, and you
joined up in a hypothetical anarcho-capitalist militia. Now, let's
suppose that some other anarcho-capitalists not in your militia
assassinate a Communist Party official.

Now, it is true that Stalin is in the process of slaughtering millions,
and that the Communist Party has set up torture chambers and secret
prisons and that if they get in power and the Republicans win the civil
war, they will set up a dictatorship like in the USSR, but this
particular individual was not a combatant, didn't give orders, etc.
All he did was recruit for the CP secret police and write convincing
propaganda for the CP paper. So, really, this is a case of a few
out-of-control anarcho-capitalists murdering an innocent man. Now,
what do you do about it? You are currently fighting on the front-line
against the Fascists, or perhaps your militia is doing rescue missions
rescuing prisoners from Stalinist torture chambers. Do you drop what
you are doing (weakening the front or perhaps condemning friends to a
slow painful death in the CP torture chambers) and do whatever is
necessary to find the assassins and bring them to justice (keeping in
mind that even without the civil war that might take a couple years)?
Or maybe you just drop what you are doing and leave Spain, thereby
making sure that you can't later be associated with murderers (of
course, doing so would only increase the chances of the Fascists or
Stalinists winning)?

Come on, you now have 20/20 hindsight. It should be very easy for you
to come up with an ideologically pure answer.

And keep in mind that you weren't satisfied when the CNT put their
own members on trial and even executed some of them when they were
proven to have participated in murders.

[James A. Donald]

ga...@lal.cs.utah.edu (Greg Alt) wrote:
> Since you've decided to jump into this discussion, perhaps you can answer
> some questions for me. A while ago, I was able to get James Donald to
> explicitly state his claim that the anarchists in Spain murdered several
> thousand people during the civil war. I tried to get him to name one
> person that has made a similar claim in print. After countless exchanges
> where he failed to provide such a source, I found more interesting things
> to do and dropped the subject.

Liar:

I repeatedly listed such people.

[James A. Donald]

[James A. Donald]

ga...@lal.cs.utah.edu (Greg Alt) wrote:
> Since you've decided to jump into this discussion, perhaps you can answer
> some questions for me. A while ago, I was able to get James Donald to
> explicitly state his claim that the anarchists in Spain murdered several
> thousand people during the civil war. I tried to get him to name one
> person that has made a similar claim in print. After countless exchanges
> where he failed to provide such a source, I found more interesting things
> to do and dropped the subject.

Liar:

I repeatedly listed such people.

Here is my web page "Terror in Catalonia"
http://www.jim.com/jamesd/cat/terror.htm

Terror in Catalonia



This is a collection of horrors committed by the
"anarcho" socialists of Catalonia: horror stories from
various eyewitnesses,

In this article I make little attempt to put these little
vignettes into a coherent story. These are just the
dirty bits from a larger and more complex story, a
story in which brutality and great inequality of power
was merely one part, though an important part.

These horror stories are for the most part not typical
of everyday life, or even everyday oppression,
under the rule of the "anarchists" of Catalonia.
Catalonia was not Stalin's Russia or Pol Pot's
Cambodia, but they were common enough to instill
fear and obedience in everyone, sufficient to ensure
that people "volunteered" for socialism. (See Bait
and switch in Catalonia and Serfdom in Catalonia.)

So how typical were these horror stories?

Burnett Bolloten, in "The Grand Camouflage" page
41, quotes Diego Abad de Santillan, La revolucion
y la guerra en Espana p.176

It is possible our victory resulted in the
death by violence of four or five
thousand inhabitants of Catalonia who
were listed as rightists and were linked
to political or ecclesiastical reaction."

Ronald Fraser Blood of Spain p152 states that

seven hundred and three priests and clergy were

assassinated in Barcelona. Only a few of the tales of
terror he describes involve clergy, so we may
conclude that the total terror in Barcelona was many
thousands.

Compare this with Pinochet, who murdered three
thousand people out of a vastly larger population
according to the Rettig Report on Human Rights.

OK, there was terror on a vast scale. Next
question. Who did it? Was it an unfortunate
consequence of convicts getting out of jail and the
breakdown of order, as numerous people quoted in
these history books claim, was it a minority of
extremists within the anarchist movement, or was it
systematically planned to terrorize the population
into submission? There was a bit of all of these, but
the testimony of those who were afraid indicates
that they primarily expected and feared organized
large scale terror, rather than small scale random
violence, that the killers acted arrogantly, openly
and were unafraid, and that those who opposed
terror acted furtively, with deception and soft
words.

The official policy of the FAI and CNT was
socialism without terror, but the actions of the
members and leaders were not consistent with this
policy, and their words and deeds strongly suggest
that this policy was not in fact feasible. (Royo) The
words and deeds of the leaders are consistent with
their claim that the terror was not centrally organized
and planned, but their words, their threats of terror,
and the stories given by eyewitnesses, are
inconsistent with the claim made by some modern
day socialists that the terror was committed by
ordinary people. The terror was planned and
organized on a large scale, and was committed by
"anarchist" organizations that looked very much like
a state apparatus, by an "anarchist" police force and
by "anarchist" troops.

The use of a list in Angel Navarro's story, plus the
fact that the killers did not care much who they
killed, shows that those killings were not motivated
by revenge in this case.

Miravitlles quotes the leaders of the "libertarian"
socialists blaming the killings on police that they had
authorized and appointed, which if true would make
the killings similar to the Latin American death
squads. In Domenech's story, he threatens people
with the apparatus of mass murder, implying that it
acted directly under his command. The use of killing
fields and holding pens indicates planned,
centralized violence. Latin American death squads
kill their victims themselves and just throw the
bodies into a ditch.

Blood of Spain page 152, Ronald Fraser
summarizes the testimony of Maria Ochoa:

There was a festive enthusiasm in the
streets [...] At home her father talked
more about local politics than the war,
not that the latter was forgotten, but
local politics seemed more important.
He was particularly hostile to the
masses of people flocking to join the
UGT - "opportunists without any
political background" he called them.
Soon, however a black cloud
appeared over the festival. A workers
patrol set up in a house on the corner
of the street. It was guarded by two
militia women. Each night a car drew
up and sounded its horn.

Maria Ochoa says:

We soon discovered what it meant.
People were being taken to be shot on
the other side of Mount Tibidabo. It
was horrifying, oppressive, The car
would begin to grind up the hill and we
knew the fate of the occupants. My
father did not like it. He thought it quite
normal that half a dozen big bourgeois
exploiters should be liquidated, but not
that all these others were being taken
to their deaths.

Obviously this was not individuals acting: Individuals
and small groups do not set up killing fields, and
they do not murder people on a regular and
predictable schedule, and they do not have
specialization of labor in production of murder.
Individuals and small groups, such as your typical
heavy drinking Latin American death squad, just
dump the bodies in the nearest ditch.

Furthermore, rather than violence ending when the
CNT took control, we see the reverse, escalating
violence once power was firmly consolidated.

Blood of Spain page 140 Joan Domenech, the
most powerful civilian minister in the CNT (in his
own opinion) speaking:

I said "You are the employers [...]
right now if we felt like it we could
load you into a lorry and that would be
the end of it" You should have seen
their backsides wriggling on the chairs!

The reference to a lorry, similar to Stalin's reference
to boxcars, again indicates specialization of labor in
the mass production of murder, not spontaneous
violent action by small groups. If it was just small
group action they would just leave them by the side
of the street, the way the semi unofficial death
squads in Latin America do.

Blood of Spain page 183 Juan Andrade of the
POUM executive committee:

I don't believe that this alone was the
major cause of the PSUC's growth.
The CNT was the reason. The latter
terrorized so many people that in
reaction they came to consider the
communists as the party of order.

Blood of Spain page 146 Juan Miravitlles, an
Esquerra representative on the militia committee,
which was the high command, protested to the
"libertarians" on that committee about the terror. He
reports: (page 146)

Day after day we found ourselves on
the committee repeating "why these
assassinations?" [...] A man was killed
because his sister was a nun. [...] They
called a man a fascist simply because
he went to mass. President Companys
said "you are drowning the revolution
in blood" [...] "Tell Companys not to
come here again" Durutti said to me
and Tarradelas. "If he does I will fill
him full of bullet holes."

Durutti was arguably the most powerful military
commander in the CNT. He normally came to
committee meetings wearing a gun. His response to
President Companys's accusation fails to inspire
confidence.

Note that president Companys said "you are
drowning the revolution in blood", not "random
street people are drowning the revolution in Blood",
which indicates he saw the terror as being centrally
directed and organized. The leaders on the militia
committee claimed that the worker patrols were
doing it on their own initiative, but since the patrols
accused were organized and officially authorized by
the CNT leaders on the Militias Committee, this
explanation fails to inspire confidence, regardless of
whether it is true or false.

Miravitlles continues, page 150

Their leaders on the committee said
the libertarian movement was not
responsible for the assassinations: "It's
the armed worker patrols. Some of the
members are assassins." But in my
view, they couldn't confront this type
of people who represented for them
their own ideology. With the notable
exception of Durutti at the front, the
CNT was always plagued with
indiscipline and didn't know how to
deal with it [...]

Ronald Fraser then describes these worker patrols
as follows

These acted as a revolutionary police
force, and were made up of 700 men -
325 of the CNT, 185 of the Esquerra,
145 of the UGT, and 45 of the
POUM.

These were not self appointed worker pontrols, as
one would expect under genuine anarchy, but
officially authorized police, authorized by the militia
committee, an organization that clearly exercised
vast power over Catalonia and over the everyday
lives of people in Barcelona.

Blood of Spain page 359: Fraser quotes Angel
Navarro, a former CNT member, president of the
village of Alloza:

Fraser first describes some men being taken from
the village of Alloza for execution, which description
I have not bothered to include, because that was
merely an example of initial terror to impose CNT
authority, not continuing terror after CNT authority
was successfully imposed. In the following narrative,
Carod is the commander of the Carod militia
column, who ordered the execution of the men
mentioned in the first paragraph, and Franco is an
acquaintance of Carod who strongly opposes the
use of terror, especially against his friends and
neighbors.

Fraser says:

Angel Navarro, a smallholder, had
seen the men being driven away,
"Now it is going to start" he thought,
and began to shiver. A former CNT
member in Barcelona member in
Barcelona, where he had gone as a
building laborer because his fathers
land was too poor to support the
family, he was shortly appointed
president of the village committee on
Carod and Franco's recommendation.
His sole concern became to avoid
bloodshed in Alloza where, as he
knew, opinion generally favored the
insurgent rather than the popular front
cause.
One day a car drew up and half a
dozen militiamen got out with a list of
people they had come to arrest.

Fraser quotes Angel Navarro as saying:

Yes I said. "Have you eaten supper
companions? No. Well, lets go and eat
and we'll talk about it then." We went
to the inn which was run by a relative.
I sent out the town crier to find the
man who held the keys to the man
who held the keys to the collective
store to fetch a good ham, a carafe of
wine. When the militia men had eaten
one of them said: "Come on, we're in a
hurry." I feared the worst. Instead, one
of them put his arm round my
shoulder. "Comrade, everyone should
be like you, act as you have." They
left. That night in Alcorisa they shot a
lot of people.

Angel Navarro, in the above narrative, clearly
expected organized official terror, when he said
"now it begins". Equally clearly, most of the villagers
shared this concern (See Franco's narrative, page
358)

If the terrorists were a small group of people
personally pursuing petty conflicts they would not
have needed a list, and they would not have
arrested people for later execution. They would
have known their enemies and killed them
themselves on the spot. The list and the arrests
indicates specialization of labor in the mass
production of murder. Some group to prepare the
list, some group to operate the killing fields, which
indicates a fairly large and permanent organization of
mass murder.

Blood of Spain page 148: Ronald Fraser
summarizes a report by Joan Roig

At the barber's one day , he heard a
man who was being shaved telling the
barber about the "canaries" he and
others took out every night and shot.
Roig turned away in disgust at the look
of pleasure on his face as he described
in detail how the prisoners pleaded for
their lives, how he pretended they
were going to be set free, and then
shot them in the back. "The worst was
when he invited the barber to
accompany him that night to witness
the spectacle".

Once again we see how the murderers acted openly
and unafraid, while those who opposed terror were
frightened and silent.

[Tim Starr]

In article <5828qj$d...@magus.cs.utah.edu>,

Greg Alt <ga...@lal.cs.utah.edu> wrote:
>In article <timstarrE...@netcom.com> tims...@netcom.com (Tim Starr) writes:
>>>What exactly, would you have had the Spanish working class do?
>>
>>Fight for freedom instead of tyranny.
>
>Now THERE is an answer! Let's suppose you were in Spain, and you
>joined up in a hypothetical anarcho-capitalist militia. Now, let's
>suppose that some other anarcho-capitalists not in your militia
>assassinate a Communist Party official.

I'd have a bounty put in the head of the assasins for their arrest & conviction
for murder in a fair trial by a jury of their peers. If they were convicted,
I'd have them sentenced to death by firin squad - if I were the judge, & if
their victim's families agreed. I'd have all their assets forfeited to the
victim's family anyways, & put him to work for the victim's family if they
chose that sentencing option.

Aside from this being a matter of simply justice, anything less would just
invite retaliatory assasinations by the commies & give them the semblance of
justice.

[Greg Alt]

In article <5834rh$b...@nntp1.best.com> jam...@echeque.com (James A. Donald) writes:
>ga...@lal.cs.utah.edu (Greg Alt) wrote:
>> Since you've decided to jump into this discussion, perhaps you can answer
>> some questions for me. A while ago, I was able to get James Donald to
>> explicitly state his claim that the anarchists in Spain murdered several
>> thousand people during the civil war. I tried to get him to name one
>> person that has made a similar claim in print. After countless exchanges
>> where he failed to provide such a source, I found more interesting things
>> to do and dropped the subject.
>
>Liar:
>
>I repeatedly listed such people.

"Repeatedly" is the key word. In fact, I imagine everything you have posted
to the net you have posted "repeated" including this message that you saw
fit to send out three times. Of course, what you did before is what you
just did now. That is, you posted your whole web page. Did I ask for a
list of anecdotal eyewitness accounts of a few atrocities? No. If that is
what I had asked for, then you certainly have answered me "repeatedly" because
you have posted your whole web page countless times. What I asked for is
one printed source where someone other than the handful of net laissez-faire
capitalists makes the same claim as you. It is clear that you believe your
claim can be extrapolated from the accounts mentioned in your web page, but
that's not what I was asking. If I wanted a source making a specific claim
about the number of people killed in Nazi Germany, Cambodia, East Timor,
the crushing of the Paris Commune, Rwanda, etc. it would be very easy to
find an article or book where someone says something like "the such and such
group murdered X number of people". For the thousandth time, THAT is what
I'm asking for.

Since you are so keen on posting like a broken record, I will repeat what
I have repeated at least a few of the times that you reposted your whole
web page...

These two bits from your web page comes closest to answering my question, but
they is still far from it.

> Burnett Bolloten, in "The Grand Camouflage" page
> 41, quotes Diego Abad de Santillan, La revolucion
> y la guerra en Espana p.176
>
> It is possible our victory resulted in the
> death by violence of four or five
> thousand inhabitants of Catalonia who
> were listed as rightists and were linked
> to political or ecclesiastical reaction."

Ok, the keywords in your claim were "anarchists", "murder", and "several
thousand". "four or five thousand" certainly counts as "several thousand".
But "death by violence" is not necessarily the same thing as "murder", and
nowhere in the quote does it mention anarchists as being the killers. As
I posted before, perhaps the context of the quote gives the information I
have been asking for. Not having a copy of the book, I can't check for you.

> Ronald Fraser Blood of Spain p152 states that
> seven hundred and three priests and clergy were
> assassinated in Barcelona. Only a few of the tales of
> terror he describes involve clergy, so we may
> conclude that the total terror in Barcelona was many
> thousands.

Ignoring your extrapolation, since I didn't ask for your "expert" opinion,
here we have mention of 703 people who were assassinated. No mention of
anarchists as the assassins, and while "assassination" likely would mean
the same thing as murder in this context ('unlawfully killing' someone,
according to my dictionary), it should be pointed out that this says
nothing about the innocence of the victim. Assassinating Franco would also
have been murder, but he was certainly not innocent, for example.

It is true that your original claim said nothing about the innocence of the
several thousand people you claim were murdered by anarchists, so it would
be close enough if it weren't for the fact that there is no mention of
anarchists as the killers. I'm sure you can see that this ommission is a
big hole... If you were trying to, for example, prove that anarchists were
responsible for large numbers of executions in Stalinist Russia, a quote
without mention of anarchists that "millions were executed in Stalinist
Russia" would certainly not be any sort of proof.

And, btw, would you like to be more specific with your claim and say that
several thousand "innocent" people were murdered, or are you just limiting
it to be that several thousand were murdered (i.e. 'unlawfully killed') and
that they may or may not have been innocent to varying degrees? So, for
example, leaving out "innocent" would not include combatants killed in the
fighting, but would include, for example, combatants, spies, etc. killed
after being taken prisoner (at least the ones that weren't given a fair trial).

For now, though, I would be happy enough with one printed source that
just makes the simple claim, with or without "innocent" being inserted.
And, as I said before, it doesn't even have to be a reputable historian,
or even a historian, for that matter. Just one person that wrote it down
and published it.

And, for the record, the reason I am interested in this is that you, Caplan,
Long, and now Tim Starr are the only people I have ever seen make this
claim. I plan on reading the official Fascist and Stalinist histories of
the Civil War, to see what I would imagine would be the most extreme
anti-anarchist version of events, but I have read the Conservative U.S.,
the anti-Stalinist Marxist, and the Anarchist versions. Not only did they
not make the same claim, but none of them even acted as if the claim had
been made. For example, in the Anarchist books on the subject, they appear
to try to counter many different charges made against them by Stalinists
and others, but they don't even mention your charge. So, part of the
reason I'm asking for a source is to help point me in the direction of
anti-anarchist literature.

[K MacLeod]

Andrew Flood (andre...@geocities.com) wrote:
: James A. Donald wrote:

: > >> According to Ronald Fraser, a historian fairly sympathetic to the

: > >> "anarchists" seven hundred and three priests and clergy were
: > >> assassinated in Barcelona, all churches were desecrated, and there

: > >> were public burnings of religious icons, rosaries, and stuff.

[snip]

: Actually if you look you'll find Frazer cites this figure

: from another book, it is not his figure and he makes no

: claims as to its accuracy. Frazer is a bourgeoise historian
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: in no way sympatheic to anarchism as is clear from how he

: refers to the ideas behind anarchism.

Fraser is *not* a bourgeois historian. His sympathies seem to lie with the
POUM, a revolutionary socialist party, rather more than with the
anarchists. But James is correct to say that Fraser is 'fairly
sympathetic to the "anarchists"'. He merely points out the obvious: that
the anarchists were a lot better at collectivizing barbershops and
chicken-coops, and shooting priests and homosexuals, than they were at
fighting the fascists. (Lots of anarchists wouldn't even take that as a
criticism - since when is fighting a conventional war a selling-point of
anarchism?)

: In the figure

: James quotes BTW does not include any claim it was the
: anarchist organisations that killed these priests and
: as I have shown elsewhere the organisations actually
: argued against general attacks on the churches or the
: priests. This is all quoted in Frazer but the anti-anarchist
: James delibretly ignore it!!

Maybe they did, but the shooting of priests and homosexuals by FAI
militants is described and deplored by George Woodcock, and the
systematic demolition of churches is described by Orwell. Resolutions
are cheap. I've never seen even a *claim* that the anarchist
organizations posted armed guards on churches, or hauled anyone up on
disciplinary charges - let alone criminal charges - for killing
priests and homosexuals.

Again, lots of anarchists wouldn't take that as a criticism.

: BTW I've changed the heading to reflect the uncontested

: fact that the 'capitalist' side in the Civil War
: had an open policy of mass murder and killed far more
: people!!

No question about that. They probably killed even more when the war was
over.

(Calling Franco's side 'capitalist' is a bit of a stretch. The avowed
party of private property in the Spanish Revolution was the Communist
Party of Spain.)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ken MacLeod | '... in the beginning all the world was America ...'
ke...@tattoo.ed.ac.uk | John Locke, Second Treatise of Government
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Andrew Flood]

Tim Starr wrote:

> Andrew Flood <andre...@geocities.com> wrote:

> >According to 'Blood of Spain' which is what our capitlist
> >fans quote in these arguments (but have either not read
> >or are being entirely dishonest in spinning their story
> >around the quotes) it is certainly true that many priests
> >were killed in the republican zone.

> What happened to the line that the "only documented killing of a priest by an
> anarchist was before the war"?

The Tim Starr school of falsification strikes again, that line he
just made up was certainly never typed by me, do he have
a source for it or was he just setting up a straw man to knock
down

> >1. Why were they killed

> >The Catholic Church was hated by almost all progressives
> >in Spain as the bastion of reaction. This included
> >anarchists but also included the democratic minded
> >capitalist parties. It was even disliked by many
> >practising Catholics at the time.

> "...hated... as the bastion of reaction..."
>
> So, that's justification for massacring people?

Did I say it was? No, I was explaining why it happened,
did the anarchists at the time see it as justification,
no they are on record as trying to halt the assassinations
of priests and other right-wingers. Is this another tactc
of the Starr school of falsification (must be)..

> >Frazer himself explains the background when on page 525
> >he says
> >"From the preceding period of absolutism, the church provided
> >the ideological categories to justify the repression and intolerance
> >necessary to maintain the system"

> What about the people who provide "the ideological categories to justify
> the repression and intolerance necessary to maintain" communism?

Not being a Marxist or a Russian style communist I don't defend
those state capitalist regimes and if you check the book in
my sig fiel you'll see why I never did. Yet another tactic of
Starr school of falsifcation, guilt by attempted association.

Again the anarchist organisations in Spain are on record as
arguing against repression

> >2. Who carried out the church burning and killings

> [Irrelevancies about stuff that happened before the war snipped]

OH, so documentation that showed that the church was also hated
by the republican capitalist parties and by religious people
is somehow irrelevant to the question of who carried out the
chruch burnings and priest killings!! Only if you are
not interested in the truth..

> >3. What was the role of the anarchists in this situation
> >
> >The most infuriating aspect of the use of "The Blood of
> >Spain" by the anti-anarchist gang is that they are incredibly
> >dishonest as they seek to imply Frazer would have agreed with
> >them in painting the anarchist organisations as the villains
> >in this piece. To do so they have to ignore all the evidence
> >Frazer presents that the anarchist organisations tried to stop
> >the popular fury on the streets and at the front from killing
> >innocent victims. Frazer is hostile to anarchism in his
> >assumptions but he at least tries to be fair in describing
> >their actions.
>
> Ah, the usual line of the apologists for the Anarco-Statists of Spain:
> there were no death squads organized by the Anarco-Statists, there was
> only a popular uprising which the Anarco-Statists valiantly did their
> level best to stop.

Its worth reminding people here that the anti-anarchists like
Caplan and Starr choose Frazer as their reference, now when
Frazer is shown to contradict their 'theories' they cry foul.
Again we see the methods of those who seek to falsify history
to fit a propaganda model, if they want to use Frazer then
they will also have to accept his use of quotes that
fundamentally contradict their model.

> >At the front for instance
> >page 132
> >During the advance of the Militias on Saragossa the village of
> >Calacite was taken. Soon afterwards the church was set on fire,
> >according to Frazer the "CNT leader gathered the column and
> >villagers in the square" and told them "you are burning the
> >churches without thinking of the grief you are causing your
> >mothers, sisters, daughters, parents in whose veins flows
> >Christian Catholic blood"
>
> What evidence is there that this statement was representative of most
> of the "anarchists"? Seems to me I've read a description of this very
> quote as being unrepresentative.

Source for your 'seeming', none..thought so, you seem quite adapt
as making uo or seeming things where it suits you. Frazer
quotes it, if your going to accept his judgement in other
quotes being representative then you'll have to accept
it here as well!

--

[James A. Donald]

jam...@echeque.com (James A. Donald) writes:
> >Liar:
> >
> >I repeatedly listed such people.

ga...@lal.cs.utah.edu (Greg Alt) wrote:
> "Repeatedly" is the key word. In fact, I imagine everything you have posted
> to the net you have posted "repeated"

Because you people keep lying about what happened in Catalonia. You
keep lying, I will keep reposting.

[dckom]

On Thu, 05 Dec 1996 11:25:32 +0000 c.e., Andrew Flood
<andre...@geocities.com> wrote :

>Tim Starr wrote:
>
>> Andrew Flood <andre...@geocities.com> wrote:
>
>> >According to 'Blood of Spain' which is what our capitlist
>> >fans quote in these arguments (but have either not read
>> >or are being entirely dishonest in spinning their story
>> >around the quotes) it is certainly true that many priests
>> >were killed in the republican zone.
>
>> What happened to the line that the "only documented killing of a priest by an
>> anarchist was before the war"?
>
>The Tim Starr school of falsification strikes again, that line he
>just made up was certainly never typed by me, do he have
>a source for it or was he just setting up a straw man to knock
>down

What *I* said was "the only documented case I've encountered".
Tim, Andrew's not me, we're in different organizations, and there's NO,
repeat, NO "line" here.

David Christian
Workers Solidarity Alliance

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Property is Theft!
Steal this Post!

[Greg Alt]

In article <timstarr...@netcom.com> tims...@netcom.com (Tim Starr) writes:
>I'd have a bounty put in the head of the assasins for their arrest & conviction
>for murder in a fair trial by a jury of their peers. If they were convicted,
>I'd have them sentenced to death by firin squad - if I were the judge, & if
>their victim's families agreed. I'd have all their assets forfeited to the
>victim's family anyways, & put him to work for the victim's family if they
>chose that sentencing option.

Given that the CNT actually did arrest, put on trial, and execute assassins,
what is your problem, then?

Personally, my problem with the actions of the CNT leaders that joined the
government is that they actually supported this use of capital punishment.

Greg

[Greg Alt]

In article <586arg$f...@scotsman.ed.ac.uk> ke...@tattoo.ed.ac.uk (K MacLeod) writes:
>Maybe they did, but the shooting of priests and homosexuals by FAI
>militants is described and deplored by George Woodcock, and the

What book is this?

>are cheap. I've never seen even a *claim* that the anarchist
>organizations posted armed guards on churches, or hauled anyone up on
>disciplinary charges - let alone criminal charges - for killing
>priests and homosexuals.

How about this from James Donald's favorite book on the Spanish
Civil War, 'Blood of Spain' (page 451):

In July 1936, as soon as the military uprising was crushed, some
2000 people attacked the monastery, burning its pharmaceutical
laboratory and nearly burning its library, reputedly the third most
important in Catalonia for its incunabula. The CNT dispatched men
to prevent it.

-But we were unable to prevent the crowd bringing thirty-eight
monks, including the prior, down to Badalona to kill them. Two
were killed and two wounded en route. Seeing men armed with
pikes bringing the monks in I thought I could see the guillotine
waiting in the square, so much did the scene remind me of the
French revolution...

He and other CNT leaders had taken precautions, assembling 200 of
their militants in the square where the mob was threatening to kill
the monks. Pistol in hand, the militants arrested the crowd's
ring-leaders, and took the monks back to the monastery.

Greg

[Greg Alt]

In article <587cq7$8...@nntp1.best.com> jam...@echeque.com (James A. Donald) writes:
>Because you people keep lying about what happened in Catalonia. You
>keep lying, I will keep reposting.

I suppose I should just drop this, but what the heck... As you well know,
my request has always been for one printed source where someone (anyone)
makes the same claim that you explicitly made, that the anarchists murdered
several thousand people during the civil war in Spain.

As I have said repreatedly, a quote claiming that several thousand people
were killed in the Republican-controlled area does not fulfill my request,
because there were countless groups other than anarchists in the area.

A quote claiming that some anarchists murdered some people also doesn't
fulfill my request, unless you wish to change you claim to be that *some*
people were murdered by anarchists.

A quote claiming that anarchists *killed* several thousand people would
be closer than anything you have posted, but still wouldn't fulfill my
request completely (given that 'murder' is a specific kind of 'killing'
that would exclude defense, shooting combatants in combat, etc).

I have read through your web page each time you post it and have yet to
find buried in it the answer to my request. If you truly do have such a
source, then it should be easy to make a single short post containing it
all by itself, leaving out all of the anecdotal evidence, 'evidence' that
doesn't even mention anarchists, and your own conjecture and extrapolations.

Rather than endlessly calling me a liar, please just post the the source.
Or if any of your other laissez-faire friends would like to jump in for
you, that's fine too... Caplan would have us believe that he has
extensively researched the Spanish Civil War, so I'm *sure* he would have
the source if it existed. :)

Greg

[Andrew Flood]

James A. Donald wrote:

> > Frazer is a bourgeoise historian

> > in no way sympatheic to anarchism as is clear from how he
> > refers to the ideas behind anarchism.

> After recounting some dreadful tale of murder and terror Fraser says

> "this was a tragedy because it alienated the middle class from the
> revolution". It never occurs to him that it might be a tragedy
> because thousands of innocent people were casually murdered.

But of course we have already established that the assassanations
were either the work of the people exacting revenge for pre-war
atrocities or the ongoing and far, far greater executions in
the fascist zone or the work of the non-anarchist republican
forces. As has been shown in this thread the anarchist
organisations not only argued against the acts of spontaneous
revenge but went so far as to execute some of their militants
who took part in them.

Given that this quote may show Frazer is 'biased' towards the
fascists and supported the republicans in general but it does
not show he supported the anarchists. The tone of his book is
pro-republican (perhaps James would prefer it to be pro-fascist)
but anti-anarchist as he considers the anarchists utopians

> After recounting the forced collectivization of the Aragon peasants,
> he complains that when the communists took over, they abolished many
> of these constraints and controls.

> "Peasant realism - the acceptance that war inevitably brought controls
> and restrictions - suggested that communist polarization in defense of
> the peasantry was unnecessarily sharp." (p373)

> It never occurs to him that there is something a little strange about
> "anarchists" forcibly imposing controls and restrictions on peasants,
> and Stalinists seeking to permit peasants some small measure of
> liberty.

Actually what Frazer was referring to here was when the communist
party sent a tank column into Aragon in late 1937 to forcable
dissolve the collectives. The Communist Party like James
claimed that the Peasants had been forced to join them. This
calim was not true and the peasants responded to their
'liberators' by ceasing production forcing the state to
acknowledge that the bulk of the collectives were indeed
voluntary and allowing them to reform.

The quote is quite a good example of Frazers anti-anarchist
bias as the facts clearly shows that the CP's defense
of the pesantry was not merly "unnecessarily sharp" but
rather based on a wrong premise and thus an attack rather
then a defense!!

> The "capitalist" side was national syndicalist, not capitalist, and
> the forms of economic organization they imposed on industry were not
> very different from those imposed by the "anarchists".

This James is a form of capitalism (mind you all except the
anarchists and the POUM on the republican side also
wanted a form of capitalism if one with a democratic
state rather then a military dictatorship.)

[Andrew Flood]

K MacLeod wrote:
But James is correct to say that Fraser is 'fairly
> sympathetic to the "anarchists"'. He merely points out the obvious: that
> the anarchists were a lot better at collectivizing barbershops and
> chicken-coops, and shooting priests and homosexuals, than they were at
> fighting the fascists.

> I've never seen even a *claim* that the anarchist

> organizations posted armed guards on churches, or hauled anyone up on
> disciplinary charges - let alone criminal charges - for killing
> priests and homosexuals.

Wow, this is complete nonsense, would you care to provide a source
for this latest ridiculous claim!! Frazer himself cites the
instace of the anarchists executing a few of their own militants
for engaging in reprisals, you should be aware of this seeing
as you claim to hav read him!! Or like the rest of the right
wingers do you only see quotes that suit you.

You also seem to be aware that almost evey major Spanish owned
industry in Catalonia was collectivised by the anarchists, this
amounts to a lot more then barber shops or chicken coops!! Check
the revolution section of my sig. file for details. As for
the military proess it was the anarchists who defeated the
military uprising by seizing guns and storming the barracks
when the lef parties were urging people to 'trust the
army'. You really have engaged in selective reading!!

Lets see some sources then!

[James A. Donald]

ga...@lal.cs.utah.edu (Greg Alt) wrote:
> Given that the CNT actually did arrest, put on trial, and execute assassins,
> what is your problem, then?

Given that the CNT only arrested, put on trial, and executed
unauthorized assassins, our problem is that most of the assassins
appeared to be official and authorized.

Once again, an extract from my web page, one of the many examples of
eyewitness testimony which show that terror was official:

Maria Ochoa says:

[James A. Donald]

jam...@echeque.com (James A. Donald) writes:

>>Because you people keep lying about what happened in Catalonia. You
>>keep lying, I will keep reposting.

ga...@lal.cs.utah.edu (Greg Alt) wrote:
>I suppose I should just drop this, but what the heck... As you well know,
>my request has always been for one printed source where someone (anyone)

>makes the same claim that you explicitly made, that the anarchists murdered
>several thousand people during the civil war in Spain.

And I have repeatedly fulfilled your request, and you have rejected my
examples on minute legalistic technical issues, or found some
alternate highly contrived reading of the historians words.

Let us turn it around: Can you find any reputable historian that
denies that the "anarchists" murdered thousands of people in
Catalonia?

Find me one reputable historian who says "Allegations of anarchist
atrocities are vastly exaggerated: On the available evidence, it
seems likely that the anarchists only murdered a few hundred civilians
in total"

[Andrew Flood]

James A. Donald wrote:

> Burnett Bolloten, in "The Grand Camouflage" page
> 41, quotes Diego Abad de Santillan, La revolucion
> y la guerra en Espana p.176

> It is possible our victory resulted in the
> death by violence of four or five
> thousand inhabitants of Catalonia who
> were listed as rightists and were linked
> to political or ecclesiastical reaction."

de Santillan is not saying the anarchists killed
anyone here but rather that the fact the military
were defeated _might_ ("possible") have created
the conditions where the people assassinated
4 or 5 thousand rightists linked to pre-war
or current atrocities on the fascist side.

Everyone agrees that with the military defeat the
people took revenge on their pre-war oppressers,
the historical evidence is that the anarchist
organisations tried to _prevent_ this happening,
but although they organised the resistance to
the coup they did not control the population as
the following quote shows

"There was total disorder. We formed a commission and
thereafter all arms were handed only to revolutionary
organisations ... 10,000 rifles, I calculate as well as some
machine guns, were taken. That was the moment when
the people of Barcelona were armed; that was the moment,
in consequence, when power fell into the masses hands. =

We of the CNT hadn=B9t set out to make the revolution but =

to defend ourselves, to defend the working class. To make =

the social revolution, which needed to have the whole of =

the Spanish proletariat behind it , would take another ten =

years....but it wasn=B9t we who chose the moment; it was =

forced on us by the military who were making the =

revolution, who wanted to finish off the CNT once and =

for all.."CNT textile worker Andreu Capdevila quoted
in Blood of Spain, Page 72

Frazer is clear that the anarchists tried to control
this

page 141
"Little did it matter that leading CNT militants, like Joan Peiro,
fulminated openly against such actions; not that both the CNT
and FAI issued statements categorically condemning
assassinations....Anyone proven to have infringed peoples rights
would be shot - a threat which was carried out when some
anarcho-syndicalist militants were executed"

and even right-wingers who were arrested by the anarchists
in this period were prepared to acknowledge both that
the scale or assassainations was exaggerated and that
in the anarchist stonghold of Barcelonia there were
fewer then in the other areas of Spain where they
were weaker
page 154
"People were being assassinated - though in far fewer
numbers then propagandistically had been claimed; in
fact relatively fewer then in other republican cities like
Madrid"

Perhaps James would have preferred if the anarchists
did not organise resistance to the rising so that
instead of the people taking revenge on a few thousand
rightists the military could have killed tens of =

thousands of workers as they were doing elsewhere
in Spain. The people of Barcelonia could hear
the radio broadcasts from the areas the fascists held
and this is what these broadcasts were saying

Blood of Spain page 154
"Let us repeat the phrase so often pronounced by our
illustrious general Quiepo de Llano: the words 'Pardon'
and 'Amnesty' must disappear from the Spanish
dictionary" ABC (Seville 1 Sept 36)

page 128
"I order and command that anyone caught inciting
others to strike, or striking himself, shall be shot
immediately"
General Queipo de Liano on Seville Radio, 22 July 1936

> Ronald Fraser Blood of Spain p152 states that
> seven hundred and three priests and clergy were
> assassinated in Barcelona. Only a few of the tales of
> terror he describes involve clergy, so we may
> conclude that the total terror in Barcelona was many
> thousands.

de Santallian says possably 4-5 thousand in Catalonia, a =

figure James quotes with approvial above. As Barclona
is the capital of Catalonia this clearly sets an upper
figure of _less then_ 4-5 thousnand for this city.
A high number of Priests were killed by the people both
because as Frazer himself explains on page 525

"From the preceding period of absolutism, the church provided
the ideological categories to justify the repression and intolerance
necessary to maintain the system"

and because in the fascist zone the church was egging on the
fascists to kill workers

Dionisio Ridruego, falange chief of Seiguia quotes a sermon he
heard in the Cathedral that he thinks was directed at him because
he was trying to prevent executions
"The fatherland must be renewed, all the evil weed must be
uprooted, all the bad seed extirpated - this is not the time for
scruples"

Most importantly this figure which is not Frazers is cited
from another publication but we are not told who carried
out these priest killings. All the republican parties were
anti-clerical in nature and even many religious people
were anti-clerical. According to a right winger

page 153
Maurio Serrahina "I always maintained that deep down these
burnings were an act of faith...In protest against the =

churches submission to the propertied classes"

> Compare this with Pinochet, who murdered three
> thousand people out of a vastly larger population
> according to the Rettig Report on Human Rights.

A report carried out by the Chilean government
where Pinochet still controls the army. Most other
estimates think at least 30,000 were killed immediately
and a cpouple of hundred thousand fled into exile.

But why did Pinochet come into it and why does James
fell its a good idea to exaggerate the killings in
Spain and try and blame it on anarchists who actually
argued against them on the one hand while attempting
to hide the killings of the capitalist free
marketer Pinochet! Can this be his political agenda
showing through.
=

>Was it an unfortunate
> consequence of convicts getting out of jail and the
> breakdown of order, as numerous people quoted in
> these history books claim,

No anarchist claims this

> was it a minority of
> extremists within the anarchist movement,

no anarchist claims this

> or was it
> systematically planned to terrorize the population
> into submission?

and James 'surprizingly' excludes what the anarchists did
say which was =

page 151
"There was a deep, very deep wave of popular fury as a result
of the military uprising which followed on so many years of
oppression and provocation"
CNT journalist, Jucinto Barrus

> Blood of Spain page 152, Ronald Fraser
> summarizes the testimony of Maria Ochoa:

> =

> There was a festive enthusiasm in the
> streets [...] At home her father talked
> more about local politics than the war,
> not that the latter was forgotten, but
> local politics seemed more important.
> He was particularly hostile to the
> masses of people flocking to join the
> UGT - "opportunists without any
> political background" he called them.
> Soon, however a black cloud
> appeared over the festival. A workers
> patrol set up in a house on the corner
> of the street. It was guarded by two
> militia women. Each night a car drew
> up and sounded its horn.

=

Again no indication that this was even the work
of anarchist (never mind the work of anarchist
organisations). Both the unions and all the
republican parties had militia's, if anything
this quote (which is _from_ an anarchist)
seems to implicate the "opportunists without any
political background" who joined the CGT

> Blood of Spain page 140 Joan Domenech, the
> most powerful civilian minister in the CNT (in his
> own opinion) speaking:

> I said "You are the employers [...]
> right now if we felt like it we could
> load you into a lorry and that would be
> the end of it" You should have seen
> their backsides wriggling on the chairs!

Making the bosses who in the previous years had
not only oppressed the workers but killed many
anarchists is one thing, and the context of the
quote is that this was intended to make them
uncomfortable rather then a threat. The actual
evidence _again_ shows that the anarchists (unlike
the CP and other parties whom James _never_
mentions _except_ in a positive light) not
only argued against assassinations but took action
to halt them. (Later on they were also to
halt the assassinations of some POUM members
by the CP, another fact that escapes James
attention)

> Blood of Spain page 183 Juan Andrade of the
> POUM executive committee:

> I don't believe that this alone was the
> major cause of the PSUC's growth.
> The CNT was the reason. The latter
> terrorized so many people that in
> reaction they came to consider the
> communists as the party of order.

And the POUM hated the CNT, accorrding to other
quotes in Frazer refusing to support attacks
on the fascists by them in the early days of the
war. The opinion of one of the POUM committee
is worth nothing

James it would appear will selectivly choose quotes
from any source, the Communist Party, the POUM
even the fascists in order to provide ammunition
to attack the anarchists. At the same time he
feels comfortable with trying to hide the numbers
killed by Pinochet or describing the execution of
Ken Saro-Wiwa as being merely the killing "of
a tiny handful who wanted to get their hands on
the oil money" of Nigeria (when this argument started
months back).

In short he cares little for anyone killed then or
since, he is merly carrying out an anti-anarchist
propaganda way to defend capitalism

-- =

[James A. Donald]

Andrew Flood <andre...@geocities.com> wrote:
> But of course we have already established that the assassanations
> were either the work of the people exacting revenge for pre-war
> atrocities or the ongoing and far, far greater executions in
>the fascist zone

Lie: Fraser quotes very few examples that could plausibly be claimed
to be an act of individual revenge, whereas he gives numerous examples
of obviously official, organized, terror.

On my web page

http://www.jim.com/jamesd/cat/blood.htm

I list numerous examples of terror in Catalonia. Each of these
examples is inconsistent with individual revenge, for the reasons that
I point out.

Here follows my commentary on various acts of terror:

My comment on Angel Navarro's testimony, given in the web page:

[...]

they primarily expected and feared organized large scale

terror, [...] the killers acted arrogantly, openly and

were unafraid, and that those who opposed terror acted
furtively, with deception and soft words

My comment on Maria Ochoa's testimony, given in the web page.

[...]

Individuals and small groups do not set up killing fields, and
they do not murder people on a regular and predictable schedule,
and they do not have specialization of labor in production of
murder. Individuals and small groups, such as your typical heavy
drinking Latin American death squad, just dump the bodies in the
nearest ditch.

My comment on Angel Navarro's given in the web page.
[...]

The use of a list in Angel Navarro's story, plus the fact that
the killers did not care much who they killed, shows that
those killings were not motivated by revenge in this case.

> or the work of the non-anarchist republican
> forces.

Angel Navarro specifically identifies some of the killers as under the
authority of an "anarchist" general who he names.

Domenech, an "anarchist" minister claimed authority over the killing
fields

(Ha Ha, *anarchist* minster of food.)

Pretty much everyone describes the terror as carried out openly in
places and at times when the "anarchists" had secure control.

All details on my web page, and have been posted and reposted to this
newsgroup ad nauseum.

> As has been shown in this thread the anarchist
> organisations not only argued against the acts of spontaneous
> revenge but went so far as to execute some of their militants
> who took part in them.

Quite true This doubtless explains why there very few acts of
spontaneous revenge.

[Greg Alt]

In article <58k4e6$j...@nntp1.best.com> jam...@echeque.com (James A. Donald) writes:
>ga...@lal.cs.utah.edu (Greg Alt) wrote:
>>I suppose I should just drop this, but what the heck... As you well know,
>>my request has always been for one printed source where someone (anyone)
>>makes the same claim that you explicitly made, that the anarchists murdered
>>several thousand people during the civil war in Spain.
>
>And I have repeatedly fulfilled your request, and you have rejected my
>examples on minute legalistic technical issues, or found some
>alternate highly contrived reading of the historians words.

'Minute legalistic technical issues' like the fact that a source makes
no mention of anarchists? Or like the fact that a source *does* say
that members of the CNT or FAI were responsible for a single atrocity
but makes no mention of thousands of victims?

>Let us turn it around: Can you find any reputable historian that
>denies that the "anarchists" murdered thousands of people in
>Catalonia?

That is my point. YOU are the first person I have seen make this
claim. The only other place I have seen this claim is from a few
others on the net like Caplan, Starr, and Long. I have read books
from the anarchist, marxist, and conservative capitalist point of
view, and none of them make the claim or deny it. If nobody has
made this claim in print in the past 50 years, then it would make
sense that nobody would make an effort to deny a nonexistant
allegation. I plan on doing some more research, specifically looking
for Fascist and Stalinist histories of the Civil War, and perhaps
there I will find such a claim. From what I have seen of Fascist
propaganda from the time period, it looks as if they placed most of
the blame on Marxists, so I expect to have better luck with Stalinist
histories. I will post whatever I find out.

Greg

[Lazarus Long]

andre...@geocities.com yammered in a message to All:

ag> Lazarus being a good student of the Gobbels 'great lie' school tries

The only student of the big lie would appear to be Andrew
Flood, the cafe revolutionary.

BUt do continue to post your lies... they are amusing although
repetitive.

... After the next expresso...the revolution begins! You go first.

Visit the Rational Anarchist HomePage
http://vaxxine.com/rational/lazarus.html

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims
may be the most oppressive." (C.S. Lewis)

[K MacLeod]

Greg Alt (ga...@lal.cs.utah.edu) wrote:

: In article <586arg$f...@scotsman.ed.ac.uk> ke...@tattoo.ed.ac.uk (K MacLeod) writes:
: >Maybe they did, but the shooting of priests and homosexuals by FAI
: >militants is described and deplored by George Woodcock, and the

: What book is this?

_Anarchism_, published by Penguin. Standard text, reprinted many times.

: >are cheap. I've never seen even a *claim* that the anarchist

: >organizations posted armed guards on churches, or hauled anyone up on
: >disciplinary charges - let alone criminal charges - for killing
: >priests and homosexuals.

: How about this from James Donald's favorite book on the Spanish

: Civil War, 'Blood of Spain' (page 451):

: In July 1936, as soon as the military uprising was crushed, some
: 2000 people attacked the monastery, burning its pharmaceutical
: laboratory and nearly burning its library, reputedly the third most
: important in Catalonia for its incunabula. The CNT dispatched men
: to prevent it.

: -But we were unable to prevent the crowd bringing thirty-eight
: monks, including the prior, down to Badalona to kill them. Two
: were killed and two wounded en route. Seeing men armed with
: pikes bringing the monks in I thought I could see the guillotine
: waiting in the square, so much did the scene remind me of the
: French revolution...

: He and other CNT leaders had taken precautions, assembling 200 of
: their militants in the square where the mob was threatening to kill
: the monks. Pistol in hand, the militants arrested the crowd's
: ring-leaders, and took the monks back to the monastery.

Good for them! Thank you for pointing this out. It's a while since I
read _Blood of Spain_.

But Orwell describes churches in revolutionary Barcelona being
'systematically demolished' with no interference from anybody. And the
point I made about churches and priests stands. I'm sure there were
other incidents - as you've cited - of anarchist militants shielding
people from mob or individual violence, but it doesn't seem to have
happened very often.

Violent anti-clericalism and iconoclasm was part of Spanish anarchism,
as it was of many other bourgeois revolutionary movements.

[Andrew Flood]

K MacLeod wrote:

> : What book is this?
> _Anarchism_, published by Penguin. Standard text, reprinted many times.

Not Woodcock again!! Apperantly Woodcock doesn't bother sourcing
this particular claim of his, he just states it. Given his
unreliability elsewhere I'd take it with a huge pinch of
salt especially as I've not see this particular claim anywhere
else.

> But Orwell describes churches in revolutionary Barcelona being
> 'systematically demolished' with no interference from anybody.

It's a rather obvious point that during the first weeks of
the revolution when most of the army were on Franco's die
most of the anarchist militants were probably far too busy
fighting Franco to spare men or arms to protect the church
they hated in any case. The available evidence does point
to them discouraging these attacks and when they happened
to be in a position to do so preventing them.

> Violent anti-clericalism and iconoclasm was part of Spanish anarchism,
> as it was of many other bourgeois revolutionary movements.

Ken see my previous posts which demonstrate that anti-clericalism
was very much part of all 'progressive' parties in Spain at the
time, including the pro-capitalist republican ones. The
same republican governemnt that had imprisoned 10's of
thousands of anarchists in the 30's also banned religious
holidays for instance! There was of course a very good
reason for this, the role of the Catholic church in justifying
and organising reaction.

By the way from your use of "bourgeois revolutionary movements"
above I presume you are some flavour of Leninist, now that
was a bourgeoise revolutionary movement if ever there was one

--

[Andrew Flood]

James numerous replies have demonstrated you 'web-page'
is a mass of out of context quotes that in many cases
don't even refer to anarchists. I see little point
in re-posting this again

Andrew

[Andrew Flood]

James A. Donald wrote:

As pointed out last week but ignore by James all
the pro-republican parties and unions had militas,
there is no mention of anarchists being involved
in the piece below and if anything it implies
the UGT militia may have been involved! The
evidence however does clearly show that the
CNT/FAI spoke out against assassinations and
took action against those carrying them out,
this meant there were fewer assassinations in
the area anarchists controled (Barcelona) then
there were in Madrid which was controlled by
pro-capitalist republican parties.

> There was a festive enthusiasm in the streets
> [...] At home her father talked more about
> local politics than the war, not that the latter
> was forgotten, but local politics seemed more
> important. He was particularly hostile to the
> masses of people flocking to join the UGT -
> "opportunists without any political
> background" he called them. Soon, however
> a black cloud appeared over the festival. A
> workers patrol set up in a house on the corner
> of the street. It was guarded by two militia
> women. Each night a car drew up and
> sounded its horn.

[James A. Donald]

Andrew Flood <andre...@geocities.com> wrote:
> As pointed out last week but ignore by James all
> the pro-republican parties and unions had militas,
> there is no mention of anarchists being involved
> in the piece below

At that time and place, shortly after the revolution in Barcelona, the
"anarchists" dominated the police force ("worker patrols"). Terror
that took place openly and officially, took place by their permission
and under their supervision.

> > Blood of Spain page 152, Ronald Fraser summarizes
> > the testimony of Maria Ochoa:
> >

> > There was a festive enthusiasm in the
> > streets [...] At home her father talked more
> > about local politics than the war, not that
> > the latter was forgotten, but local politics
> > seemed more important. He was
> > particularly hostile to the masses of people
> > flocking to join the UGT - "opportunists
> > without any political background" he called
> > them. Soon, however a black cloud
> > appeared over the festival. A workers
> > patrol set up in a house on the corner of
> > the street. It was guarded by two militia
> > women. Each night a car drew up and
> > sounded its horn.
> >

> > Maria Ochoa says:
> >
> > We soon discovered what it meant. People
> > were being taken to be shot on the other
> > side of Mount Tibidabo. It was horrifying,
> > oppressive, The car would begin to grind
> > up the hill and we knew the fate of the
> > occupants. My father did not like it. He
> > thought it quite normal that half a dozen big
> > bourgeois exploiters should be liquidated,
> > but not that all these others were being
> > taken to their deaths.

[K MacLeod]

Andrew Flood (andre...@geocities.com) wrote:
: K MacLeod wrote:

[as a source for the claim that FAI militants in Spain shot priests and
homosexuals, more or less on principle]

: > : What book is this?

: > _Anarchism_, published by Penguin. Standard text, reprinted many times.

: Not Woodcock again!! Apperantly Woodcock doesn't bother sourcing
: this particular claim of his, he just states it. Given his
: unreliability elsewhere I'd take it with a huge pinch of
: salt especially as I've not see this particular claim anywhere
: else.

<shrug> Woodcock was an anarchist at the time, knew some Spanish
anarchist exiles personally, and so on. I didn't know the official
anarchist line was that he was factually unreliable. I'll look into the
matter when I have more time.

[snip]

: > Violent anti-clericalism and iconoclasm was part of Spanish anarchism,

: > as it was of many other bourgeois revolutionary movements.

: Ken see my previous posts which demonstrate that anti-clericalism
: was very much part of all 'progressive' parties in Spain at the
: time, including the pro-capitalist republican ones.

That's part of what I meant.

: The same republican governemnt that had imprisoned 10's of

: thousands of anarchists in the 30's also banned religious
: holidays for instance! There was of course a very good
: reason for this, the role of the Catholic church in justifying
: and organising reaction.

It could be argued that this was counter-productive, in that it drove
Catholic believers into the arms of reaction. (I understand that some
libertarian extremists believe that all religious persecution is wrong,
but you're obviously not one of them.)

: By the way from your use of "bourgeois revolutionary movements"

: above I presume you are some flavour of Leninist, now that
: was a bourgeoise revolutionary movement if ever there was one

Since I'll be off the net for a while, I'd better say now that you
presume wrong. Any Leninist would regard calling anarchism a
'bourgeois revolutionary movement' a quite uncalled-for compliment.

From a certain point of view Spanish anarchism and
Russian Bolshevism *both* appear as bourgeois revolutionary movements.
Perhaps every failed (or, for that matter, 'successful')
would-be socialist revolution is, in retrospect, part of the
bourgeois revolution? They've all helped to destroy pre-capitalist
obstacles to the extension of wage-labour and commodity production.

This isn't a view I strongly hold, but it makes me think.

[Andrew Flood]

James A. Donald wrote:
> =

> Andrew Flood <andre...@geocities.com> wrote:
> > As pointed out last week but ignore by James all
> > the pro-republican parties and unions had militas,
> > there is no mention of anarchists being involved
> > in the piece below

=

> At that time and place, shortly after the revolution in Barcelona, the
> "anarchists" dominated the police force ("worker patrols"). Terror
> that took place openly and officially, took place by their permission

> and under their supervision.

The anarchists were the largest force but most of the militants
had left for the front to fight the fascists. All the other
organisations had bodies of armed men and there were also
many unaffiliated groups and individuals using the
oppertunity to get revenge. =

The most infuriating aspect of the use of "The Blood of
Spain" by the anti-anarchist gang is that they are incredibly
dishonest as they seek to imply Frazer would have agreed with
them in painting the anarchist organisations as the villains
in this piece. To do so they have to ignore all the evidence
Frazer presents that the anarchist organisations tried to stop
the popular fury on the streets and at the front from killing
innocent victims. Frazer is hostile to anarchism in his
assumptions but he at least tries to be fair in describing
their actions.

The situation in Spain was one where the anarchists
were in a minorty and although many of their ideas
were influential they did not control the situation, one
militant for instance describes how guns were distributed
in Barcelona

"There was total disorder. We formed a commission and
thereafter all arms were handed only to revolutionary
organisations ... 10,000 rifles, I calculate as well as some
machine guns, were taken. That was the moment when
the people of Barcelona were armed; that was the moment,
in consequence, when power fell into the masses hands. =

We of the CNT hadn=B9t set out to make the revolution but =

to defend ourselves, to defend the working class. To make =

the social revolution, which needed to have the whole of =

the Spanish proletariat behind it , would take another ten =

years....but it wasn=B9t we who chose the moment; it was =

forced on us by the military who were making the =

revolution, who wanted to finish off the CNT once and =

for all.."CNT textile worker Andreu Capdevila quoted
in Blood of Spain, Page 72

At the front for instance

page 132
During the advance of the Militias on Saragossa the village of
Calacite was taken. Soon afterwards the church was set on fire,
according to Frazer the "CNT leader gathered the column and
villagers in the square" and told them "you are burning the
churches without thinking of the grief you are causing your
mothers, sisters, daughters, parents in whose veins flows
Christian Catholic blood"

The CNT understood well that such actions could only alienate those
who would otherwise support them. They hated the church but saw
that with the state out of the way it was a battle of ideology and not
a physical battle that was needed. They moved to stop the acts
of revenge that had broken out on the streets. Frazer recognises
this when he says

page 141
"Little did it matter that leading CNT militants, like Joan Peiro,
fulminated openly against such actions; not that both the CNT
and FAI issued statements categorically condemning
assassinations....Anyone proven to have infringed peoples rights
would be shot - a threat which was carried out when some
anarcho-syndicalist militants were executed"

from 'Blood of Spain' (page 451):

"In July 1936, as soon as the military uprising was crushed, some
2000 people attacked the monastery, burning its pharmaceutical
laboratory and nearly burning its library, reputedly the third most
important in Catalonia for its incunabula. The CNT dispatched men
to prevent it.

"But we were unable to prevent the crowd bringing thirty-eight

monks, including the prior, down to Badalona to kill them. Two
were killed and two wounded en route. Seeing men armed with
pikes bringing the monks in I thought I could see the guillotine
waiting in the square, so much did the scene remind me of the
French revolution..."

He and other CNT leaders had taken precautions, assembling 200 of
their militants in the square where the mob was threatening to kill
the monks. Pistol in hand, the militants arrested the crowd's
ring-leaders, and took the monks back to the monastery."

This is Frazers view of the real situation, not as our 'new speak'
friends would have you believe that the organisations were
secretly carrying out the repression. Instead they went so
far as to execute some of their own militants who had
carried out assassinations.

The revolution in Spain was marked by a massive propaganda
offensive of the right, which presented the revolution as
being a godless, communist monster slaughtering priests
left right and centre. To do this they had to ignore the
fact that in the Basque country the Catholic church supported
the republican government. At the time this propaganda met
with some success, the fascist Blueshirts who left Ireland to
fight for Franco were blessed on the quay sides by the Irish
bishops before they departed.

It is no coincidence that the pro-capitalists today seek to
resurrect the same lies to smear anarchism with but the
actions of the anarchists speak for themselves. The =

anarchist organisations may not have been able to =

prevent all revenge killings but as the Christian =

democrat Maurio Serrahina said of Barcelona which
they controlled

page 154
"People were being assassinated - though in far fewer
numbers then propagandistically had been claimed; in
fact relatively fewer then in other republican cities like
Madrid"

In this brief piece I have not gone into the constructive
work the anarchists carried out. It is this constructive
work that the anti-anarchist gang are trying to scare
you from with their horror stories. If you want to find
out about it have a look at the Spanish section of
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/2419/revoindx.html

-- =

[Tim Starr]

In article <32BA87...@geocities.com>,
Andrew Flood <andre...@geocities.com> wrote:

<SNIP>

>This is Frazers view of the real situation, not as our 'new speak'
>friends would have you believe that the organisations were
>secretly carrying out the repression. Instead they went so
>far as to execute some of their own militants who had
>carried out assassinations.

And the Nazis convicted some of their own soldiers of war crimes for
such things as raping Polish women, too. Which makes perfect sense.
They exceeded their orders. Gratuitous cruelty was reserved for Jews.

All I want to know is what makes the Anarco-Statists of Spain different
from the Nazis in this respect. Pointing out a few examples where they
punished the perpetrators of unauthorized assasinations isn't good enough.

*******************************************************************************
"That rifle on the wall of the laborer's cottage or working class flat is the
symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there!" - George
Orwell, 1940, in the democratic socialist weekly "Tribune," quoted in "Orwell:
The Authorized Biography," by Michael Shelden

"Yes, I am." - "Saint" Anne Pearston, organizer of the British "Snowdrop" Victim
Disarmament petition, when asked if she was in favor of making the UK into a
slave state on the Jim Hawkins BBC-radio show, 5/17/96, by Sean Gabb, editor of
Free Life, the journal of the libertarian Alliance.

[Greg Alt]

In article <timstarrE...@netcom.com> tims...@netcom.com (Tim Starr) writes:

>And the Nazis convicted some of their own soldiers of war crimes for
>such things as raping Polish women, too. Which makes perfect sense.
>They exceeded their orders. Gratuitous cruelty was reserved for Jews.
>
>All I want to know is what makes the Anarco-Statists of Spain different
>from the Nazis in this respect. Pointing out a few examples where they
>punished the perpetrators of unauthorized assasinations isn't good enough.

So far, the only people I've seen make the claim that the anarchists in
Spain were Nazi-like totalitarians have come from James Donald, Bryan
Caplan, Lazarus Long, and you. The pattern I've seen is that James Donald
originated the claims, backing them up with proof-by-repetition. A few
months later, Bryan Caplan used some spare time to compile all of James
Donald's claims into a book-size propaganda piece against the anarchists,
and every once in a while, when you aren't embarrassed by being associated
with James Donald, you and Lazarus Long jump in with some hit and run
posts with no substance.

When I ask for James Donald to give me the name of one person who has
published a book, article, etc., anytime between 1936 and now, making the
same claim that several thousand people were murdered by the anarchists
in Spain, he alternates between simply calling me a liar or reposting
the complete text of his web page which includes no such reference.
When I ask his groupies (that would be you, Long, and Caplan) for a
similar reference, all I get is silence.

So, to answer your question, one very big difference between the Nazis
in Germany and the anarchists in Spain is that countless millions of
people agree about the atrocities of the Nazis (even before Usenet existed),
while it appears that the claims about "totalitarian" anarchists in Spain
originated from one man on the internet based on his personal opinion after
reading a couple of books on the subject.

Your questions are based on the assumption that the anarchists in Spain
were Nazi-like totalitarians, and are equivalent to the old "Have you
stopped beating your wife, yet?"

If you support Donald and his claim that several thousand people were
murdered by the anarchists in Spain, as is apparent by your Nazi comparison,
perhaps you could answer the question he has been either unable or
unwilling to answer all this time? Can you name one person who has made
this same claim in print and point me to it? As with Donald, I have
given up on getting it from a reputable historian, or even an disreputable
historian. Just a person who happened to write the claim down sometime
in the past 60 years and publish it.

I've read a few books from a few of the different points of view, and have
not seen this claim made before. I have not yet read the Stalinist and
Fascist version, but I promise I'll take the time after xmas craziness to
research their versions of events. I don't expect much luck from the
Fascist version, since most of what I've read makes it look like the
Fascists placed the blame for everything on the Communists and other
Marxists. On the other hand, the Stalinists put out a lot of propaganda
against the anarchists, so I might find something there. I will post
whatever I find. In the mean-time, if you have read such claim before,
please let us know.

Greg

[James A. Donald]

ga...@lal.cs.utah.edu (Greg Alt) wrote:
> When I ask for James Donald to give me the name of one person who has
> published a book, article, etc., anytime between 1936 and now, making the
> same claim that several thousand people were murdered by the anarchists
> in Spain, he alternates between simply calling me a liar or reposting
> the complete text of his web page which includes no such reference.

Liar: It contains extensive references of the kind you request, and
many other have repeatedly given such references.

Typically a historian will list several particular incidents, and then
say that this was a bad policy, and when we quote him saying this was
a bad policy you force some strange meaning on his words to say he is
not talking about terror, and when we quote him describing particular
specific incidents of terror, you say that he is not saying these
happened generally, and when we quote him surveying the use of terror
generally you say that each particular item in his survey is not a
general indictment of the "anarchists".

You are right that historians do not say "The anarchists used
totalitarian terror". They say "The republican side used totalitarian
terror", and in their survey of terror they quote incidents at various
times and places, among them incidents in places and at times where
the anarchists held secure control.

No historian has attempted to weigh "anarchist" terror against
socialist terror and Marxist terror in Spain, because there is no
easily measurable difference. The level of terror was roughly
comparable, whoever was in charge.

And here it is again:

From my web page http://www.jim.com/jamesd/blood/terror.htm

Terror in Catalonia



This is a collection of horrors committed by the
"anarcho" socialists of Catalonia: horror stories from
various eyewitnesses,

In this article I make little attempt to put these little
vignettes into a coherent story. These are just the dirty
bits from a larger and more complex story, a story in
which brutality and great inequality of power was
merely one part, though an important part.

These horror stories are for the most part not typical of
everyday life, or even everyday oppression, under the
rule of the "anarchists" of Catalonia. Catalonia was not
Stalin's Russia or Pol Pot's Cambodia, but they were
common enough to instill fear and obedience in
everyone, sufficient to ensure that people "volunteered"
for socialism. (See Bait and switch in Catalonia and
Serfdom in Catalonia.)

So how typical were these horror stories?

Burnett Bolloten, in "The Grand Camouflage" page 41,
quotes Diego Abad de Santillan, La revolucion y la
guerra en Espana p.176

It is possible our victory resulted in the
death by violence of four or five thousand
inhabitants of Catalonia who were listed
as rightists and were linked to political or
ecclesiastical reaction."

Ronald Fraser Blood of Spain p152 states that seven
hundred and three priests and clergy were assassinated
in Barcelona. Only a few of the tales of terror he
describes involve clergy, so we may conclude that the
total terror in Barcelona was many thousands.

Compare this with Pinochet, who murdered three
thousand people out of a vastly larger population
according to the Rettig Report on Human Rights.

OK, there was terror on a vast scale. Next question.
Who did it? Was it an unfortunate consequence of

convicts getting out of jail and the breakdown of order,
as numerous people quoted in these history books

claim, was it a minority of extremists within the anarchist
movement, or was it systematically planned to terrorize
the population into submission? There was a bit of all of
these, but the testimony of those who were afraid
indicates that they primarily expected and feared
organized large scale terror, rather than small scale
random violence, that the killers acted arrogantly,

openly and were unafraid, and that those who opposed

terror acted furtively, with deception and soft words.

The official policy of the FAI and CNT was socialism
without terror, but the actions of the members and
leaders were not consistent with this policy, and their
words and deeds strongly suggest that this policy was
not in fact feasible. (Royo) The words and deeds of the
leaders are consistent with their claim that the terror
was not centrally organized and planned, but their
words, their threats of terror, and the stories given by
eyewitnesses, are inconsistent with the claim made by
some modern day socialists that the terror was
committed by ordinary people. The terror was planned
and organized on a large scale, and was committed by
"anarchist" organizations that looked very much like a
state apparatus, by an "anarchist" police force and by
"anarchist" troops.

The use of a list in Angel Navarro's story, plus the fact
that the killers did not care much who they killed,
shows that those killings were not motivated by revenge
in this case.

Miravitlles quotes the leaders of the "libertarian"
socialists blaming the killings on police that they had
authorized and appointed, which if true would make the
killings similar to the Latin American death squads. In
Domenech's story, he threatens people with the
apparatus of mass murder, implying that it acted directly
under his command. The use of killing fields and holding
pens indicates planned, centralized violence. Latin
American death squads kill their victims themselves and
just throw the bodies into a ditch.

Obviously this was not individuals acting: Individuals

and small groups do not set up killing fields, and they
do not murder people on a regular and predictable
schedule, and they do not have specialization of labor in
production of murder. Individuals and small groups,
such as your typical heavy drinking Latin American
death squad, just dump the bodies in the nearest ditch.

Furthermore, rather than violence ending when the
CNT took control, we see the reverse, escalating
violence once power was firmly consolidated.

Blood of Spain page 140 Joan Domenech, the most
powerful civilian minister in the CNT (in his own
opinion) speaking:

I said "You are the employers [...] right
now if we felt like it we could load you
into a lorry and that would be the end of
it" You should have seen their backsides
wriggling on the chairs!

The reference to a lorry, similar to Stalin's reference to
boxcars, again indicates specialization of labor in the
mass production of murder, not spontaneous violent
action by small groups. If it was just small group action
they would just leave them by the side of the street, the
way the semi unofficial death squads in Latin America
do.

Blood of Spain page 183 Juan Andrade of the POUM
executive committee:

I don't believe that this alone was the
major cause of the PSUC's growth. The
CNT was the reason. The latter terrorized
so many people that in reaction they came
to consider the communists as the party of
order.

Blood of Spain page 146 Juan Miravitlles, an Esquerra
representative on the militia committee, which was the
high command, protested to the "libertarians" on that
committee about the terror. He reports: (page 146)

Day after day we found ourselves on the
committee repeating "why these
assassinations?" [...] A man was killed
because his sister was a nun. [...] They
called a man a fascist simply because he
went to mass. President Companys said
"you are drowning the revolution in blood"
[...] "Tell Companys not to come here
again" Durutti said to me and Tarradelas.
"If he does I will fill him full of bullet
holes."

Durutti was arguably the most powerful military
commander in the CNT. He normally came to
committee meetings wearing a gun. His response to
President Companys's accusation fails to inspire
confidence.

Note that president Companys said "you are drowning
the revolution in blood", not "random street people are
drowning the revolution in Blood", which indicates he
saw the terror as being centrally directed and
organized. The leaders on the militia committee claimed
that the worker patrols were doing it on their own
initiative, but since the patrols accused were organized
and officially authorized by the CNT leaders on the
Militias Committee, this explanation fails to inspire
confidence, regardless of whether it is true or false.

Miravitlles continues, page 150

Their leaders on the committee said the
libertarian movement was not responsible
for the assassinations: "It's the armed
worker patrols. Some of the members are
assassins." But in my view, they couldn't
confront this type of people who
represented for them their own ideology.
With the notable exception of Durutti at
the front, the CNT was always plagued
with indiscipline and didn't know how to
deal with it [...]

Ronald Fraser then describes these worker patrols as
follows

These acted as a revolutionary police
force, and were made up of 700 men -
325 of the CNT, 185 of the Esquerra,
145 of the UGT, and 45 of the POUM.

These were not self appointed worker pontrols, as one
would expect under genuine anarchy, but officially
authorized police, authorized by the militia committee,
an organization that clearly exercised vast power over
Catalonia and over the everyday lives of people in
Barcelona.

Blood of Spain page 359: Fraser quotes Angel
Navarro, a former CNT member, president of the
village of Alloza:

Fraser first describes some men being taken from the
village of Alloza for execution, which description I have
not bothered to include, because that was merely an
example of initial terror to impose CNT authority, not
continuing terror after CNT authority was successfully
imposed. In the following narrative, Carod is the
commander of the Carod militia column, who ordered
the execution of the men mentioned in the first
paragraph, and Franco is an acquaintance of Carod
who strongly opposes the use of terror, especially
against his friends and neighbors.

Fraser says:

Angel Navarro, a smallholder, had seen
the men being driven away, "Now it is
going to start" he thought, and began to
shiver. A former CNT member in
Barcelona member in Barcelona, where
he had gone as a building laborer because
his fathers land was too poor to support
the family, he was shortly appointed
president of the village committee on
Carod and Franco's recommendation. His
sole concern became to avoid bloodshed
in Alloza where, as he knew, opinion
generally favored the insurgent rather than
the popular front cause.
One day a car drew up and half a dozen
militiamen got out with a list of people they
had come to arrest.

Fraser quotes Angel Navarro as saying:

Yes I said. "Have you eaten supper
companions? No. Well, lets go and eat
and we'll talk about it then." We went to
the inn which was run by a relative. I sent
out the town crier to find the man who
held the keys to the man who held the
keys to the collective store to fetch a good
ham, a carafe of wine. When the militia
men had eaten one of them said: "Come
on, we're in a hurry." I feared the worst.
Instead, one of them put his arm round my
shoulder. "Comrade, everyone should be
like you, act as you have." They left. That
night in Alcorisa they shot a lot of people.

Angel Navarro, in the above narrative, clearly expected
organized official terror, when he said "now it begins".
Equally clearly, most of the villagers shared this concern
(See Franco's narrative, page 358)

If the terrorists were a small group of people personally
pursuing petty conflicts they would not have needed a
list, and they would not have arrested people for later
execution. They would have known their enemies and
killed them themselves on the spot. The list and the
arrests indicates specialization of labor in the mass
production of murder. Some group to prepare the list,
some group to operate the killing fields, which indicates
a fairly large and permanent organization of mass
murder.

Blood of Spain page 148: Ronald Fraser summarizes a
report by Joan Roig

At the barber's one day , he heard a man
who was being shaved telling the barber
about the "canaries" he and others took
out every night and shot. Roig turned
away in disgust at the look of pleasure on
his face as he described in detail how the
prisoners pleaded for their lives, how he
pretended they were going to be set free,
and then shot them in the back. "The
worst was when he invited the barber to
accompany him that night to witness the
spectacle".

Once again we see how the murderers acted openly
and unafraid, while those who opposed terror were
frightened and silent.

> perhaps you could answer the question he has been either unable or
> unwilling to answer all this time? Can you name one person who has made
> this same claim in print and point me to it?

Every time we post such a report, you wriggle out. You find some
highly contrived innocent meaning to the words, or you point out that
the historian was pointing to the republican side as a whole.

Yet all reputable historians agree that the republican side engaged in
totalitarian terror, and when they point to examples of such terror,
they frequently point at places and times where the "anarchists" were
clearly dominated.

And when we quote the specific incidents you say: "Well maybe they
were talking about someone else"

[fire ant collective]

James, do you honestly, honestly in you heart assert with a
straight face that the anarchist 'terror' was comparable to the
disappearances of the Pinochet regime? Please tell me that you really feel
this to be the case.

With regard to your continued smear campaign against the
anarchists in Spain, I have a couple of comments. Number one, it's been
a while since I've visited the anarchist usenet forums and I am very
surprised by the the changing tone of your accusations. Though your attack
against anarchism is in many ways just as vicious, and even more detailed
and lengthy than ever, you seem to qualify your words much more
carefully, and you seem to know a lot more about it. In fact the
beginning of this post reads so cautiously as to appear almost
sympethetic to the anarchists, certainly in comparison to posts of yours
which I have read in the past. Clearly you have learned from some of your
previous blunders in lumping the anarchists together with the likes of Pol
Pot (which was much more the tune you were singing a few months ago).
You still, amazingly, seem to rely quite a bit (as Caplan did in his
'FAQ' on anarchism) on the spin which the Bolshevik Communists and the
Russian secret police put on the situation. I find this a wonderfully
ironic way of proving that we are secret marxist totalitarians: by
yourselves getting in bed with marxist totalitarians. Ah, politics!
What I mean specifically is your references to the bourgeois
defecting to the UGT and the Communists in their horror of the 'anarchist
terror'. The truth in this was that they did not ally themselves with the
Communists to save their lives (if the anarchists were such murderers this
should have had the opposite effect, since the Communists were their enemies)
but because of the real crime of the anarchists: collectivising property,
which the Communists opposed for their own sinister reasons.
The 'Republican' borgeois felt that because of their support for the
CNT they should be made exempt from collectivisation, they should be able to
keep their factories and mansions and apartment buildings. When CNT
showed no such favoritism they recoiled in horror, 'this isn't business
as usual!' This was the true anarchist 'terror': economic democracy in
action. This is what you folks truly fear, you certainly don't seem to have a
lot of worries about 'good ol' drunken death squads' per se, what bothers you
about the CNT was COLLECTIVISATION, pure and simple.
I also find it very interesting, that in all of your posts about
anarchists killing priests, you invariably neglect to mention that many
of these priests were shooting at the anarchists (themselves often
unarmed) at the time. You also never mention that church hierarchy often
hired hit men to kill CNT militants in the years before the revolution.
Obviously you know about this as much as you have evidently read, so I
suggest that if you are so convinced that you are in the right, you should be
able to come up with some way to explain this away, expose the reality of it,
instead of selectively obscuring this fact and exxagerating that other.
Another of the major contentious issues between the marxists and the
anarchists which I've never heard you even mention, was the tendancy of the
anarchists to arm the civilians in the areas they captured. Why leave
this out? Why, in your insinuations about anarchists killing their
former bosses, do you never point out that many former employeers took
positions within the collectives factories?
Ultimately, your story relies on a couple of anecdotes, after the
classic North American Conservative fashion, mixed, seemingly in an
intentionally malicious manner, with general tales of 'Republican'
terrors. As a supporter of the CNT, I am not afraid to let the chips fall
where they may, I think the true history of the event, unobscured, has
good and bad sides to it, but overall serves as a remarkable and
compelling example of a very little known, and very, very interesting
real life alternative to our current society. Something unprecidented
and truly new under the sun.
I challenge you to make a more honest assesment of the facts, without
regard to your partisan position, really think about it without searching for
any angle for once. You have become so determined to smear the anarchists that
you have actually now gone out and read about some of what really happened,
and as a consequence your hard line stance seems to have at least superficially
softened already, clearly in the past you had overestimated the
wickedness of the CNT. Perhaps these anarchists are not really your enemy
after all?

Drifter "Bob"

[Tim Starr]

In article <Pine.SCO.3.91.96122...@delta1.deltanet.com>,
fire ant collective <fire...@deltanet.com> wrote:

<SNIP>

> You still, amazingly, seem to rely quite a bit (as Caplan did in his
>'FAQ' on anarchism) on the spin which the Bolshevik Communists and the
>Russian secret police put on the situation. I find this a wonderfully
>ironic way of proving that we are secret marxist totalitarians: by
>yourselves getting in bed with marxist totalitarians. Ah, politics!

Much of the evidence for the Holocaust comes from the Stalinists, too. Does
that make everyone who based their judgements about it on that evidence, at
least in part, is also "in bed with marxist totalitarians"?

> What I mean specifically is your references to the bourgeois
>defecting to the UGT and the Communists in their horror of the 'anarchist
>terror'. The truth in this was that they did not ally themselves with the
>Communists to save their lives (if the anarchists were such murderers this
>should have had the opposite effect, since the Communists were their enemies)
>but because of the real crime of the anarchists: collectivising property,
>which the Communists opposed for their own sinister reasons.
> The 'Republican' borgeois felt that because of their support for the
>CNT they should be made exempt from collectivisation, they should be able to
>keep their factories and mansions and apartment buildings. When CNT
>showed no such favoritism they recoiled in horror, 'this isn't business
>as usual!' This was the true anarchist 'terror': economic democracy in
>action. This is what you folks truly fear, you certainly don't seem to have a
>lot of worries about 'good ol' drunken death squads' per se, what bothers you
>about the CNT was COLLECTIVISATION, pure and simple.

How was this collectivization accomplished? By asking nicely? How, exactly,
did the "anarchists" go about depriving people of their property against
their will?

> I also find it very interesting, that in all of your posts about
>anarchists killing priests, you invariably neglect to mention that many
>of these priests were shooting at the anarchists (themselves often
>unarmed) at the time.

This is the first time I've seen anyone mention this alleged "fact," on either
side of the debate. I don't suppose you have any evidence that the people who
rounded up, put in trucks, taken to ditches, shot, & buried nuns & priests were
acting in "self-defense"? That it was the nuns & priests, not the death
squads, that were the true aggressors?

>You also never mention that church hierarchy often hired hit men to kill CNT
>militants in the years before the revolution.

So how come they didn't simply arrest the ones who did the hiring, give 'em
fair trials, execute 'em, & leave the rest alone?

[James A. Donald]

fire ant collective <fire...@deltanet.com> wrote:

> James, do you honestly, honestly in you heart assert with a
>straight face that the anarchist 'terror' was comparable to the
>disappearances of the Pinochet regime? Please tell me that you really feel
>this to be the case.

Yes indeed, and some of the apologists for "anarchist" terror have
implicitly admitted it. For example somebody pointed out, as evidence
that the terror was insignificant, that in Alloza, a village of a two
or three thousand, a mere two people were murdered by "anarchist"
troops, about one person in a thousand.

While a mere one in a thousand is pretty slight compared to Stalin, it
is similar to, and somewhat bloodier than, Pinochet.

Furthermore in the course of these debates, especially in the debate
about priests and nuns, several present day "anarchists" have asserted
that the liquidation people by social group and political orientation
(democide) was legitimate and acceptable, from which I conclude that
if some of the guys I am debating with had the power, they would kill
me and everyone like me, as their predecessors did.

Now the main reason that so few people were murdered in Alloza is that
in this village the leadership of left and right had conspired
together, each to protect the other against the terror of whichever
side passed through, and leftist village leaders had influence with
the "anarchists" and by bribery and moral pressure, managed to prevent
a dozen murders, and had they failed to prevent the murders, they
presumably would not have told this story. (And had Franco executed
them when he took the village, they would not have told the story
either, so I conjecture that the right held up their end of the
bargain as well.)

I have read two historians who assert that the terror committed by the
"republican" side was not very different in scale from the terror
committed by Franco, and it is clear that where the "anarchists" were
dominant among the "republicans", people primarily feared "anarchist"
terror, thus the terror committed by the anarchists was substantially
greater in scale than the terror committed by Pinochet.

> In fact the
> beginning of this post reads so cautiously as to appear almost
> sympethetic to the anarchists, certainly in comparison to posts of yours
> which I have read in the past. Clearly you have learned from some of your
> previous blunders in lumping the anarchists together with the likes of Pol
> Pot (which was much more the tune you were singing a few months ago).

Pol Pot was a mass murderer who ruled by terror, and the "anarchists"
were mass murderers who ruled by terror. There was and is no big
qualitative moral difference between them, except that Pol Pot was a
good deal more thorough and killed a vastly larger proportion of the
population. The difference is merely quantitative, not qualitative.
All murderers should be killed.

If the tune I sing now seems to you different from the tune I sang
then, then I suspect you are one of the many people in this forum who
feel that a small bit of terror (to impose the will of the "people" on
any of those selfish greedy folk who persist in pursuing their own
personal happiness) is just fine and a necessary part of any good
government. (Non hierarchical good government, of course.)

> You still, amazingly, seem to rely quite a bit (as Caplan did in his
> 'FAQ' on anarchism) on the spin which the Bolshevik Communists and the
> Russian secret police put on the situation.

This is completely untrue: All the historical sources on which we rely
were thoroughly hostile to the communists, and Fraser was strongly
sympathetic to the "anarchists"--mostly because the commies were
insufficiently totalitarian for his tastes.

> What I mean specifically is your references to the bourgeois
> defecting to the UGT and the Communists in their horror of the 'anarchist
> terror'. The truth in this was that they did not ally themselves with the

> Communists to save their lives. [...] but because of the real crime of the
> anarchists: collectivising property.

This was substantially true in the countryside, but not true in the
cities.

Both Fraser and Juan Andrade of the POUM state that "anarchist" terror
was the primary reason that the middle classes joined the communist
party.

Although the communists opposed the collectivization of the peasants,
they imposed the nationalization of the means of production in the
cities.

Therefore the mass enrollment of the middle classes in the communist
party in the cities was motivated by the desire to stay alive. They
joined because if you were a member of the communist party, you could
not be killed arbitrarily. (Except of course by the communists)

> I also find it very interesting, that in all of your posts about
> anarchists killing priests, you invariably neglect to mention that many
> of these priests were shooting at the anarchists (themselves often
> unarmed) at the time.

This story is total fiction, and has been ridiculed by several
historians. Although some monasteries possessed arms, these arms were
never used, even though in many cases all the monks or nuns were taken
to their deaths. This shows that in most cases religious places and
organizations were attacked by an organized group possessing
overwhelming force and an institutionalized apparatus of coercion and
murder--in other words something strongly resembling a government.

> Another of the major contentious issues between the marxists and the
> anarchists which I've never heard you even mention, was the tendancy of the
> anarchists to arm the civilians in the areas they captured.

Another fiction: They disarmed their subjects preparatory to
enserfing them: Here are two eyewitness stories that subject: (You
will find these stories at full length and in greater detail on my web
pages as indicated)

From my web page "Serfdom in Catalonia"

"What sort of equality is this? You ride
around in cars when I need to take my
child to the doctor". They still refused.

[...] I wanted to
leave but I could not. We had no money,
no means, Moreover the committee had
guards posted on the roads. It was terror,
dictatorship.

[...]

We could not get rid of those committee
members. They had the arms.

Ronald Fraser summarizes

For detractors of Aragon collectives,
Fernando's experience was more or less
typical: For supporters exceptional, but
undeniable.

From my web page "Bait and switch in Catalonia:

Page 74: Burnett Bolloten quotes Juan Peiro, one of the
foremost leaders of the CNT, writing in Llibertat,
September 29, 1936:

Does anyone believe [...] that through acts
of violence an interest in or a desire for
socialization can be awakened in the minds
of the peasantry? Or perhaps that by
terrorizing it in this fashion it can be won
over to the revolutionary spirit prevailing in
the towns and cities?

The gravity of the mischief that is being
done compels me to speak clearly. [...]
The first thing they have done has been to
take away from the peasant all means of
self defense [...] and having achieved this
they have robbed him even of his shirt.

> Why leave
> this out?

Because it is a blatant lie.

> Ultimately, your story relies on a couple of anecdotes,

Actually a large collection of "anecdotes", which most people would
call eyewitness testimony of terror

> after the
> classic North American Conservative fashion, mixed, seemingly in an
> intentionally malicious manner, with general tales of 'Republican'
> terrors.

Mixed with non eyewitness generalizations made by people who were
there and presumably had good evidence on which to base those
generalizations.

> As a supporter of the CNT, I am not afraid to let the chips fall
> where they may, I think the true history of the event, unobscured, has
> good and bad sides to it, but overall serves as a remarkable and
> compelling example of a very little known, and very, very interesting
> real life alternative to our current society. Something unprecidented
> and truly new under the sun.

Yet strange to report, the ordinary everyday day to day work and life
of most ordinary urban workers under this system was depressingly
similar to that under Franco.

The fact that you feel it was strange and new suggests to me that you
identify with those who obtained material privilege and the power to
kill capriciously, not with ordinary workers.

[dckom]

On Fri, 27 Dec 1996 06:22:31 GMT c.e., tims...@netcom.com (Tim Starr)
wrote :
>In article <Pine.SCO.3.91.96122...@delta1.deltanet.com>,

>fire ant collective <fire...@deltanet.com> wrote:
>

><SNIP>

>
>> You still, amazingly, seem to rely quite a bit (as Caplan did in his
>>'FAQ' on anarchism) on the spin which the Bolshevik Communists and the

>>Russian secret police put on the situation. I find this a wonderfully
>>ironic way of proving that we are secret marxist totalitarians: by
>>yourselves getting in bed with marxist totalitarians. Ah, politics!
>
>Much of the evidence for the Holocaust comes from the Stalinists, too. Does
>that make everyone who based their judgements about it on that evidence, at
>least in part, is also "in bed with marxist totalitarians"?

No, it simply means that Communist source material should be read with
a fairly jaundiced eye. Like most totalitarian political movements,
Stalinism could tell the truth, selectively.

>
>> What I mean specifically is your references to the bourgeois
>>defecting to the UGT and the Communists in their horror of the 'anarchist
>>terror'. The truth in this was that they did not ally themselves with the

>>Communists to save their lives (if the anarchists were such murderers this
>>should have had the opposite effect, since the Communists were their enemies)
>>but because of the real crime of the anarchists: collectivising property,
>>which the Communists opposed for their own sinister reasons.
>> The 'Republican' borgeois felt that because of their support for the
>>CNT they should be made exempt from collectivisation, they should be able to
>>keep their factories and mansions and apartment buildings. When CNT
>>showed no such favoritism they recoiled in horror, 'this isn't business
>>as usual!' This was the true anarchist 'terror': economic democracy in
>>action. This is what you folks truly fear, you certainly don't seem to have a
>>lot of worries about 'good ol' drunken death squads' per se, what bothers you
>>about the CNT was COLLECTIVISATION, pure and simple.
>
>How was this collectivization accomplished? By asking nicely? How, exactly,
>did the "anarchists" go about depriving people of their property against
>their will?

From what I've seen, most of the collectivized industries, and land
was originally "owned" by fascist supporters, who left little doubt what
there political- military aims where, in the Spanish crisis.Small
land-owners, and craftspeople who wanted to continue to operate as
individualists, were allowed to, and sometimes given access to tools and
materials from the collectives.

>
>> I also find it very interesting, that in all of your posts about
>>anarchists killing priests, you invariably neglect to mention that many
>>of these priests were shooting at the anarchists (themselves often
>>unarmed) at the time.
>

>This is the first time I've seen anyone mention this alleged "fact," on either
>side of the debate. I don't suppose you have any evidence that the people who
>rounded up, put in trucks, taken to ditches, shot, & buried nuns & priests were
>acting in "self-defense"? That it was the nuns & priests, not the death
>squads, that were the true aggressors?

Lets get back to historical fact, here. The aggressors were the
military elite. With significant support from the Church hierarchy, and
various sectors of the land-owning, and industrial bourgeois classes.

>
>>You also never mention that church hierarchy often hired hit men to kill CNT
>>militants in the years before the revolution.
>
>So how come they didn't simply arrest the ones who did the hiring, give 'em
>fair trials, execute 'em, & leave the rest alone?

A neat sounding solution. To a stateist.Are you suggesting that a
revolutionary movement, inspired, to a great degree by libertarian
politics, should set up a military-political tribunal?

David Christian
WSA IWA/AIT

[James A. Donald]

dc...@atlcom.net (dckom) wrote:
> From what I've seen, most of the collectivized industries, and land
> was originally "owned" by fascist supporters, who left little doubt what
> there political- military aims where, in the Spanish crisis.Small
> land-owners, and craftspeople who wanted to continue to operate as
> individualists, were allowed to, and sometimes given access to tools and
> materials from the collectives.

This sometimes happened in the countryside. It generally did not
happen in the cities. In the cities, even barbers and carpenters were
collectivized, a measure that caused bitter resentment.

> > So how come they didn't simply arrest the ones who did the hiring, give 'em
> > fair trials, execute 'em, & leave the rest alone?

> A neat sounding solution. To a stateist.Are you suggesting that a
> revolutionary movement, inspired, to a great degree by libertarian
> politics, should set up a military-political tribunal?

Actually he was proposing trial by jury, instead of arbitrary and
secret executions by a police force privileged with the power of life
and death over their fellows.

[Tim Starr]

In article <32cb20f6...@news.atlcom.net>, dckom <dc...@atlcom.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 27 Dec 1996 06:22:31 GMT c.e., tims...@netcom.com (Tim Starr)
>wrote :
>>In article <Pine.SCO.3.91.96122...@delta1.deltanet.com>,
>>fire ant collective <fire...@deltanet.com> wrote:
>>
>><SNIP>
>>
>>> You still, amazingly, seem to rely quite a bit (as Caplan did in his
>>>'FAQ' on anarchism) on the spin which the Bolshevik Communists and the
>>>Russian secret police put on the situation. I find this a wonderfully
>>>ironic way of proving that we are secret marxist totalitarians: by
>>>yourselves getting in bed with marxist totalitarians. Ah, politics!
>>
>>Much of the evidence for the Holocaust comes from the Stalinists, too. Does
>>that make everyone who based their judgements about it on that evidence, at
>>least in part, is also "in bed with marxist totalitarians"?
>
> No, it simply means that Communist source material should be read with
>a fairly jaundiced eye. Like most totalitarian political movements,
>Stalinism could tell the truth, selectively.

Good. Now, you've made two crucial errors in your attempt to impugn Caplan's
writing by claiming that his "spin" came from communist sources:

1) Caplan didn't write much, if anything, about the Spanish Civil War in his
FAQ. He wrote an entire article about it titled "The Anarcho-Statists of
Spain," which he published on his web site.

2) In "The Anarcho-Statists of Spain," Caplan specifically says that he's not
using any of the evidence that came from the communists. Most of it's from
Bolloten & Fraser.

That puts the truth a far cry away from your insinuations that he's "in bed
with marxist totalitarians."

>>How was this collectivization accomplished? By asking nicely? How, exactly,

>>did the "anarchists" go about depriving people of their property against
>>their will?
>

> From what I've seen, most of the collectivized industries, and land
>was originally "owned" by fascist supporters, who left little doubt what
>there political- military aims where, in the Spanish crisis.Small
>land-owners, and craftspeople who wanted to continue to operate as
>individualists, were allowed to, and sometimes given access to tools and
>materials from the collectives.

Then why should they have any motive to support any of the other political
factions besides the anarchists?

Could it be that they weren't all that free to keep their property after all?
Could it be that they weren't allowed to have anyone else working their land
besides themselves? Could it be that they weren't allowed to sell their
produce to anyone besides the monopoly purchaser controlled by the anarchists?

>>> I also find it very interesting, that in all of your posts about
>>>anarchists killing priests, you invariably neglect to mention that many
>>>of these priests were shooting at the anarchists (themselves often
>>>unarmed) at the time.
>>
>>This is the first time I've seen anyone mention this alleged "fact," on either
>>side of the debate. I don't suppose you have any evidence that the people who
>>rounded up, put in trucks, taken to ditches, shot, & buried nuns & priests were
>>acting in "self-defense"? That it was the nuns & priests, not the death
>>squads, that were the true aggressors?
>
> Lets get back to historical fact, here. The aggressors were the
>military elite. With significant support from the Church hierarchy, and
>various sectors of the land-owning, and industrial bourgeois classes.

So that made it "self-defense" to dispatch death squads to round up all the
members of those clases they could, haul 'em off in trucks, then shoot 'em down
in cold blood & bury them in mass graves?

>>>You also never mention that church hierarchy often hired hit men to kill CNT
>>>militants in the years before the revolution.
>>

>>So how come they didn't simply arrest the ones who did the hiring, give 'em
>>fair trials, execute 'em, & leave the rest alone?
>
> A neat sounding solution. To a stateist.Are you suggesting that a
>revolutionary movement, inspired, to a great degree by libertarian
>politics, should set up a military-political tribunal?

Nope. Trial by a jury of their peers. What's "statist" about that?

[dckom]

On Tue, 31 Dec 1996 06:48:18 GMT c.e., tims...@netcom.com (Tim Starr)
wrote :

>Good. Now, you've made two crucial errors in your attempt to impugn Caplan's

>writing by claiming that his "spin" came from communist sources:

Who are you talking to, Tim? I made no such attempt,in fact I've not even
read the document Mr. Caplan wrote.

>
>That puts the truth a far cry away from your insinuations that he's "in bed
>with marxist totalitarians."

I said no such thing. Are you now confusing me with fireant? You got me
mistaken for Andrew Flood before.

[dckom]

On Tue, 31 Dec 1996 07:12:48 GMT c.e., jam...@echeque.com (James A. Donald)
wrote :

>dc...@atlcom.net (dckom) wrote:
>> From what I've seen, most of the collectivized industries, and land
>> was originally "owned" by fascist supporters, who left little doubt what
>> there political- military aims where, in the Spanish crisis.Small
>> land-owners, and craftspeople who wanted to continue to operate as
>> individualists, were allowed to, and sometimes given access to tools and
>> materials from the collectives.
>

>This sometimes happened in the countryside. It generally did not
>happen in the cities. In the cities, even barbers and carpenters were
>collectivized, a measure that caused bitter resentment.

Nothing much to argue with, here. Except that the building trades were, I
believe, a CNT stronghold. In other words, I doubt it caused much
resentment, if my facts are correct as to the political leanings of
Barcelona building workers.

>
>> > So how come they didn't simply arrest the ones who did the hiring, give 'em
>> > fair trials, execute 'em, & leave the rest alone?
>
>> A neat sounding solution. To a stateist.Are you suggesting that a
>> revolutionary movement, inspired, to a great degree by libertarian
>> politics, should set up a military-political tribunal?
>

>Actually he was proposing trial by jury, instead of arbitrary and
>secret executions by a police force privileged with the power of life
>and death over their fellows.

O.K., I'll admit it, I was being a smart-ass.

We were talking, if I recall correctly, about the pre-war
assassinations. How was a movement under tight government repression to
convene such a trial?

[dckom]

On Sat, 30 Nov 1996 08:30:42 GMT c.e., tims...@netcom.com (Tim Starr)
wrote :

>
>What happened to the line that the "only documented killing of a priest by an
>anarchist was before the war"?

I thought I posted this quite some time ago, but I don't have it. My
apololies if it's a repeat.
Tim, I said that, not Andrew. There is no "line" here, in the
political sense. Andrew and I aren't even in the same organizations.

[fire ant collective]

On Fri, 27 Dec 1996, Tim Starr wrote:

> In article <Pine.SCO.3.91.96122...@delta1.deltanet.com>,
> fire ant collective <fire...@deltanet.com> wrote:
>
> <SNIP>
>
> > You still, amazingly, seem to rely quite a bit (as Caplan did in his
> >'FAQ' on anarchism) on the spin which the Bolshevik Communists and the
> >Russian secret police put on the situation. I find this a wonderfully
> >ironic way of proving that we are secret marxist totalitarians: by
> >yourselves getting in bed with marxist totalitarians. Ah, politics!
>
> Much of the evidence for the Holocaust comes from the Stalinists, too. Does
> that make everyone who based their judgements about it on that evidence, at
> least in part, is also "in bed with marxist totalitarians"?
>

This evidence was also very well corroborated by survivors, by
siezed records of the Nazis, by camps liberated by British and American
troops. Since the Stalinists were the most macchievellian liars in the
world, one does indeed need to take what they said with a grain of salt,
and even in this case there was for example situations such as a large
massacre of Polish civilians which the Soviets blamed on an SS unit but
later turned out to be their own handywork.
Though Caplan did agknowlege the dilemma of relying on soviet
sources for much of his criticism of the anarchists (in some cases
through other third parties who uncricically accepted their claims) he
makes little actual effort to look beyond them. For example, he tries to
criticise the anarchists for having democractic militias, using the
Communist argument that they were inefficient. This seems a very strange
position for an alleged anarchist to take, especially when most non
communist witnesses marveled at the ferocity and efficiency of the
anarchist militias, in spite of their democratic organization, such as
the Durutti Collumn. It is also interesting that he can criticize the
'undisciplined, unprofessional' militias who 'voted on everything' in one
breath while simultaneously trying to paint a picture of an anarchist
inquisition or monolithic secret police. This kind of truly Orwellian
gall springs from relying on these Communist sources.
All I am saying is, I'm sure you could find plenty to criticise
the anarchists about even if you actually did some of your own objective
research, such as the BBC did in their documentary about the event,
without being lazy and trying to rehash NKVD propaganda. But then again
I guess thats pretty typical of 'Conservatives', love to let other people
do your work for you!

> >This is what you folks truly fear, you certainly don't seem to have a
> >lot of worries about 'good ol' drunken death squads' per se, what bothers
> >you about the CNT was COLLECTIVISATION, pure and simple.
>

> How was this collectivization accomplished? By asking nicely? How, exactly,
> did the "anarchists" go about depriving people of their property against
> their will?
>

Much the same way as the British Loyalists in North America were
deprived of theirs, I would imagine, but then again I bet you think that was
ok, right?

> > I also find it very interesting, that in all of your posts about
> >anarchists killing priests, you invariably neglect to mention that many
> >of these priests were shooting at the anarchists (themselves often
> >unarmed) at the time.
>
> This is the first time I've seen anyone mention this alleged "fact," on either
> side of the debate. I don't suppose you have any evidence that the people who
> rounded up, put in trucks, taken to ditches, shot, & buried nuns & priests were
> acting in "self-defense"? That it was the nuns & priests, not the death
> squads, that were the true aggressors?

Um, perhaps you should confer with some of your fascist
colleagues and have them reccomend some good source material about the
event so that you can prepare a less myopic defense. Just to help you
along, it's quite well documented (by the BBC among many others) that the
Right Wing elements within the Catholic Church were using Church
hierarchy to distribute arms to the falangists just before the coup
attempt, and on the 19th, when the rebel army officers made their putsch,
the priets (not the nuns, needless to say) were distributed rifles, and
fired on the passing columns of demonstrating trades unionists, many of
whom had not yet realised the severity of the situation and hadn't
expected to be fired on. Some of the well fortified Church buildings were
strong points for the falangist rabble on that day. Go read about it.

> >You also never mention that church hierarchy often hired hit men to kill CNT
> >militants in the years before the revolution.
>

> So how come they didn't simply arrest the ones who did the hiring, give 'em
> fair trials, execute 'em, & leave the rest alone?
>

There had been a tit for tat series of assasinations going on for
years before the day of the coup, and thanks to the total collapse of the
government it wasn't too easy to control armed militants who had lost
friends and family at their hands.

> *******************************************************************************
> "That rifle on the wall of the laborer's cottage or working class flat is the
> symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there!" - George
> Orwell, 1940, in the democratic socialist weekly "Tribune," quoted in "Orwell:
> The Authorized Biography," by Michael Shelden
>

Since you rather ironically quote Orwell here, I would reccomend
your attention to his excellent book, 'Homage To Catalonia', which is
quite honest (therefore sympathetic) about the anarchists, and describes
among other things his first hand experience of CNT militants passing out
arms ....

"Communication is possible only between equals"
Malaclypse the Younger

DB

[fire ant collective]

On Sat, 28 Dec 1996, James A. Donald wrote:

> >straight face that the anarchist 'terror' was comparable to the
> >disappearances of the Pinochet regime? Please tell me that you really feel
> >this to be the case.
>
> Yes indeed, and some of the apologists for "anarchist" terror have
> implicitly admitted it. For example somebody pointed out, as evidence
> that the terror was insignificant, that in Alloza, a village of a two
> or three thousand, a mere two people were murdered by "anarchist"
> troops, about one person in a thousand.
>

Thank you James, this is going in my archive of Right Wing blunders!

> Now the main reason that so few people were murdered in Alloza is that
> in this village the leadership of left and right had conspired
> together, each to protect the other against the terror of whichever
> side passed through, and leftist village leaders had influence with
> the "anarchists" and by bribery and moral pressure, managed to prevent
> a dozen murders, and had they failed to prevent the murders, they
> presumably would not have told this story. (And had Franco executed
> them when he took the village, they would not have told the story
> either, so I conjecture that the right held up their end of the
> bargain as well.)

Is this a hint? Don't worry James, in spite of your fervent
claims to the contrary, we don't want to shoot you just because you lie
on us and do everything you can to thwart our efforts. All we want to do
is create anarchy, you can work and live the same as everybody else, you
just wont get any more rent checks or royalties to live off of.

>
> I have read two historians who assert that the terror committed by the
> "republican" side was not very different in scale from the terror
> committed by Franco, and it is clear that where the "anarchists" were
> dominant among the "republicans", people primarily feared "anarchist"
> terror, thus the terror committed by the anarchists was substantially
> greater in scale than the terror committed by Pinochet.
>

This is very, very thin at best. It's pretty well established by
any source you want to use (except maybe Berias diary, which would seem
to be your current one) that your friends the Communists were the killers
James. You should go back and work on that bait and switch a little
more, your hand aint quicker than the eye yet...

> > In fact the
> > beginning of this post reads so cautiously as to appear almost
> > sympethetic to the anarchists, certainly in comparison to posts of yours
> > which I have read in the past. Clearly you have learned from some of your
> > previous blunders in lumping the anarchists together with the likes of Pol
> > Pot (which was much more the tune you were singing a few months ago).
>
> Pol Pot was a mass murderer who ruled by terror, and the "anarchists"
> were mass murderers who ruled by terror. There was and is no big
> qualitative moral difference between them, except that Pol Pot was a
> good deal more thorough and killed a vastly larger proportion of the
> population. The difference is merely quantitative, not qualitative.
> All murderers should be killed.

Excellent logic! By this reasoning, the Founding Fathers of the
United States, who killed not a few loyalists and Benedict Arnolds, were
different from Hitler only in degree. In fact since we support their
blood soaked constitution we are by defintion accessories after the fact,
and should be tried and executed by the Kings court. You really should
try out for membership in the RCP or the Sparticusist league, you got the
knack for doublespeak friend!

> > You still, amazingly, seem to rely quite a bit (as Caplan did in his
> > 'FAQ' on anarchism) on the spin which the Bolshevik Communists and the
> > Russian secret police put on the situation.
>
> This is completely untrue: All the historical sources on which we rely
> were thoroughly hostile to the communists, and Fraser was strongly

Then why does Caplan make an excuse at the beginning of his FAQ
for using the Communist sources (complaining, like your frined Tim Star
does recently, that they were right about the Nazis!)

> sympathetic to the "anarchists"--mostly because the commies were
> insufficiently totalitarian for his tastes.
>

I swear, you love 'em! Even here, you wax indignant for your
friends the Communists who were so badly abused by us 'totalitarian
anarchists!'

> > What I mean specifically is your references to the bourgeois
> > defecting to the UGT and the Communists in their horror of the 'anarchist
> > terror'. The truth in this was that they did not ally themselves with the
> > Communists to save their lives. [...] but because of the real crime of the
> > anarchists: collectivising property.
>
> This was substantially true in the countryside, but not true in the
> cities.
>
> Both Fraser and Juan Andrade of the POUM

^^^^^^ a Trotskyist enemy of the CNT... in fact
Trotksy said the same thing in his book about the war, but he wasn't
right either

> state that "anarchist" terror was the primary reason that the middle
> classes joined the communist party.

Right. The 'terror' of social revolution and popular democracy.
That is terrifying to the Middle Class, really terrifying, which is why
people like you spend all your free time fighting with us, and even tend
to defend real fascists in places like Latin America. You LIKE fascism,
you even like Communism because it's fundamentally elitist and
authortirian, what you fear is the empowerment of what you people call
'The Mob'

>
> Although the communists opposed the collectivization of the peasants,
> they imposed the nationalization of the means of production in the
> cities.
>
> Therefore the mass enrollment of the middle classes in the communist
> party in the cities was motivated by the desire to stay alive. They
> joined because if you were a member of the communist party, you could
> not be killed arbitrarily. (Except of course by the communists)
>

> This story is total fiction, and has been ridiculed by several
> historians. Although some monasteries possessed arms, these arms were
> never used, even though in many cases all the monks or nuns were taken
> to their deaths. This shows that in most cases religious places and
> organizations were attacked by an organized group possessing
> overwhelming force and an institutionalized apparatus of coercion and
> murder--in other words something strongly resembling a government.
>

Yeah, they had formed their anarchist totalitarian empire within two
hours of the fascist coup... truly marvelous. I see. And the innocent
Priests sat their leaning on thier rifles, reciting the hail mary over
and over, while the vicious anarchist storm troopers marched in with
Darth Vader in their wake and rounded them up. All the hit men they had
been hiring for years had been hired by anarchist infiltrators into the
seminary just to make them look bad, and probably the Priests who shot
down CNT militants on July 19 were also agents provacateur from the Evil
Empire...

> Another fiction: They disarmed their subjects preparatory to
> enserfing them: Here are two eyewitness stories that subject: (You
> will find these stories at full length and in greater detail on my web
> pages as indicated)
>
> From my web page "Serfdom in Catalonia"

Why don't you go read "Homage to Catalonia" by George Orwell, and
get a clue? What I find even more remarkable than this simple denial, is
another stalinist trick I noticed in Caplans FAQ: actually criticising
the anarchists of starving the front of Arms on the one hand (because
they armed all the people in the rear to prevent your Communist buddies
from taking over) and then out of the other side of the mouth claiming
they took away everybodies guns. Which is it?

> > Ultimately, your story relies on a couple of anecdotes,
>
> Actually a large collection of "anecdotes", which most people would
> call eyewitness testimony of terror

You've been working on this for more than a year of your rapidly
deteriorating life and the best you can come up with is a handfull of
vague anecdotes, which you mix with criticisms of the Stalinists and
complaints by the political rivals of anarchism, and this is the best you
can come up with? It's a joke man, a sad, sad joke. We have plenty of
anecdotes too, James, and a hell of a lot more of them because unlike you
we don't 'refuse to rely on trades union sources' or in other words that
common rabble you so fear and hate, and they sang a vastly different tune.

> > As a supporter of the CNT, I am not afraid to let the chips fall
> > where they may, I think the true history of the event, unobscured, has
> > good and bad sides to it, but overall serves as a remarkable and
> > compelling example of a very little known, and very, very interesting
> > real life alternative to our current society. Something unprecidented
> > and truly new under the sun.
>
> Yet strange to report, the ordinary everyday day to day work and life
> of most ordinary urban workers under this system was depressingly
> similar to that under Franco.

Oh really? And what do all those objective sources you are
reading say about the popularity of the anarchist revolution? Why do you
think the Communists had to forcibly break up collectives with tank columns,
only to have them reform as soon as they left. The only people who were
depressed by the Spanish Revolution were Capitalist zealots such as
yourself, who saw in the anarchist example what you have never seen in
your more familiar enemy the communists: a true and viable alternative to
your protection racket.

> The fact that you feel it was strange and new suggests to me that you
> identify with those who obtained material privilege and the power to
> kill capriciously, not with ordinary workers.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------

Amazingly Stalnist. The Communists and the factory bosses and
the fascists are the ordinary workers, and the seven million Spaniards
who voluntarily joined collectives were wicked malicious killers. You
know the only thing they killed was privelage itself, and thats what
raises the hair on the back of your head.

Privelage = Private Law

Look it up in a dictionary

"Rent is Taxation without representation."

DB

[James A. Donald]

fire ant collective <fire...@deltanet.com> wrote:

> Yeah, they had formed their anarchist totalitarian empire within two
> hours of the fascist coup... truly marvelous.

Exactly so: The "anarchists" first action in Barcelona was to form a
police force, which possessed the privilege of capricious life and
death over their fellows.

fire ant collective <fire...@deltanet.com> wrote:
> > > real life alternative to our current society. Something unprecidented
> > > and truly new under the sun.

> > Yet strange to report, the ordinary everyday day to day work and life
> > of most ordinary urban workers under this system was depressingly
> > similar to that under Franco.

> Oh really? And what do all those objective sources you are
> reading say about the popularity of the anarchist revolution?

Reading Fraser, all the eyewitnesses who said that it was highly
popular were members of the nomenclatura, except for one women who was
a mistress of one of the nomenclatura.

Of course Fraser is a historian, not a pollster, but those few workers
he interviews were at best apathetic about the social order imposed by
the anarchists, and at worst bitterly hostile. None of those who
praise it say it made much difference, and those who say it made a big
difference condemn it passionately.

There is ample evidence that worker control in Catalonia was at best
form, not substance (Stalin also purported to be a big fan of worker
control, recall), and at worst pious euphemism for standard serfdom.

[James A. Donald]

dc...@atlcom.net (dckom) wrote:
> We were talking, if I recall correctly, about the pre-war
> assassinations. How was a movement under tight government repression to
> convene such a trial?

Well firstly I and Tim Starr certainly were not talking about pre
civil war assassinations, secondly you seem to be under the impression
that before the civil war Spain had a right wing government that
engaged in tight government repression of the left. This was not the
case. The government engaged in tight government repression of the
right and employers, and gave unions and revolutionaries a free hand.
The fascist party was banned, not the FAI or CNT.

There was no need for the FAI to operate secretively before the civil
war, and they did not.

In fact the Spanish government was for the most part far to the left
of other European governments, even their "right wing" governments
were not very right wing, and with the election of the extreme left
government shortly before the civil war, it went a lot further still:
The government censored the press, suppressed the fascist party,
intervened in disputes between capital and labor in a confiscatory and
violent manner, confiscated land and capital (though only from the
very rich, not from people like barbers.) and cheerfully tolerated
spectacular acts of lawlessness, notably church burnings.

[Tim Starr]

In article <32d447bf...@news.atlcom.net>, dckom <dc...@atlcom.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 31 Dec 1996 06:48:18 GMT c.e., tims...@netcom.com (Tim Starr)
>wrote :
>

>>Good. Now, you've made two crucial errors in your attempt to impugn Caplan's
>>writing by claiming that his "spin" came from communist sources:
>

>Who are you talking to, Tim?

I thought I was talking to the person who accused Caplan of being in bed with
commies for allegedly using their "spin." If that's not you, then I'm sorry,
but I have a hard time keeping things straight with logins like "dckom" or
"fire ant collective" instead of real names.

[Tim Starr]

In article <32d54938...@news.atlcom.net>, dckom <dc...@atlcom.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 31 Dec 1996 07:12:48 GMT c.e., jam...@echeque.com (James A. Donald)
>wrote :
>>dc...@atlcom.net (dckom) wrote:

<SNIP>

>>>>So how come they didn't simply arrest the ones who did the hiring, give 'em
>>>>fair trials, execute 'em, & leave the rest alone?
>>

>>>A neat sounding solution. To a stateist.Are you suggesting that a
>>>revolutionary movement, inspired, to a great degree by libertarian
>>>politics, should set up a military-political tribunal?
>>
>>Actually he was proposing trial by jury, instead of arbitrary and

>>secret executions by a police force privileged with the power of life

>>and death over their fellows.
>

>O.K., I'll admit it, I was being a smart-ass.

Good. I thought you were being serious!

> We were talking, if I recall correctly, about the pre-war
>assassinations. How was a movement under tight government repression to
>convene such a trial?

By convening it AFTER the repression was lifted, that's how. If it was ever
really under such repression in the first place.

[Tim Starr]

In article <Pine.SCO.3.91.96123...@delta1.deltanet.com>,

fire ant collective <fire...@deltanet.com> wrote:
>
>
>On Fri, 27 Dec 1996, Tim Starr wrote:
>
>> In article <Pine.SCO.3.91.96122...@delta1.deltanet.com>,
>> fire ant collective <fire...@deltanet.com> wrote:
>>
>> <SNIP>
>>
>> > You still, amazingly, seem to rely quite a bit (as Caplan did in his
>> >'FAQ' on anarchism) on the spin which the Bolshevik Communists and the
>> >Russian secret police put on the situation. I find this a wonderfully
>> >ironic way of proving that we are secret marxist totalitarians: by
>> >yourselves getting in bed with marxist totalitarians. Ah, politics!
>>
>> Much of the evidence for the Holocaust comes from the Stalinists, too. Does
>> that make everyone who based their judgements about it on that evidence, at
>> least in part, is also "in bed with marxist totalitarians"?
>>
> This evidence was also very well corroborated by survivors, by
>siezed records of the Nazis, by camps liberated by British and American
>troops. Since the Stalinists were the most macchievellian liars in the
>world, one does indeed need to take what they said with a grain of salt,
>and even in this case there was for example situations such as a large
>massacre of Polish civilians which the Soviets blamed on an SS unit but
>later turned out to be their own handywork.

Yes, the Katyn Forest massacre. I'm aware of that.

> Though Caplan did agknowlege the dilemma of relying on soviet
>sources for much of his criticism of the anarchists (in some cases
>through other third parties who uncricically accepted their claims) he
>makes little actual effort to look beyond them.

Caplan didn't "acknowledge" any such "dilemma," he explicitly avoided the use
of any communist sources in order to avoid having his evidence impugned by
reference to its having come from commies. Yet you insinuate that he really
did use communist sources anyways, without knowing it apparently, through
alleged "third parties who uncritically accepted their claims." Do you have
any evidence of this, or are you merely basing it upon a theory that everything
bad that was ever said about the anarchosyndicalists was lies put out by the
communists or the fascists?

>For example, he tries to criticise the anarchists for having democractic
>militias, using the Communist argument that they were inefficient.

Where? I don't recall that.

>> >This is what you folks truly fear, you certainly don't seem to have a
>> >lot of worries about 'good ol' drunken death squads' per se, what bothers
>> >you about the CNT was COLLECTIVISATION, pure and simple.
>>
>> How was this collectivization accomplished? By asking nicely? How, exactly,
>> did the "anarchists" go about depriving people of their property against
>> their will?
>>
> Much the same way as the British Loyalists in North America were
>deprived of theirs, I would imagine, but then again I bet you think that was
>ok, right?

So you admit that it was done by aggression, coercion, & terror. Thank you.

As for your attempted tu quoque, not only is that a fallacy since two wrongs
don't make a right, your attempt to paint me as approving of the plunder of the
Tories just for being loyal to the Crown is completely misguided. I don't
approve of the wholesale confiscation of Loyalist property that was done
through all the Bills of Attainder passed during the War of American Indepen-
dence, even though I do generally approve of that war.

>>> I also find it very interesting, that in all of your posts about
>>>anarchists killing priests, you invariably neglect to mention that many
>>>of these priests were shooting at the anarchists (themselves often
>>>unarmed) at the time.
>>
>>This is the first time I've seen anyone mention this alleged "fact," on either
>>side of the debate. I don't suppose you have any evidence that the people who
>>rounded up, put in trucks, taken to ditches, shot, & buried nuns & priests
>>were acting in "self-defense"? That it was the nuns & priests, not the death
>>squads, that were the true aggressors?
>
> Um, perhaps you should confer with some of your fascist
>colleagues and have them reccomend some good source material about the
>event so that you can prepare a less myopic defense. Just to help you
>along, it's quite well documented (by the BBC among many others) that the
>Right Wing elements within the Catholic Church were using Church
>hierarchy to distribute arms to the falangists just before the coup

>attempt...

Which would at best be a criminal act meriting arrest & trial by jury, not the
dispatch of death squads to summarily execute all the suspects.

>...and on the 19th, when the rebel army officers made their putsch,

>the priets (not the nuns, needless to say) were distributed rifles, and
>fired on the passing columns of demonstrating trades unionists, many of
>whom had not yet realised the severity of the situation and hadn't
>expected to be fired on. Some of the well fortified Church buildings were
>strong points for the falangist rabble on that day. Go read about it.

Which would at most justify returning fire in self-defense, then arrest & trial
by jury. When were the culprits arrested? When were they tried? Were they
all convicted? Were any acquitted?

Or were death squads simply dispatched to haul them off in trucks for summary
execution & burial in mass graves?

>> >You also never mention that church hierarchy often hired hit men to kill CNT
>> >militants in the years before the revolution.
>>
>> So how come they didn't simply arrest the ones who did the hiring, give 'em
>> fair trials, execute 'em, & leave the rest alone?
>>
> There had been a tit for tat series of assasinations going on for
>years before the day of the coup, and thanks to the total collapse of the
>government it wasn't too easy to control armed militants who had lost
>friends and family at their hands.

One way of controlling them would've been to promise to arrest anyone suspected
of participating in those assasinations, putting 'em on trial before a jury of
their peers, & punishing them accordingly if convicted. Similar to how the
Tutsi government in Ruwanda hopes to prevent revenge killings by putting the
Hutu genocide perpetrators on trial for their crimes.

In fact, now that I think of it, if anyplace should've been subject to an
uncontrollable wave of revenge killings, it should be Ruwanda, where there were
hundreds of thousands killed by the Hutu government-controlled paramilitaries
in deliberate, organized genocide, only to have the Hutu government overthrown
by the Tutsi rebels. The Tutsis have a hell of a lot more of a legitimate
grievance against the Hutus than the anarchosyndicalists had against the
Church, by any reasonable estimate.

Yet the Tutsis haven't engaged in a wave of reprisals against the Hutus, even
though they've had plenty of opportunity to do so. Why do you think that is?

> Since you rather ironically quote Orwell here, I would reccomend
>your attention to his excellent book, 'Homage To Catalonia', which is
>quite honest (therefore sympathetic) about the anarchists, and describes
>among other things his first hand experience of CNT militants passing out
>arms ....

I've read his essay, "Notes on the Spanish War," & intend to read Homage as
soon as I can get hold of a copy.

*******************************************************************************
"That rifle on the wall of the laborer's cottage or working class flat is the
symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there!" - George
Orwell, 1940, in the democratic socialist weekly "Tribune," quoted in "Orwell:
The Authorized Biography," by Michael Shelden

"Yes, I am." - "Saint" Anne Pearston, organizer of the British "Snowdrop" Victim

[James A. Donald]

No he does not describe his first hand experience of CNT militants
passing out arms, and Orwell was sympathetic to CNT ideals, but had no
knowledge of what the CNT was doing on the home front until he
returned to convalesce. He signed up immediately and went to the
front, recall.

Orwell had no knowledge of what was happening on the home front until
he returned to convalesce after being wounded in battle.

When he returned he was horrified by oppression, injustice, and
inequality, and blamed it all on the communists, who were at that time
close to ascendency.

He blames it on the communists because he correctly sees that this
injustice and inequality was the direct result of what he misleadingly
called "state capitalism", by which he meant a centralized
bureaucratic command economy.

But who created this centralized command economy, and why?

The injustice, oppression, exploitation, and inequality he so rightly
condemns, injustice radically contrary to what he and those with him
were fighting for, occurred BEFORE the communists seized overt
dominance.

To say "Everything used to be lovely" was merely a rationalization for
having fought for a revolution that, when he returned and spent more
time seeing it, turned out to be evil. He never actually saw it being
lovely. He only saw the superficial appearance when he arrived and
signed up, and when he took a longer look he was horrified.

When he first arrived and very briefly saw the home front, He was
hugely impressed by the revolutionary fervor, some of which, for
example the incident of the barber, was obviously the result of fear
and not genuine support. He was also impressed by the apparent
absence of class distinctions, though we know that at the time former
members of the middle class where disguising themselves as working
class in order to avoid summary execution.

But who created this centralized command economy that so horrified
Orwell, and why?

First who created it:

The "Anarchists" created this command economy. They did it to
themselves. In August 1936, the "Anarchist" leadership - a bunch of
middle class theoreticians and their pistoleros, decided, without
consulting the workers, to form a government with the communists --
and decided to consolidate the many small collectives into a small
number of much larger union run collectives, and to socialize many
collectives.

In the language of the Catalan revolution, "socialization" meant to
bring a collective under direct state control, to make it part of the
command economy.

The leadership were not forced by the communists to abandon anarchism
in February 1937. They chose of their own will to abandon anarchism
in August 1936, and it took them until February to completely suppress
anarchy.

Between August 1936 and February 1937 there was a rapid succession of
such consolidations, and by February 1937 almost every thing was under
the direct control of the state, a full blown top down command
economy, with the "collectives" reduced to meaningless arbitrary
administrative subdivisions amongst a faceless mass of anonymous
interchangeable slaves.

Not only did the anarchists abandon their principles when they did
this, but also, since the government was half communist whereas the
unions were mostly anarchist, they also handed over vast amounts of
power and wealth to their enemies.

Next question:

Why?

Because of "The crisis of supply"

What exactly was the "Crisis of supply". Anarchists have emitted much
fog on this question, but the bottom line is that without property
rights production almost totally ceased, and everything was stolen or
destroyed.

Orwell remarks that every liberated building was strewn with broken
furniture, garbage, trash, and sometimes human excrement, that
everything was utterly destroyed. He remarks how any small valuable
item immediately vanished if it was not continuously protected, he
casually mentions how when he found some curtains "by some miracle"
intact, he immediately ripped them down to make a nest for himself
amidst the rubbish.

In other words, the anti property anarchists lived like hunters and
gatherers in the wilderness of a collapsed civilization. Under the
conditions that Orwell describes, obviously no one could produce
anything, and no one would wish to. Wherever the militia went, and
sincerely imposed their anti property ideals, there was chaos and
ruin. Thus the anarchists were faced with a choice between allowing
small groups to assert property rights, which happened to some extent,
and asserting property rights for the state. They tried both courses
of action, separately and together, but the former course very plainly
led to capitalism, so in the end they primarily chose the latter
course.

Orwell failed to see the connection between the chaos, filth, ruins,
and rubbish that surrounded the real anarcho socialists that he
describes, and the fact that the leadership of the anarchists
abandoned anarchism in August 1936. He did not realize that the mess
was not merely aesthetically objectionable, it was also incompatible
with normal production.

Orwell thought that the reappearance of massive inequality was caused
by the communists gaining power, and the anarchists somehow losing it,
but it was mystery to him how this curious transfer of power had
happened.

He was wrong. The reappearance of inequality and the communist gain
of power both had the same cause -- the anarchist leadership, in
August 1936, without consulting the workers, decided a command economy
was more desirable to protect against the economic collapse caused by
the absence of property rights, and the reappearance of capitalism
caused by collectives successfully reasserting property rights.

[fire ant collective]

I'm sure not all of the anarcho capitalists are as virulently
hostile to anarchism in Spain as James Donald appears to be, but clearly
some people find this example such a threat to their own belief system
that they feel compelled to fabricate, distorte, and manipulate History in
order to discredit them. At this point I would say, why don't we try to
raise the level of this debate a little and have a more honest assessment
of what really happened, it's certainly not all positive any more than
it's all negative. What are you afraid of?

Date: Wed, 01 JAN 1997 07:35:43 GMT James Donald
wrote:

>engaged in tight government repression of the left. This was not the
>case. The government engaged in tight government repression of the
>right and employers, and gave unions and revolutionaries a free hand.

James, since you seem to have a rather dim understanding of the
political situation in Spain before the civil war, I'll try to explain to
you. It's true that in 1936 Spain was ruled by a 'Republican' government
which was relatively Liberal and democratic, (which was why it was
overthrown by Franco) but the previous government, elected in 1933 (when
the anarchists abstained from voting, incidently) was extremely right
wing, and initiated a very harsh crack down on the anarchist and socialist
unions, executing dozens of labor militants and imprisoning several
thousands for no other crime than being in a union. CNT was banned for
90% of it's history, and broke up and reformed several times.
Before 1933 there was a fifty year history of very harsh repression
from super reactionary governments, including both military dictators and
"Kings", followed by occasional liberal reform governments and temporary
republics. The repression of the anarchists by all of these governments,
including the 'republican' ones, is very well documented by every
historian, left, right or center, that I've ever read. Your amazing claim
that various governments lovingly coddled the anarchist labor movement is
almost hilarious.
The sharpest period of repression was between 1919 and 1923, when
some leading figures in the military and the Catholic church led an effort
to eradicate the libertarian labor movement once and for all. They
succeeded in liquidating almost all of the anarchist labor activisits,
militants, press, teachers, and artists in Spain, either having them
executed by mercenary hit men called 'Pistoleros', most of whom hired by
land owners and high ranking clergy, or 'shot in the back while trying to
escape' from the police, a phrase which was used so often it was
considered a cliche. It was after this 'heroic period' that the once
almost naively idealistic CNT began resorting more and more to more hard
core tactics of terrorism and armed resistance.

>The fascist party was banned, not the FAI or CNT.

It continuously facinates me how you alleged 'libertarians' seem so
sympathetic to fascists everywhere.

>There was no need for the FAI to operate secretively before the civil
>war, and they did not.

Almost every FAI militant had spent most of their carrers in prison
before the civil war, and the organization was in fact clandestine. As an
example I'd suggest a look a the life of the infamous FAI militant and
militia commander Bueneventura Durruti, who was arrested something like 50
times, exiled, sentanced to death, hat hits put on his head, etc. etc..
Please go do some more research.

>In fact the Spanish government was for the most part far to the left
>of other European governments, even their "right wing" governments
>were not very right wing, and with the election of the extreme left

Not very right wing!!! You call a KING left wing? What color is the
sky in your world, Donald?

>government shortly before the civil war, it went a lot further still:
>The government censored the press, suppressed the fascist party,

Again, I sense maudlin sympathy for the fascists. Your concept of
'liberty becomes clearer every day...

>intervened in disputes between capital and labor in a confiscatory and
>violent manner, confiscated land and capital (though only from the
>very rich, not from people like barbers.) and cheerfully tolerated
>spectacular acts of lawlessness, notably church burnings.

Hmmm... since the christians were so nice, why do you think the
Spanish peasantry and working class liked to burn down churches so much?

Date: Wed, 1 JAN 1997 08:15:57 GMT Tim Starr <tims...@netcom.com>,
confused as usual, wrote: >I thought I was talking to the person who

accused Caplan of being in bed with
>commies for allegedly using their "spin." If that's not you, then I'm

>but I have a hard time keeping things straight with logins like "dckom" or
>"fire ant collective" instead of real names.

You can call me Ray, or you can call me Jay, but you best not call me
PC!

>Yes, the Katyn Forest massacre. I'm aware of that.

Well, maybe you better think about that next time you are reading
NKVD press releases about anarchist 'terrors'.

>Caplan didn't "acknowledge" any such "dilemma," he explicitly avoided
>the use of any communist sources in order to avoid having his evidence

Actually, he used the same exact argument (about the Holocaust) that
you did. He claimed to avoid direct Communist sources, even admitting
that they had launched a dishonest smear campain against the anarchists,
but admitted that a lot of the basic arguments which were used by later
historians were based on them.

>reference to its having come from commies. Yet you insinuate that he
>really did use communist sources anyways, without knowing it apparently,

you mean 'anyway'

>alleged "third parties who uncritically accepted their claims." Do you
>have any evidence of this, or are you merely basing it upon a theory

>bad that was ever said about the anarchosyndicalists was lies put out by

>communists or the fascists?
I'm using Caplans own statements in the introduction of his FAQ as my
basis.

>>For example, he tries to criticise the anarchists for having democractic
>>militias, using the Communist argument that they were inefficient.

>Where? I don't recall that.

Please go read it again, I'd rather not wade through the filthy
thing to find you quotes unless I absolutely have to.

>dence, even though I do
generally approve of that war.

Ah, so you are just barely to the left of the Tory Loyalists of 1804?
How progressive these libertarians!

>>expected to be fired on. Some of the well fortified Church buildings
>>were strong points for the falangist rabble on that day. Go read about

>Which would at most justify returning fire in self-defense, then arrest
>& trial
Hard to do because most of the union militants didn't have any guns.

>by jury. When were the culprits arrested? When were they tried? Were
>they all convicted? Were any acquitted?

Generally speaking, trials while under fire in a 'combat zone' are
pretty rare, when they do exist they are generally summary and harsh.
Yet, in reality, most anybody who was willing to participate in the
revolution, or at least not actively sabotage it, was 'acquitted' and even
welcomed into the 'new society', whether they were factory owners or
Priests or whatever. This was a well known policy (considered naive by
the Communists) of the anarchists in Spain for fifty years and was the
rule rather than the exception, the CNT believed that the guillotine was
the enemy of the common people, since whatever reason might promt you to
bring it out in the name of justice, it has a tendancy to take on a life
of it's own. The anarchist revolution has always included everybody,
friends and enemies alike, since ultimately we will all have to live
together.

>Or were death squads simply dispatched to haul them off in trucks for

>1summary execution & burial in mass graves?
Puhleease. You can't honestly expect anybody to believe that.

>by the Tutsi rebels. The Tutsis have a hell of a lot more of a legitimate
>grievance against the Hutus than the anarchosyndicalists had against the
>Church, by any reasonable estimate.
>Yet the Tutsis haven't engaged in a wave of reprisals against the
>Hutus, even though they've had plenty of opportunity to do so. Why do
>you think that is?

Actually this is a very good example. There were SOME retaliatory
killings by the (incidently, socialist) Tutsi Rebels, just very few
because like the anarchists in Spain they didn't believe in revenge as a
tactic, they saw it as self defeating (lets hope they continue to do so).
By and large the situation there is a good example of the way the
anarchists behaved when they won thier revolution, inspite of all the
inflamatory rhetoric of people like your colleagues James Donald and Bryan
Caplan.
If they had wanted to, the anarchists in Spain could have killed
every boss, every priest, in half of Spain..

>>I've read his essay, "Notes on the Spanish War," & intend to read Homage
> as soon as I can get hold of a copy.

I reccomend it, though your friend James evidently thinks the whole
thing was a big Acid flashback....There was also an OK movie made recently
called 'Land and Freedom' which was loosely based on that book. "James A.

Donald" <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>No he does not describe his first hand experience of CNT militants
>passing out arms, and Orwell was sympathetic to CNT ideals, but had no
>knowledge of what the CNT was doing on the home front until he
>returned to convalesce. He signed up immediately and went to the
>front, recall.
>Orwell had no knowledge of what was happening on the home front until
>he returned to convalesce after being wounded in battle.

Quickly yes, but not immediately. He didn't ship out the first day he
arrived in Barcelona, even though it sort of seems that way from the way
he wrote the book.
Nor was he cut off from the developments in the rear while at the front,
because they were arguing about all the political developments of the
revolution constantly and in constant touch with various militants, and
lets not forget, Orwell was in an organziation (the POUM) which though
nominally allied with the anarchists due to the hostility of the other
communist groups, was generally very critical of the CNT, especially in
the beginning of the revolution, so it's not like he was being brainwashed
by CNT propaganda.

In fact Orwell points out that when he first got into Spain he was very
skeptical of the anarchists in particular, of everything from their
intransigent resistance to the centralizing tactics of the Republican
government to their democracticaly run militias, and only gradually came to
agree that they were in the right.
This is almost exactly the opposite of what you seem to be trying to
assert here.
Furthermore, when he did come back to convalesce, he had time to
ascertain what was going on, it wasn't that difficult.
The CNT was an open and democratic structure, they didn't hide things
from the rank and file...

>When he returned he was horrified by oppression, injustice, and
>inequality, and blamed it all on the communists, who were at that time
>close to ascendency.
>He blames it on the communists because he correctly sees that

it was their fault.

It seems rather ironic for you to paint George Orwell, who was not only
an eyewitness but well known as possibly the worlds greatest skeptic and
debunker of 'Orwellian' trickery, as being this blind idealist you claim
he was.
You an internet pundit who thought all prewar Spanish Governments were
left wing and the CNT was worse than Pinochet, claim to have a superior
understanding of the situation to Orwell, the hardened critic, experienced
journalist, born skeptic, and eyewitness. Amazing gall.

>were fighting for, occurred BEFORE the communists seized overt dominance.

Obiviously by the time they siezed OVERT dominance they had already
defeated the anarchists.

The efforts against the CNT were obviously due entirely to macchiavellian
manipulations of the Communists and their bourgeois allies, as everybody
witnessing the event, not only Orwell but Frazier and almost every other
authority familiar with it, was well aware.
Given the fact that unlike the Communists, the Capitalists, and the
Fascists, the anarchists have never had any governments, universities, or
PR campaigns spreading their side of the story, how is it you think so
many people with direct knowlege of what happened sided with them? Were
the anarchists master hypnotists?


Hey!
Maybe we are!
Your'e getting sleepy James, sleepy.
You must go to your bank and withdraw your money.
You must purchase arms and give them to the homeless. You must make a
$1,000 donation to the IWW.
You must volunteer to join the EZLN.
You must go start a collective beer company James, and give free beer to
fire ants whenever we pass through town!

(Let me know if any of that worked, I may be ready for a new carrer on
psychic friends network...)

> He only saw the superficial appearance when he arrived and
>signed up, and when he took a longer look he was horrified.
>When he first arrived and very briefly saw the home front, He was
>hugely impressed by the revolutionary fervor, some of which, for
>example the incident of the barber, was obviously the result of fear
>and not genuine support.

!!! What a fool Orwell was! He was such an addle headed idealist, I had
no idea! You should write an exposee of him.

>The "Anarchists" created this command economy. They did it to

...deny their militia columns arms, imprison and torture and murder
themselves, ban their own unions, disband their collectives. Yeah. Right.

>in August 1936, and it took them until February to completely suppress
>anarchy.

At least you admit anarchy was going on till then.
I thought the anarchist reactionary evil Empire had been formed in the
first two hours of the revolution? >Between August 1936 and February 1937

there was a rapid succession of >such consolidations, and by February 1937
almost every thing was under >the direct control of the state, a full
blown top down command >economy, with the "collectives" reduced to
meaningless arbitrary >administrative subdivisions amongst a faceless mass
of anonymous >interchangeable slaves.

Right.
And all of this was implimented by the Communists.
Do you deny that the greatest amounts of freedom were retained in the
anarchist controlled areas?

>Not only did the anarchists abandon their principles when they did
>this, but also, since the government was half communist whereas the
>unions were mostly anarchist, they also handed over vast amounts of
>power and wealth to their enemies.

They co-operated with the other republican groups because they
did not want to impose tyranny. You damn 'em either way they go, and as
an apparant friend of fascism you cannot understand why they did not
attempt to sieze power within the republic when they could have... You
find it impossible to understand that their goal was to eliminate power
itself...

Here you display your amazing ignorance of this period you are discussing
with such an authoritative tone once again. You sound so confident of
your facts I keep forgetting you just started reading about it.
Actually James, the UGT, a socialist union which eventually became
controlled by the communists and which had always been very hostile to the
CNT and the anarchists, had slightly more
members than the CNT, roughly 55% of the organized workers.
This was one of the reasons the anarchists had to co-operate with their
enemies, who I agree took advantage of this,


Now look, it's true ther were a few CNT people who got involved in the
provissional government, (many of whom were later expelled from or quit
the CNT) and in a way CNT made a deal with the devil. But they had few
choices at all.
The harsh fact is that if you make a real revolution anywhere in the
world you are going to be killed no matter what.
This is well understood and often harshly criticized in anarchist
circles, but they really were between a rock and a hard place.
Number one they didn't believe in trying to impose an anarchist
'dictatorship' even when they maybe could have in the first few days,
since that ain't anarchist, and number two, they balked at basically
getting in a civil war with all the other republicans when they were
already up against the active antipathy (and arms!) of the Nazis, the
Italian Fascists, the Spanish Army, and the Vatican, and the economic
blockade and hostile military presence of the British and French (the
British Parliment actually debated sending arms to Musillini at one point,
and their mighty Navy lurked in the Barcelona harbour from the
beginning...)


This may have been a mistake, as it began to become evident that the
Republican government would for example not allow any ammunition or guns
to go to anarchist units fighting at the front, even though they seemed to
be by far the most effective, and increasingly made efforts to attack
everything the anarchists did.
A lot of people in CNT and FAI wanted to make a radical break with the
government, at one point even hatching a plan to steal Spains large gold
reserve so they could use it to buy arms from the Swiss, but there was no
way to ratify the plan to the whole union in time and it was eventually
abandoned.
In the end the Communists arranged to give the whole thing to the
Russians...


In any event, I must say I find your cynical misrepresentation, actually
literally blaming the anarchists for engineering their own suppression, to
be particularly dishonest and macchiavellian.
If you have any doubts about the Communists making up lies about the
anarchists, honestly examine some of your own tactics and I think you can
see how the proccess works.

>Next question:
>Why?
>Because of "The crisis of supply"

Arrgh!
Now you got to dig up your hokey freshman economics lesson.

>What exactly was the "Crisis of supply". Anarchists have emitted much
>fog on this question, but the bottom line is that without property
>rights production almost totally ceased, and everything was stolen or
>destroyed.

Please.
You know for example, that most areas of production increased
very significantly during the anarchist collectivisations.
Caplan himself admitted this, trying to explain it away as inevitable due
to the previous inefficiency of the cacique (feudal) system.
Major cash crops like oranges, for example increased 50%, electricity and
public transit, and many productive industries were vastly improved.
When the system did start to break down it was due to the Government and
the Communists strangling it, as you yourself undoubtedly are aware. >In

other words, the anti property anarchists lived like hunters and
>gatherers in the wilderness of a collapsed civilization. Under the

if this was the case, and the anarchist zones were like road warrior or
escape from New York, why did they have to send in the German, Italian,
and Spanish armies, plus the Soviets undermining it from inside, to smash
the revolution?
You'd think it would have collapsed within days if it was anything like
this!

>ruin. Thus the anarchists were faced with a choice between allowing

>smallgroups to assert property rights, which happened to some extent,

At last he admits it!

>and asserting property rights for the state. They tried both courses
>of action, separately and together, but the former course very plainly
>led to capitalism, so in the end they primarily chose the latter
>course.

No, actually the most radical 'communist' experiments were largely given
up in favor of more limited collectivism, which was anarchist politically
but allowed for a considerable amount of individualist economics.
It's very well established that a wide variety of economic experiments
were carried out from the beginning, since it was not economics so much as
liberty which concerned the anarchists, and the economic systems in use
were flexible so long as they did not restrict that liberty the way the
robber baronism and feudal aristocracy had previously done so.
In other words, any system either enterpeneurial, individualist, or
collectivist was ok so long as it worked and reasonably represented the
needs of the people.

>Orwell thought that the reappearance of massive inequality was caused
>by the communists gaining power, and the anarchists somehow losing it,
>but it was mystery to him how this curious transfer of power had
>happened.

It wasn't a mystery to him or anyone else.
The Communists gained power because Soviet Russia was the only foreign
country supporting the Spanish Republic against Germany and Italy, and the
NKVD made damn sure that nobody got any of their arms except for their
Communist friends. No mysterious laws of economics came into play, just
sinister Geopolitique.

>He was wrong. The reappearance of inequality and the communist gain
>of power both had the same cause -- the anarchist leadership, in
>August 1936, without consulting the workers, decided a command economy
>was more desirable to protect against the economic collapse caused by
>the absence of property rights, and the reappearance of capitalism
>caused by collectives successfully reasserting property rights.

Thier biggest mistake was underestimating the macchiavellian evil of
the Communists, they did not realise they were ready to sacrifice Spain
in order to crush the revolution.
The anarchist leadership didn't exactly shine, but anarchists don't
follow thier 'leaders' too much as a rule, and even after some CNT
officials were bullied into increasing concessions to the Communist
government, the rank and file refused to go along and had to be attacked
by the government troops over and over again before they could crush
anarchy.


Needless to say, the anarchist experiment did not 'fail' due to it's own
flaws, it was crushed by the aggressive intervention of the Right wing
elements of Spain combined with the mighty assets of three totalitarian
nations and the bottomless coffers of the Vatican.
In the event, the fledgling anarchist economy showed mixed success, some
industries floundering, others doing phenomenally well.
Again, any marginally neutral third party source agknowleges the
sometimes shockingly spactacular successes as well as the failures.
The remarkable and unprecidented thing is that it succeeded at all.


It is remarkable, and very alarming, to Communists, that without any kind
of vanguard leadership or party discipline, working people were able to
carry out a revolution, a revolution which which replaced the marxist
'dictatorship of the proletariat' with the reality of liberty for all, a
revolution which went much further and was much more radical than anything
which ever happened in Russia politically as well as economically.

It is similarly alarming to Capitalists such as yourself, that uneducated
workers and farmers were able willy nilly to spontaneously abolish large
scale ownership of the means of production, and run a large part of the
economy of amodern European nation all by themselves.
According to your theories their revolt should have collapsed upon itself
almost immediately, but in reality, while some mistakes and blunders were
made, by and large a bunch of idealistic union militants were able to
reinvent a vital economy which improved life on the home front for most
workers and produced enough materiel to fight a war against the armies of
three nations for a year, and in fact showed no signs whatsoever of
faltering until it was ripped apart from Communist treachary within and
Fascist aggression from without.


In spite of the ultimate suppression of the anarchist revolt, and in
spite of past efforts by Communists and current efforts by Laisses faires
Capitalists to smear these simple, brave idealists, the facts remain
untainted.
In Spain in 1936 ordinary people raised a black banner and created a new
kind of revolution, in which women were liberated, in which grass roots
democracy controlled day to day life instead of distant bureacracies, in
which education and health care were free, in which liberty and creativity
were encouraged and impowered instead of oppressed, in which power sprang
from the bottom up instead of the top down.


In 1936 through the efforts of ordinary people the perrenial
revolutionary ideals of liberty, egality, and
fraternity were, if only for a moment, realised.


This is both the threat and the promise of the anarchist alternative.
It is no accident that the enemies of the anarchist revolution chose the
Roman fasci as their symbol- not since the Romans crushed our original
democracies have we been allowed to believe we could run our own lives,
but people are beginning to realise it once again.
Tyrants
beware!
This is why so much effort is currently being made to duplicitously
discredit anarchism here on the internet, just like anarchism in practice
60 years ago, the flame will not go out by itself, it needs to be
smothered very, very vigorously.
DB
'I am here to tell you that you are free'
Eris esoterica, OUR LADY OF PERPETUAL CHAOS
'Freedom is the precondition for aquiring the maturity for freedom.'
Kant


>******************************************************************************

[Rich Graves]

The person(s) behind the nym "fire ant collective" <fire...@deltanet.com>
wrote a beautiful article, including:

> I'm sure not all of the anarcho capitalists are as virulently
>hostile to anarchism in Spain as James Donald appears to be, but clearly

No, James is an aberration, even among cryptoanarchist capitalists. I think
he's uniquely disinformed. Most "right libertarians" make no attempt to
reference history, believing that "taxes are theft!" is a sufficient answer
to any argument, empirical or theoretical. James' personal view of history
is just that -- personal.

>>In fact the Spanish government was for the most part far to the left
>>of other European governments, even their "right wing" governments
>>were not very right wing, and with the election of the extreme left
> Not very right wing!!! You call a KING left wing? What color is the
>sky in your world, Donald?

Everything's red.

[remedial history lesson snipped]

>>government shortly before the civil war, it went a lot further still:
>>The government censored the press, suppressed the fascist party,
>
> Again, I sense maudlin sympathy for the fascists. Your concept of
>'liberty becomes clearer every day...

Indeed.

>>Yes, the Katyn Forest massacre. I'm aware of that.
>
> Well, maybe you better think about that next time you are reading
>NKVD press releases about anarchist 'terrors'.

I think you misunderstand each other. On the "libertarian" right, the
victims of the Katyn massacre were the poor Nazis who were blamed for it,
not the Poles who were killed. I don't think your correspondent is aware
of what actually happened in the slightest; he's only aware of Goebbels'
attempts to score propaganda points from the discovery in 1943, the attempts
of the NKVD to whitewash what they did, and the disingenuous attempts of
modern neo-Nazis and dogmatic anti-communists like Robert Conquest (the
"and" separates two completely different groups) to spread disinformation
about the alleged complicity of the Western Allies in the NKVD coverup.

> In any event, I must say I find your cynical misrepresentation, actually
>literally blaming the anarchists for engineering their own suppression, to
>be particularly dishonest and macchiavellian.
> If you have any doubts about the Communists making up lies about the
>anarchists, honestly examine some of your own tactics and I think you can
>see how the proccess works.

Touche.

[apologies to all for snipping the context; I just had to throw in a "me
too"]

>>Orwell thought that the reappearance of massive inequality was caused
>>by the communists gaining power, and the anarchists somehow losing it,
>>but it was mystery to him how this curious transfer of power had
>>happened.
>
> It wasn't a mystery to him or anyone else.
> The Communists gained power because Soviet Russia was the only foreign
>country supporting the Spanish Republic against Germany and Italy, and the
>NKVD made damn sure that nobody got any of their arms except for their
>Communist friends. No mysterious laws of economics came into play, just
>sinister Geopolitique.

Yup.

[ditto]

> Needless to say, the anarchist experiment did not 'fail' due to it's own
>flaws, it was crushed by the aggressive intervention of the Right wing
>elements of Spain combined with the mighty assets of three totalitarian
>nations and the bottomless coffers of the Vatican.

Huh? The bottomless coffers of the Vatican? Where'd that come from? Somebody
doesn't like the Church, does she. One unsupported weak point in an
otherwise fine article.

> In spite of the ultimate suppression of the anarchist revolt, and in
>spite of past efforts by Communists and current efforts by Laisses faires
>Capitalists to smear these simple, brave idealists, the facts remain
>untainted.

I disagree. Who reads history anymore? :-(

> In Spain in 1936 ordinary people raised a black banner and created a new
>kind of revolution, in which women were liberated, in which grass roots
>democracy controlled day to day life instead of distant bureacracies, in
>which education and health care were free, in which liberty and creativity
>were encouraged and impowered instead of oppressed, in which power sprang
>from the bottom up instead of the top down.

Here you get a little kooky, I think, but you hit the nail on the head as
to why the "capitalist anarchists" don't like you. For all their talk about
"freedom," there's really very little there about individual liberty. It's
people who own the machines wanting to run their machines the way they want,
governments or people who get in the way be damned. What's the chance that
a Libertarian [the party/"movement"] is a white male earning more than
double the median income? 90%?

But back to you, since this isn't softball.

I'm curious: what do y'all think of Hernando Cortez? I mean the Peruvian
economist, founder of the ILD, and author of "El Otro Sendero"; not the
conquistador. While some of his research findings are bunk, I think he's
a really cool guy. Based on his writings and conversation over lunch, I
think he's agree with much of what you say above. But some in the
"anarchist left" despise him because he doesn't like the Sendero Luminoso
or Tupac Amaru. At all.

-rich

[Lazarus Long]

rcgr...@disposable.com yammered in a message to All:

rd> No, James is an aberration, even among cryptoanarchist capitalists.
rd> I think he's uniquely disinformed. Most "right libertarians" make no
rd> attempt to reference history, believing that "taxes are theft!" is a
rd> sufficient answer to any argument, empirical or theoretical. James'
rd> personal view of history is just that -- personal.

How nice that you are so eager to display your ignorance. IF
you really had ever read any libertarian arguments and lit, you
would realise that your statement about "most right
libertarians" is pure BS.

rd> I think you misunderstand each other. On the "libertarian" right,
rd> the victims of the Katyn massacre were the poor Nazis who were
rd> blamed for it, not the Poles who were killed. I don't think your

Wrong...but do continue to blather.

rd> Here you get a little kooky, I think, but you hit the nail on the
rd> head as to why the "capitalist anarchists" don't like you. For all
rd> their talk about "freedom," there's really very little there about
rd> individual liberty. It's people who own the machines wanting to run

Sounds like you have read Sweet Fuck All about libertarianism.

rd> their machines the way they want, governments or people who get in
rd> the way be damned. What's the chance that a Libertarian [the
rd> party/"movement"] is a white male earning more than double the
rd> median income? 90%?

Wrong. Most of the Libertarians that I am acquainted with are
considered working class people. Unless you consider cab
drivers, bartenders, mechanics and hemp store owners ...Upper Class.

Do post again, when you have acquired some form of
understanding of the subject.

... Choose FACTS over emotional appeals..

Visit the Rational Anarchist HomePage
http://vaxxine.com/rational/lazarus.html

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims
may be the most oppressive." (C.S. Lewis)

[Tim Starr]

In article <Pine.SCO.3.91.96123...@delta1.deltanet.com>, fire ant collective <fire...@deltanet.com> lied:

<SNIP>

> Then why does Caplan make an excuse at the beginning of his FAQ
>for using the Communist sources (complaining, like your frined Tim Star
>does recently, that they were right about the Nazis!)

Lie. Caplan says no such thing, either in the beginning of his FAQ, in the
rest of it, nor in his article "The Anarcho-Statists of Spain." Instead, he
says very much the opposite:

"One would have to be a fool to take Communists at their word. Still, the fact
that an accusation originated with the Communists is no reason to bar objective
research from verifying the truth of their claims. The Communists were often
the originators of reports of German atrocities during World War II; does thisx
mean that any historical study of Nazi concentration camps is suspect? Of
course not. It merely means that one must take extra care to find independentx
sources untainted by the Communists' propaganda machine. (Thus, since Thomas'
evidence for the involuntary nature of the collectives comes almost entirely
from Communist sources, I omit it.)"
- Bryan Caplan, "The Anarcho-Statists of Spain,"
http://www.princeton.edu/~bdcaplan/spain.htm

> Why don't you go read "Homage to Catalonia" by George Orwell, and
>get a clue? What I find even more remarkable than this simple denial, is
>another stalinist trick I noticed in Caplans FAQ: actually criticising
>the anarchists of starving the front of Arms on the one hand (because
>they armed all the people in the rear to prevent your Communist buddies
>from taking over) and then out of the other side of the mouth claiming
>they took away everybodies guns. Which is it?

I couldn't find any such passage in Caplan's writings. Where do you think
it is? Have you even READ "The Anarcho-Statists of Spain"?

[Tim Starr]

In article <5ai007$q...@networking.stanford.edu>,
Rich Graves <rcgr...@disposable.com> lied:

>The person(s) behind the nym "fire ant collective" <fire...@deltanet.com>

<SNIP>

>>>Yes, the Katyn Forest massacre. I'm aware of that.
>>
>> Well, maybe you better think about that next time you are reading
>>NKVD press releases about anarchist 'terrors'.
>

>I think you misunderstand each other. On the "libertarian" right, the
>victims of the Katyn massacre were the poor Nazis who were blamed for it,

>not the Poles who were killed.

Liar.

>I don't think your correspondent is aware of what actually happened in the
>slightest; he's only aware of Goebbels' attempts to score propaganda points

>from the discovery in 1943...

I had no idea that your apparent hero, Hitler's Big Liar-In-Chief, ever did
any such thing. All I said was that I was familiar with the Katyn massacre.
All I knew about it before this was that it was done by the Soviets, blamed
on the Nazis, and covered up until recently.

>I'm curious: what do y'all think of Hernando Cortez? I mean the Peruvian
>economist, founder of the ILD, and author of "El Otro Sendero"; not the
>conquistador.

Then you mean Hernando SOTO.

>While some of his research findings are bunk, I think he's a really cool guy.

Good. He's an ISIL member, I believe.

[James A. Donald]

To justify the use of terror by the Republican side in general and the
"anarchist" faction in particular during the Spanish civil war,
apologists for totalitarianism claim that this was a "spontaneous"
response to the terrible repression previous to the civil war,
inventing a largely imaginary history of terrible repression and
heroic struggle against that terrible repression:

fire ant collective <fire...@deltanet.com> wrote:

> I'll try to explain to
> you. It's true that in 1936 Spain was ruled by a 'Republican' government
> which was relatively Liberal and democratic, (which was why it was
> overthrown by Franco)

They heavily censored the press, violently suppressed the Falange
party, burnt churches, confiscated property from the very rich, and
forced businesses to continue to operate while imposing unprofitable
conditions on those businesses.

If that is your idea of liberal democracy, I think I need a little
more practice at the shooting range.

> but the previous government, elected in 1933 (when
> the anarchists abstained from voting, incidently) was extremely right
> wing, and initiated a very harsh crack down on the anarchist and socialist
> unions, executing dozens of labor militants and imprisoning several
> thousands for no other crime than being in a union.

During the rule of the previous "right wing" government, wages rose
substantially despite very high levels of unemployment, a feat
difficult to achieve without heavy handed government intervention in
favor of the unions and against the employers, and unions routinely
and successfully used large scale force to prevent employers from
hiring replacement workers and continuing to operate, a feat which
indicates selective tolerance of non government coercion.

I find it difficult to believe that thousands were imprisoned "for no
other crime than being in a union" when so many unions committed
unpunished and successful crimes. No union in modern America would
dare act in the way unions acted in Spain during this period that you
describe as one of terrible repression of unions.

The reason that you guys rewrite history in this fashion is to justify
the totalitarian terror that occurred during the revolution.

[Rich Graves]

tims...@netcom.com (Tim Starr) wrote:

>In article <5ai007$q...@networking.stanford.edu>,
>Rich Graves <rcgr...@disposable.com> lied:
>>>

>>I don't think your correspondent is aware of what actually happened in the
>>slightest; he's only aware of Goebbels' attempts to score propaganda points
>>from the discovery in 1943...
>
>I had no idea that your apparent hero, Hitler's Big Liar-In-Chief, ever did
>any such thing. All I said was that I was familiar with the Katyn massacre.
>All I knew about it before this was that it was done by the Soviets, blamed
>on the Nazis, and covered up until recently.

Precisely. You're not aware of what actually happened in the slightest. All
you know is a bunch of propaganda stating that the Soviets tried, and failed,
to blame their war crime on the Nazis. You have no idea who the Soviets
killed and why. "Fire Ant" and historians of the period do. That is the
source of the misunderstanding. "Fire Ant" is talking about the history of
the period; you are talking about a propaganda war that lit up during the
1970's, when Nixon visited a village in Byelorussia named Khatyn (which the
Soviets apparently tried to confuse with the Polish forest of Katyn).

What really happened at Katyn has been widely known since 1943, when Goebbels
published it worldwide. See David Irving's biography of Goebbels, which can
hardly be considered overly anti-Nazi. Before the war ended, a Swiss team of
forensic pathologists had confirmed that the perpetrators could not have been
the Nazis. There was no coverup; as I said, the fiction that there was a
coverup was spread by 1) neo-Nazis and "Holocaust revisionists" (such as
Irving) out to whitewash the Nazis and 2) radical anti-communists of the
Bircher variety, who saw Communism as the greater evil. Their primary
establishment source has been Robert Conquest, who worked in the UK
propaganda ministry during and shortly after the war, mostly specializing in
anti-Stalinist propaganda. He's now at the Hoover Institution, where I've
visited him a couple times. While I think he's terribly biased, and
occasionally shoddy in his research (the pulp on the brutal Ukrainian
collectivization comes to mind), I must say that to his credit, Robert
Conquest has never alleged a coverup of Katyn, and has distanced himself (not
as much as I'd like, but clearly) from the people abusing his work, most
recently at the CIIS War Crimes Conference I attended in October.

The Soviets introduced the Katyn massacre during the Nuremberg indictments,
but only over the ferocious opposition of the Western Allies, who knew the
truth but didn't think it was worth another war. No Nazi was wrongly
convicted of the Soviet war crimes at Katyn. The judgement didn't mention
it at all, which was actually another concession to the Soviets -- the
defense had utterly discredited their charges, as the raw footage shows. If
you're ever in town, go to the national archives and check out the videos.
At the CIIS conference I talked to a French documentary film maker who had
pored through the original uncut film from all sides, and put together a
terrific montage of how the different sides used the Nuremberg footage
selectively for their own propaganda purposes. But I digress.

In fact, in 1952, the US Congress held hearings to establish the facts for
good. As "Fire Ant" said, I suggest you read some real history for a change.
It is astonishing that this propaganda war, which was settled by historians
in the ealy 50's, is still going on today among the uninformed. Actually,
maybe it's not so surprising; some people still deny the Holocaust.

Three URLs (second on 82 characters) and a book for you:

http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi?places/germany/nuremberg/tusa/katyn-hearing
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi?places/germany/nuremberg/tusa/katyn-into-indictment
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi?usenet/alt.revisionism/9612/87561

|AUTHOR: United States. Congress. House. Select Committee on the Katyn
| Forest Massacre.
|TITLE: The Katyn Forest Massacre. Hearings before the Select Committee to
| Conduct an Investigation of the Facts, Evidence and Circumstances
| of the Katyn Forest Massacre, Eighty-second Congress, first[-
| second] session, on investigat ion of the murder of thousands of
| Polish officers in the Katyn Forest near Smolensk, Russia ...
|IMPRINT: Washington, U. S. Govt. Print. Off., 1952.
| 7 pts. (iii, 2362 p.) illus., maps (part fold.) 24 cm.
|
|TOPICS: Katyn Forest Massacre, 1940.
|
|NOTES: Hearings held Oct. 11, 1951-Nov. 14, 1952 in Washington, Chicago,
| London, and Frankfurt, Germany.
| Ray J. Madden, chairman.
| Language: English Year: 1952
| Item CSUXADE3737-B (Books) ADE3737 (NOTIS)

>>I'm curious: what do y'all think of Hernando Cortez? I mean the Peruvian
>>economist, founder of the ILD, and author of "El Otro Sendero"; not the
>>conquistador.
>
>Then you mean Hernando SOTO.

Yes, of course De Soto. How embarrassing. I'll go soak my head now. (Both
Cortez and De Soto were conquistadores.)

>>While some of his research findings are bunk, I think he's a really cool guy.
>
>Good. He's an ISIL member, I believe.

Yes, I think so. He founded the ILD in Peru, which is some sort of affiliate.

That's why I was addressing my question to "Fire Ant." Just as most right-
wing libertarians are uncomfortable with Spanish and Russian anarchism, so
most left-wing libertarians are uncomfortable with De Soto.

As a fucking statist civil libertarian, I think you're both silly, but "Fire
Ant" knows the history of this period far better than you do. You're welcome
to a different interpretation of the facts, and if you offer one I may agree
with you (I don't agree with many of "Fire Ant's" conclusions), but if you
continue to spout nonsense about history, I won't hesitate to say so.

-rich

[Rich Graves]

Since I'm claiming to stand up for historical accuracy here, I better
correct this:

>What really happened at Katyn has been widely known since 1943, when Goebbels
>published it worldwide. See David Irving's biography of Goebbels, which can
>hardly be considered overly anti-Nazi. Before the war ended, a Swiss team of
>forensic pathologists had confirmed that the perpetrators could not have been

My source here says they weren't Swiss; they were Belgian. I don't have
Irving on hand. Their citation here is *not* meant to imply that I consider
either Irving or Goebbels to be credible sources. Rather, real historians
(as opposed to Irving) investigated Goebbels' charges, and found parts of
them, the parts that blamed the Soviets, valid. This was back in the
1950's. The point was, there was no "coverup," except in the USSR itself,
where such lies were to be expected.

Sorry, I've become too accustomed to discussing history with neo-Nazis in
alt.revisionism, where there's an active Katyn thread going now; the context
switch is a bit rough.

I'd still like to see "Fire Ant" tell us what they think about Hernando de
Soto's "informal economy" stuff. If it's fair for him to bash the
libertarian right for perceived hypocrisy, I think it's fair to call them
on Peru. Particularly import substitution and the leftist military
government. If they're not familiar with that history (I realize it's not
really fair to expect the same people to be conversant in both Soviet and
Latin American history), I'll summarize. The "Mad Max" spoof is very funny,
but it doesn't get us anywhere.

-rich

[Tim Starr]

In article <5ajqbk$1...@networking.stanford.edu>,

Rich Graves <rcgr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>tims...@netcom.com (Tim Starr) wrote:
>
>>In article <5ai007$q...@networking.stanford.edu>,
>>Rich Graves <rcgr...@disposable.com> lied:
>>>>
>>>I don't think your correspondent is aware of what actually happened in the
>>>slightest; he's only aware of Goebbels' attempts to score propaganda points
>>>from the discovery in 1943...
>>
>>I had no idea that your apparent hero, Hitler's Big Liar-In-Chief, ever did
>>any such thing. All I said was that I was familiar with the Katyn massacre.
>>All I knew about it before this was that it was done by the Soviets, blamed
>>on the Nazis, and covered up until recently.
>
>Precisely. You're not aware of what actually happened in the slightest. All
>you know is a bunch of propaganda stating that the Soviets tried, and failed,
>to blame their war crime on the Nazis. You have no idea who the Soviets
>killed and why. "Fire Ant" and historians of the period do.

And this is somehow relevant to the Spanish Civil War in some mysterious way
that I'm missing? Would you be so kind as to explain it to me?

[fire ant collective]

On 3 Jan 1997, Rich Graves wrote:

> Since I'm claiming to stand up for historical accuracy here, I better
> correct this:
>

Ok, I'll bite... but be careful, fire ant's are sometimes known to be
painfully persistant...

> I'd still like to see "Fire Ant" tell us what they think about Hernando de
> Soto's "informal economy" stuff. If it's fair for him to bash the
> libertarian right for perceived hypocrisy, I think it's fair to call them
> on Peru. Particularly import substitution and the leftist military
> government. If they're not familiar with that history (I realize it's not
> really fair to expect the same people to be conversant in both Soviet and
> Latin American history), I'll summarize. The "Mad Max" spoof is very funny,
> but it doesn't get us anywhere.
>
> -rich

1) I've never even heard of Hernando de Soto, if you would
like to summarise what you consider to be his outlook I could comment on
that, but frankly I'm already being flooded with Libertarain-Capitalist
theory which I have little time to wade through. So far none of it is
very inspiring...

2) I don't support Tupac Amaru in particular and certainly
not Sendero Luminoso, who are essentially the 'Freddy Kreuger' political
party, and I don't think many 'left' anarchists do support them. I
certainly don't know any who do, and would be very suspicious of 'em if I
did. Having said that, in the situation in Peru, with all legitimate
avenues of dissent suppressed by Fujimori, extreme and desperate acts
could arguably be the only way to resist the dictatorship there. I
just don't think either of those groups in particular are likely to improve
anything for the desperate masses down there. (In fact, according to
hostages which were already released, the Tupac Amaru people are pretty
close to Fujimori on economic policy...)
Unlike some extremist "libertarians", most anarchists are critical of
authoritarian or dictatorial policies on 'our' side as much as 'theirs'.
For example anarchists were among the first serious critics of the
Russian "Revolution", openly condemning it for the fraud it was as early
as 1919, while many 'liberals' persisted in apologizing for it's every
villany well into the 50's and 60's. Rather than partisan debates, we
anarchists are interested in witnessing the actual transformation of society.

3) I am fairly conversant with Latin American history, in
spots and patches (Guatemala, Chile, Nicaragua, in particular...) but I
have access to plenty of source material to bone up on if you have more
specific arguments you want to make in some area I'm not familiar with.

4) Incidently, you have been critical of many other theories
and outlooks, where do you place yourself on the political spectrum, or
do you?

Good luck,

Drifter 'Bob'

"Rent is Taxation without representation."

General 'Strike'

[Tommy the Terrorist]

In article <Pine.SCO.3.91.97010...@delta1.deltanet.com>

fire ant collective, fire...@deltanet.com writes:
>>government shortly before the civil war, it went a lot further still:
>>The government censored the press, suppressed the fascist party,
>
> Again, I sense maudlin sympathy for the fascists. Your concept of
>'liberty becomes clearer every day...

Finally, after who knows how many posts, I can take a side.

Censorship and political oppression are <always> wrong, regardless of who
is targeted. If this left-wing government chose that tactic, it would go
a long way to explaining how Franco ultimately was able to gain control.
Now, obviously the fascists use censorship too, and it never seems to
hurt them --- but they don't rely on their cause being right! The things
that are "power" for a statist are DEATH for an anarchist - and vice
versa.

Statists measure power in how well they can kill, suppress, destroy,
control. Anarchists measure power in how well they can liberate, expose,
create, resist!

From the discussion, it seems like these Spanish "anarchists" might have
sought positive goals, and might have faced very dramatic resistance -
but they don't seem to have had the political technology they needed to
achieve real victory. Anarchists don't need leaders, they don't need
military chain of command, they don't need death squads, and they DON'T
need censorship!

Many of the offenses described are, in truth, simply part of war - the
murders, the censorship, the trashing of resources, whatever. But wars
are fought between states... and the strongest wins.

Much of the real power of the limited sort of "anarchy" on Internet, is
that it is slowly teaching people how a real anarchy could work, with
lots of little agreements that vary from things that are sort of
"capitalist" to sort of "communist", and which can only survive with the
absolute abhorrence of violence.

[fire ant collective]

On 7 Jan 1997, Tommy the Terrorist wrote:

> In article <Pine.SCO.3.91.97010...@delta1.deltanet.com>
> fire ant collective, fire...@deltanet.com writes:
> >>government shortly before the civil war, it went a lot further still:
> >>The government censored the press, suppressed the fascist party,
> >
> > Again, I sense maudlin sympathy for the fascists. Your concept of
> >'liberty becomes clearer every day...
> Finally, after who knows how many posts, I can take a side.
>
> Censorship and political oppression are <always> wrong, regardless of who
> is targeted. If this left-wing government chose that tactic, it would go
> a long way to explaining how Franco ultimately was able to gain control.
> Now, obviously the fascists use censorship too, and it never seems to
> hurt them --- but they don't rely on their cause being right! The things
> that are "power" for a statist are DEATH for an anarchist - and vi

AIEEEEEE!!!!! St. Dillinger deliver me from the hands of these
IDIOTS!!! Look man, the only reason I didn't contradict James Donalds
claim about the Government coddling the anarchists, was because it's so
bloody ridiculous there is no point. I mean, if someone told you that
you were Adolph Hitler, and that you had escaped to America and had
plastic surgery and longevity therapy, what do you say to them? You pat
them on the head and get away as quick as possible. The guy just needs
to get some prosac, I'm not going to argue about whether the earth is flat.

I also find it ironic how much sympathy he seems to consistantly
show for overt fascists, people who literally wear it on thier sleeves,
since he is such an alleged libertarian. In contrast, anarchists don't
let people off the hook for being authoritarian just because they are on
the 'left'.

Tommy boy, please try to pay attention. James Donalds claim
that the prewar government was friends with the anarchists, that the
anarchists controlled it and made it censor anybody, is total and
unadulterated sub moronic BS roughly equivalent to the historical
accuracy of a Soap Opera. In the years before the anarchist revolution
the government killed, exiled, tortured, and imprisoned THOUSANDS of
anarchists.
The pre-war government NEVER co-operated with the CNT or any other
anarchist organization, and James Donalds claims to this effect, in addition
to a few other even more ludicrous claims he made, have led me to give up
debating him since the indifference to reality exhibited here is a clear
indication that the guy is obviously either a fanatic zealot or a dim
wit, I mean, the opacity of this fellows mind is remarkable.

The left wing type concessions which some of the pre-war
governments did make, which James complains so bitterly about, were
moderate reforms of a type undertaken by many other governments
during the Depression, and entirely due to their efforts to undermine
organized labor by addressing some of their most dire complaints (exactly as
they did in the United States with the 40 hour work week, the minimum wage,
the eight hour day, etc.).
The (highly ineffective) suppression of the Falange party by the
Republican government, which incidently also suppressed most of the
anarchist groups as well, was due to that Governments fear of a fascist Coup
and foriegn invasions by Fascist allies in Italy and Germany, such as is
exactly what happened. Most of the other fascist groups, such as the
Carlists, were not suppressed at all, and in fact had many very powerful
representatives in the Clergy, Military, and Government. The CNT didn't
have anything to do with any censorship or suppression of any other
groups, in fact the falange often then (and to this day) claims not to have a
problem with the CNT and the anarchist groups.
Needless to say, during the revolution the anarchists were also well
known for allowing open access to information, all kinds of information
including those expressing views contrary and hostile to anarchist
beliefs, because they believed (to quote a Solidaridad Obrera article on
the subject) 'The more people know about the world in general the more
they will want to be anarchists.'

The whole thing is a bunch of scummy lies. All I can do at this
point is ask that you go read about the history of Spain in your nearest
library, or best internet source, avoiding both the anarchist stuff and
this new revisionist neo-fascist history manufactured by people like
Donald.
Decide for yourself what was going on, I believe it will become
quickly obvious that the reality was about as wildly different from the
unbelievable lies put out by James Donald and his ilk as my satire of Mad
Max.

> From the discussion, it seems like these Spanish "anarchists" might have
> sought positive goals, and might have faced very dramatic resistance -
> but they don't seem to have had the political technology they needed to

This may be true, but they certainly didn't commit all these acts
of villany claimed by the anarcho-fascists...Please!

> achieve real victory. Anarchists don't need leaders, they don't need
> military chain of command, they don't need death squads, and they DON'T
> need censorship!

Which is why they did not have leaders, military chains of
command, death squads, or censorship, you bloody fool! Where do you get
this stuff!?

>
> Many of the offenses described are, in truth, simply part of war - the
> murders, the censorship, the trashing of resources, whatever. But wars
> are fought between states... and the strongest wins.

And the States, both the "Republican" and the Fascist state their
respective allies, Russia on the one hand and Nazi Germany and Fascist
Italy on the other, were the ones who committed these acts. Please try
to learn a little about the actual event before you make statements like
this, it was precicely the rather unique lack of such a "Ends Justify the
Means" mentality which made the anarchists interesting, and has drawn so
many people ranging from insignificant ants such as myself and notable
public figures like Noam Chomksy to this event. They DID let people stay
independent, they DID have open democracy, they DID have democratic
militias, they DID have decentralized authority. This is what scares
people like Donald, and its' why he and his ilk spend all their time
criticizing us instead of real 'Leftist' villans like Stalin or Pol Pot:
the anarchist revolution in Spain was unique and very different.

The fact is, even if we genetically engineered two million clones of
Mahatma Ghandi, and Jesus of Nazareth, and they led an utterly saintly
and peaceful revolution, rabid partisans like mr Donald would claim that
they were exactly the same as Pol Pot. The reason is what they fear and
hate so bitterly isn't any violence or alleged (HA!) Death Squads (After
all, if you go back and read some of Donalds posts, he speaks very warmly
of Right Wing Death squads...) it's the divestiture and democratic
control over large blocks of private property, big factories and big
farms, which drives them crazy.

But the fact is they know this concept alone does not bother
normal citizens, most of whom do not own giant Latifundia or Factories
with 500 employees. Therefore they have to spin and distort and
exxagerate until they can manufacture a tale of villany and evil which
could scare the uninformed little guy.

If you don't believe me, I ask you: try out any hypothetical
peaceful society in which the very rich, not middle class but just the
very rich, lose control of thier factories, appartment blocks,
agribusinesses. They will immediately start screaming STALIN!

The question is, is there any where to seperate the evil of
authoritarian socialism from the social justice it claimed to advocate.
The answer is yes, it is, and they did it in Spain in 1936.

Drifter "Bob"

"Freedom without socialism is privelage, injustice; Socialism
without freedom is slavery, brutality. Socialism will be free or it will
not be at all."

Michael Bakunin

[James A. Donald]

fire ant collective <fire...@deltanet.com> wrote:

> Needless to say, during the revolution the anarchists were also well
> known for allowing open access to information, all kinds of information
> including those expressing views contrary and hostile to anarchist
> beliefs,

Needless to say this is total bunkum.

They did not even allow their own people to speak. If they had
allowed free flow of information, even if only amongst themselves, we
would have a good deal better information as to what happened. For
example nobody really knows how Durutti (the most powerful anarchist
leader) died. There is a veil of silence and lies over every
important event that happened. It is like trying to find out what
really happened in the Soviet Union.

They ruthlessly suppressed the Catholic religion:

CNT , the leading libertarian organ in Madrid, declared editorially:
"Catholicism must be swept away implacably. We demand not that every
church be destroyed, but that no vestige of religion should remain in
any of them" (Bolloten, "The Spanish Civil War" page 73.)

[fire ant collective]

(They did, actually, but I was just bored with the old subject
line of this thread...)

With regard to use of force and the Spanish Civil war, here is an
example of the mentality expressed by the right:

This is Radio Valencia! The Spanish Falange has seized the
broadcasting station by force of arms; tomorrow the same will happen at
broadcasting stations throughout Spain!
-Radio Broadcast by the Spanish Fascists at the beginning of their
attempted Coup on July 17.
This is in sharp contrast to the anarchists, who did not start the
war, did not impose their views on anybody, and were confiscated nothing
but property, not people or political power. The fascists did both.

>Needless to say this is total bunkum.
>They did not even allow their own people to speak. If they had
>allowed free flow of information, even if only amongst themselves, we
>would have a good deal better information as to what happened. For

Obviously they did, to an unprecidented degree, and this is why you
are able to quote so many widly various dissenting anarchist sources
critical or abberent to the various events and trends in the CNT sectors.
Most of that stuff was from published anarchist newspapers and speaches...
I doubt you would find such dissent among Francos henchmen...

>example nobody really knows how Durutti (the most powerful anarchist
>leader) died. There is a veil of silence and lies over every
>important event that happened. It is like trying to find out what
>really happened in the Soviet Union.

What you really mean is that it's very hard for you to find
materail to use to discredit the anarchist anywhere, since most of the
impartial observers believed they were in the right.

There is considerable mystery surrounding the death of Durutti, not
because of 'anarchist lies', but because he died on a battlefield in the
siege of Madrid in which almost all of his comerades were also liquidated
by the fascists. As he was in a battle, it's highly likely he just got
shot in combat. A lot of people had a hard time believing he could go
down like that, exactly like his friend Ascaso was during the retaking of
Barcelona, since he seemed so much larger than life. But bullets don't
distinguish between remarkable and ordinary people. The fact is he fought
on the front line with everybody else, and had for a long time, the unit
had taken something like 90% casualties, so it's hardly unfeasable that
the odds caught up with him at last.
Some people believe he was assasinated by the Republicans or the
Communists, since his death was very obviously the outcome they had hoped
for in sending him to Madrid. It's well known they had pressured him and
the Durutti column, taking unbelievably cynical advantage of the
desperation of the situation there and their devotion to preventing a
fascist victory, while decietfully depriving Durutti Column of any arms,
supplies or reinforcements, obviously in an attempt to liquidate him and
break the unit, which was seen as a threat to Centralized government
authority.
Some other people think a disgruntled member of the drastically
depleted Column itself shot Durutti because they were pissed off at the
impossible position the Column was in at the time (facing near certain
destruction at the front, again without any support), and blamed him for
being suckered by the Republican Government, and that they were about to
die for nothing. I don't personally believe that is what happened, and
there was indeed misinformation spread to this effect (by the Communists,
who hated Durutti), but we don't actually know what really took place
that horrible situation, and the only reason we don't is really the
fog of war. Certainly the anarchists didn't cover anything up...

>They ruthlessly suppressed the Catholic religion:
>CNT , the leading libertarian organ in Madrid, declared editorially:
>"Catholicism must be swept away implacably. We demand not that every
>church be destroyed, but that no vestige of religion should remain in
>any of them" (Bolloten, "The Spanish Civil War" page 73.)

Actuallly, the rank and file civilians were much more hostile in
general to the Church, who they saw as their daily oppressors, than CNT
was in practice. There are plenty of examples of priests joining
collectives as regular members, and Catholic books and even catholic
philosophy being taught, albeit in a secular humanist way as being part of
Historical and cultural heritage, in the many free popular schools which
sprang up everywhere across the anarchist sectors from the rural
collectives to the front line, much as they taught classical mythology,
botany, or literarture.
Ultimately, the anarchists tried to tolerate any kind of opinion, but
they couldn't allow Church Hierarchy to operate in their sectors since the
Church itself was almost unanimously opposed to the anarchist revolution,
they did not have liberation theologists back then, any more than they
could just let Falangists freely plot against them. I mean, what do you
expect? Here, take this gun and shoot me?
You have tried to quote various sources depicting the anarchists as
brutal villans. Heres a couple of examples of the real anarchist attitude
toward violence and state assimilation:
An unforseen possibility is in the prospect through the occupation of
the factories: that of accomplishing a great revolution without the
shedding of blood, or the disorganization of national life. Do not allow
the opportunity to get away from you.
-Errico Malatesta, writting for the Italian anarchist labor daily
Umanita
Nova, during the short lived Italian revolution of 1921
Unlike other revolutionaries, the anarchists saw violence and
reprisal as a threat to the health, rather than a goal of, a succesful
revolution.

'...in facing the problem of social transformation, the Revolution
cannot consider the state as a medium, but must depend on the organization
of producers. We have followed this norm and we find no need for the
hypothesis of a superior power to organized labor in order to
establish a new order of things. We would thank anyone to point out to us what
function, if any, the State can have in an economic organization
where private property has been abolished and in which parasitism and
special privilege have no place...'
...Diego Abad de Santillan, Spanish anarchosyndicalist, participant
in the Spanish revolution

And they had very concrete ideas about avoiding State structures and
replacing the state by free decentralised federations.
DB

"When I reflect that God is just, I truly fear for the future of my
Country."
Thomas Jefferson

(and I fear for the future of James Donald! ;> (JK))

[fire ant collective]

...therefore the anarchist 'terror' had nothing to do with
dictorships or death squads...

>Durutti (who imposed military discipline from the beginning) sounds
>remarkably like a leader to me.

First of all, regarding 'military discipline', while there was of
course some degree of discipline in the militias, (once you were in battle
you couldn't walk in and out of the front line at will, you couldn't loot
or shoot prisoners, etc.) it was founded on voluntary membership and
personal responsibility, enforced by consensus as opposed to military
police, and the militia units themselves were DEMOCRATIC, there was no
difference between 'officers' and regular soldiers (unlike both the
regular Republican armies and especially the fascists, among whom officers
were as Gods, recieved better rations, better living quarters, etc...).
Tactical and strategic decisions were openly discussed and freely debated
(often hotly), and there was no hierarchy.
For confirmation of this, read ANY HISTORY of the Spanish Civil war,
or again, refer to Orwells very explicit description of this unusual
phenomenon, of which he was originally very critical and suspicious (that
it would be inefficient), but later came to respect as being good for
morale and encouraging of individual intiative and resourcefulness. You
can claim that Orwell was a deluded idealist with regard to his opinions
of the integrity of the anarchist revolution, but surely you don't deny
his eyewitness testimony of conditions on the front?

As for Bueneventura Durutti, he was considered to be a kind of a
leader among the anarchists, but only in a moral sense. He had no offical
rank, no institutional power, only whatever loyalty and devotion various
CNT militants, parituclarly in the militia column he 'led', "The Durutti
Column" (considered the toughest unit on either side of the Aragon front)
chose to give him, which varied from day to day or even minute to minute.
In other words he was a 'leader' only in the sense that the Chief of an
Indian tribe was, only to the extent of the influence of his example, and
had no power to coerce anybody.
For example, in the first few days of the war, the first time the
column of carpenters and plumbers and artisans was bombed by Luftwaffe
bombers, several of the militia panicked and wanted to run away. Durutti
and a bunch of the other hard core militants had to convince everybody
through arguments and appeals to their courage and the importance of their
cause to stick it out, which after some convincing, most of them did (a
few decided war was worse than they could handle and quit the militia on
the spot). In a regular army (in Franco's army, for example) they would
have just shot a few deserters and marched on.

At first, this open system may seem problematic, but as trust and
confidence built up with each battle, it seemed to be very effective.

Having said that, this larger than life fellow was very, very popular
among the anarchists, and this disturbed some including Durutti himself,
who were worried about preventing "cult's of personality" from arising in
the CNT.
But it is also very well known, that Durutti was probably the strongest
of many very strong opponents of any kind of hierarchy, bureaucracy, or
authortiarianism in any of the CNT militias, syndicates, or collectives.
He certainly didn't become any kind of boss or warlord.
While a few CNT leaders, particularly those connected to the
provisional government, became corrupt and tended to compromise their
libertarian ideals, he personally fought for the strict adherence to
libertarian principles, for example, to make sure "independents" in the
countryside were allowed to remain that way and free of harassment, to the
point of distributing some of his precious arms to them in spite of the
unbelievable crisis of supply created by the war, and resisted all of the
government collaboration at every step.
In fact his death was marked as a turning point in the eventual
collapse of the anarchist revolution within the republic. Durutti was
widely respected for his integrity, honesty, courage, and especially his
devotion to libertarian ideals by friends and enemies alike, excluding
yourself, of course, since you evidently despise and condemn every single
anarchist no matter what they did or stood for.

>they cannot be given the primary blame for the actual enforcement of
>conscription.)

Next you accused the anarchists of advocating conscription, later
admitting that they really didn't do any. The fact that among the
2,000,000 militiants in the CNT, you were able to find some jerk who
advocated ends justifying the means, doesn't really mean a hell of a lot.
There are assholes in any group, just as I'm sure there are some
'Libertarians' you don't agree with.
But the well established fact is that unlike EVERY other player in
the Spanish Civil War, the CNT itself was opposed to such policies, the
rank and file were opposed to them, anarchist philosophy is and was
opposed to them, and perhaps most importantly the structure of the way the
CNT federations were effectively set up was designed to prevent them, and
they were never representative of anything the CNT did in Spain.

>You are the authoritarian. You regard it as "liberal democracy" that
>before the civil war the elected Spanish government radically censored
>the press and suppressed the Falange (fascist) party.

No you are. No You are. No YOU are.
Um, Ok.
I don't support censorship by any of the many prewar Spanish
Governments, Republican, Carlist, Military, or otherwise or any Goverment,
or anybody.
Having said that, that Governments beef with the Falange, was, as I
said, between them and the Falange, and not very effectively dealt with,
and was similar to attempts they made to suppress the CNT as much as they
could.
The fact was, however, that both the Falange and the CNT, especially
the CNT, were too big, too hard core, too militant, and too well organized
to put down without a bloody Civil war, and the Republican government was
not strong enough or draconian enough to risk such a thing. Which is why
the frustrated elites of Spain decided to support a Fascist Coup, much as
I suspect you would if a similar situation arose in the US... >I made no
such claim. I claimed that the elected pre war government, >like the
"anarchists" were authoritarian repressive radical leftists, >and that
they were also radically hostile to employers and supportive >of trade
unions, contrary to your claim that the unions suffered >terrible
repression in this period.
They were not by any means supportive of trade unions, that is a
totally idiotic concept, they simply had little ability to do much about
them, since once again both the strength of those unions and their public
support was too high to initiate a bloody suppression of them that a more
or less democratic (in the sense that they were beholden to majority
public opinion) Government could get away with, any more than the U.S.
Government can currently impose martial law to rid the land of
Constitutional militias. You seem to be implying that any government
which does not murder and smash a strong trades union movement is
supportive of unions.

>They censored people because they could not tolerate opposition, not
>because the anarchists or anyone else made them do it.
Again, I don't agree that the repression of the Falange was any more
severe than the ongoing efforts of suppression against CNT and especially
FAI, and I don't support censorship of any kind, but obviously Falange WAS
a more direct threat to the Republican government, both because of it's
connection to hostile foreign Governments and the fact that it was
ultimately the source of the Coup and started the Civil war, after all!
>I would like some of whatever you are smoking.
I think you could use some, help that glaucoma which is making it so
hard for you to read History accurately.

>It is kind of difficult to operate a newspaper while the cops are
>hunting you down to kill and torture you.

Tell me about it. Thousands of anarchists all over the world
know this very painful reality.

Again, because the Republican government didn't manage to smash all
of the anarchist papers, they were pro-anarchist? This is absurd.
Obivously they wouldn't outlaw CNT papers if they didn't have the muscle
to actually shut them down. Look, first of all you consistantly (and
conveniently) seem to imply that the Spanish Government throughout the
prewar history of Spain was always Republican.
The fact is they only had a couple of very short lived Republics, and
most of the pre-war governments were Carlist, Military, or Conservative
Dictatorships, none of whom did anything but attempt to imprison exile and
liquidate all anarchists in Spain every chance they had and by every means
at their disposal (especially in the early 20's). Additionally, though
the Republicans were less effective at this, they did put plenty of
anarchists in prison.
Furthermore, the fact that the Republican government was weak and
indecisive was taken advantage of by both the anarchists, and the
fascists, and every other radical party, much like the situation in the
Wiemar Republic in Germany. It doesn't mean the government was 'soft on
anarchy' as you suggest, in fact your argument is very, very reminiscent
of the arguments the Nazis used before they took over in Germany in 1933
(that Wiemar was 'soft on communism').

>Not many governments burnt churches.
James, are you honestly telling me that the Republican Government
burnt churches? Or that because they could not pursue, prosecute, and
capture every Spanish peasant and trades-unionist who burnt churches, it
is the same thing to you?
The fact is the church wasn't too popular with the Spanish working
class for the first half of this Century, and there wasn't a hell of a lot
the Republicans or even any of the other Ultra Right wing Governments were
able to do about it, until Franco who had much more freedom to take
draconion steps and abuse his power due to worldwide distraction of World
War II and later the Cold war. Theres only so much you can do to suppress
the wishes of the majority of the people, no matter how obnoxius, without
drastic measures, which is undoubtedly why you seem to prefer Fascism to
democracy, whether in Spain or Latin America.
>The efforts to support trade union wage demands were arguably similar
>in kind to that of many other governments during the depression, but
>they were radically different in degree. Wages rose rapidly
>accompanied by strikes. In other countries affected by the
>depression, government intervention merely prevented wages from
>falling.

This is only because the Unions were still very independent and very
strong in Spain, whereas they were gradually becomming conservative
business unions (ala AFL-CIA) in the US and England, and largely
controlled by collaborationist (hence effectively conservative) Communist
Party unions in countries like France, and violently suppressed by Nazi's
in countries like Italy and Germany.
Having said that, there were very strong unions in the US and other
nations at that time, and huge struggles were taking place in places like
San Fransisco and Portland Oregon, for example, as well as various bloody
massacres such as at Ludlow, in order to suppress what was left of the
independent labor movement here in the US. The only difference was the
American goverment was just more sneaky and more effective at suppressing
them.
So many gaps in your education, Don, where did you learn your
history, Oral Roberts university? I bet you are a creationist, right?
Maybe a flat earther?

>incentive to strike. In Spain there was a massive outbreak of
>strikes, which I interpret as the effect of government intervention to
>maintain union power in the face of unemployment by encouraging the
>violent suppression of strikebreakers, and sometimes suppressing them
>themselves.

And you interpret incorrectly because you have a very limited
understanding of History.
>He quotes Macario Royo, speaking in favor of forced collectivization:
> If each peasant had kept what he produced and disposed of it
> as he wished, it would have made the matter of supply much
> more difficult.

I doubt fraser tries to imply that this means the anarchists in
general supported such policies.
Again, among two million CNT members you find some jerk who made this
quote, I can find plenty of quotes to the contrary, from the same region.
One good example is the eyewitness observations of Emma Goldman in a
collectivised village called Albalate de Cinca, in which a significant
minority of the peasants remained independent. She was an American who
had also visited the Russian Revolution and immediately criticised it for
the fraud it was, at risk to her life and liberty. (In other words, no
blind partisan, but a very principled observer:)
[The Spanish Peasants] showed more intelligence and better
psychological perception than the men who had imposed Dictatorship on the
Russian workers and the peasants. They had realized the criminal blunder of
driving their brothers into the Collectives by cheka [Police] armed to the
teeth.
In their natural wisdom, our Albalate de Cinca comrades reasoned that
it was in their duty to demonstrate the superior quality of work in
common.
They told me once we can prove to our brothers that collective labour
saves time and energy, and brings greater results to each member of
the Collective, the peasants now standing aloof will join us.

-American anarchist Emma Goldman, from a letter to a friend in 1937

This indeed reflected the both actual policy of the anarchists, and
the reason why the Collectives were so hard to break up: they WERE more
efficient!

>> (After all, if you go back and read some of Donalds posts, he speaks
> very warmly of Right Wing Death squads...)

>Liar
Excuse me? Look, I've called you misinformed, creationist, flat
earther, partisan, even crazy, but I never called you a liar. Please go
re-read some of your own posts toward the beginning of this thread, the
ones in which you compared Pinochet and the anarchists, and tell me if you
don't think they could be interpreted as being fairly uncritical of the
Right wing death squads (you implied that they were spontaneous drunkards,
whereas the anarchists were supposed to be much more cold blooded and
sinister...)
Drifter "Bob"
"It should be noted that while the State is the sort of institution
which performs small tasks badly, it performs large tasks badly also..."
...Robert Anton Wilson

[James A. Donald]

On 7 Jan 1997, Tommy the Terrorist wrote:
> > Anarchists don't need leaders, they don't need
> > military chain of command, they don't need death squads, and they DON'T
> > need censorship!

fire ant collective <fire...@deltanet.com> wrote:
> Which is why they did not have leaders, military chains of
> command, death squads, or censorship, you bloody fool! Where do you get
> this stuff!?

Durutti (who imposed military discipline from the beginning) sounds

remarkably like a leader to me.

Domenech certainly thought he was a leader, and in order to intimidate
one of his audiences he led them to believe that he commanded the
death squads, though he also denied commanding death squads.

According to Burnett Bolloten, "The Spanish Civil War: Revolution and
Counterrevolution" page 324 the "anarchists" proposed conscription in
September 1936 "The CNT-FAI leaders had proposed in September 1936
that a 'war militia' be created on the basis of compulsory service and
under the joint control of the CNT and the UGT..."

(Though in actual practice conscription did not become very effective
until somewhat later, when the power of the "anarchists" was
substantially diminished, and the power of the communists had risen
considerably. However they supported conscription from the beginning,
and helped enforce it when it finally became effective, even though

they cannot be given the primary blame for the actual enforcement of
conscription.)

> I also find it ironic how much sympathy he seems to consistantly

> show for overt fascists, people who literally wear it on thier sleeves,
> since he is such an alleged libertarian. In contrast, anarchists don't
> let people off the hook for being authoritarian just because they are on
> the 'left'.

You are the authoritarian. You regard it as "liberal democracy" that

before the civil war the elected Spanish government radically censored
the press and suppressed the Falange (fascist) party.

>> Tommy boy, please try to pay attention. James Donalds claim

> that the prewar government was friends with the anarchists, that the
> anarchists controlled it and made it censor anybody,

I made no such claim. I claimed that the elected pre war government,

like the "anarchists" were authoritarian repressive radical leftists,
and that they were also radically hostile to employers and supportive
of trade unions, contrary to your claim that the unions suffered
terrible repression in this period.

They censored people because they could not tolerate opposition, not

because the anarchists or anyone else made them do it.

> is total and

> unadulterated sub moronic BS roughly equivalent to the historical
> accuracy of a Soap Opera. In the years before the anarchist revolution
> the government killed, exiled, tortured, and imprisoned THOUSANDS of
> anarchists.

I would like some of whatever you are smoking.

It is kind of difficult to operate a newspaper while the cops are

hunting you down to kill and torture you.

> The left wing type concessions which some of the pre-war

> governments did make, which James complains so bitterly about, were
> moderate reforms of a type undertaken by many other governments

Not many governments burnt churches.

The efforts to support trade union wage demands were arguably similar

in kind to that of many other governments during the depression, but
they were radically different in degree. Wages rose rapidly
accompanied by strikes. In other countries affected by the
depression, government intervention merely prevented wages from
falling.

In other countries, high levels of unemployment deterred unions from
striking, and government intervention to maintain wages reduced their

incentive to strike. In Spain there was a massive outbreak of
strikes, which I interpret as the effect of government intervention to
maintain union power in the face of unemployment by encouraging the
violent suppression of strikebreakers, and sometimes suppressing them
themselves.

> it was precicely the rather unique lack of such a "Ends Justify the

> Means" mentality which made the anarchists interesting

Here is Fraser, "Blood of Spain", page 349, quoting Macario Royo, an
Aragoneze CNT leader, on the topic of ends justifying means. A
lengthier quote is available on my web page
http://www.jim.com/jamesd/cat/bait.htm

He quotes Macario Royo, speaking in favor of forced collectivization:

If each peasant had kept what he produced and disposed of it
as he wished, it would have made the matter of supply much
more difficult.

Fraser then paraphrases Macario Royo as saying

And revolution always meant imposing the will of an
armed minority "In this case an anarcho syndicalist minority"

> (After
> all, if you go back and read some of Donalds posts, he speaks very warmly
> of Right Wing Death squads...)

Liar

[Tim Starr]

In article <Pine.SCO.3.91.97010...@delta1.deltanet.com>,

fire ant collective <fire...@deltanet.com> wrote:

<SNIP>

> You have tried to quote various sources depicting the anarchists as
>brutal villans. Heres a couple of examples of the real anarchist attitude
>toward violence and state assimilation:
> An unforseen possibility is in the prospect through the occupation of
>the factories: that of accomplishing a great revolution without the
>shedding of blood, or the disorganization of national life. Do not allow
>the opportunity to get away from you.
> -Errico Malatesta, writting for the Italian anarchist labor daily
>Umanita
> Nova, during the short lived Italian revolution of 1921

Are you really citing an Italian writing in 1921 as evidence of what the
Spanish anarchosyndicalists belived in 1936?

BWAHAHAHAHA!!! :-)

[Tommy the Terrorist]

In article <Pine.SCO.3.91.97010...@delta1.deltanet.com>
fire ant collective, fire...@deltanet.com writes:
> AIEEEEEE!!!!! St. Dillinger deliver me from the hands of these
>IDIOTS!!! Look man, the only reason I didn't contradict James Donalds
>claim about the Government coddling the anarchists, was because it's so
>bloody ridiculous there is no point. I mean, if someone told you that

First, I should make a confession. I didn't post that one entirely in
a spirit of honesty, but made a deliberately strong concession to jamesd
in an effort to determine his turn-around time, for this thread and the
others. I think, sometimes, that he is running an experiment here,
concerning how well opinion can be turned on certain issues in the Usenet
format, and I had some interest in running an experiment of my own...

Nonetheless, I did not stray completely out of the range of
perception. The "Friends of Durutti" put together a declaration, which
is archived at

http://burn.ucsd.edu/~anow/tafr/

It should be noted that this was a last-minute declaration, made after
Durutti himself was dead, at the bleak end of the anarchist's war, and
there were clearly others, who disagreed with them as even mentioned
here, whom I would doubtless find more sympathetic. Still, these quotes
should show to what degree the spirit of the Communists had infiltrated
into some so-called anarchists, and to what grim end things might have
gone.

I propose anarchy by peaceful means, above all!, because I desperately
fear that someday the real anarchists will fight through years of civil
war like the Spanish Anarchists did, only to "win" in the end by handing
over power to the likes of these, who always do best in war.

Now, some quotes from the actual 1938 declaration:

What happened was what had to happen. The CNT was utterly devoid of
revolutionary theory. We did not have a concrete programme. We had no
idea where we were going. We had lyricism aplenty; but when all is said
and done, we did not know what to do with our masses of workers or how to
give substance to the popular effusion which erupted inside our
organisations. By not knowing what to do, we handed the revolution on a
platter to the bourgeoisie and the Marxists who support the farce of
yesteryear. What is worse, we allowed the bourgeoisie a breathing space;
to return, to re-form and to behave as would a conqueror.

They labelled us agents provocateurs because we demanded that
provocateurs be shot, that the armed forces be disbanded, that political
parties who had armed the provocation be suppressed, and also that a
revolutionary Junta be established, to press on with the socialisation of
the economy and to claim all economic power for the unions.

Nor should the business about religion come up for further discussion.
The people have already delivered its final verdict on that issue.
Nonetheless, a tendency aimed at re-opening the churches, has emerged.
Implementation of the law of freedom of worship and celebration of masses
lead us to the conclusion that those in Government have forgotten the
days of the great burnings.

There must be strict rationing in the distribution of goods. That workers
should go hungry while hoarders find food in restaurants controlled by
the working class is intolerable.

Distribution must be socialised and accompanied by rationing.

Revolutionary order will be enforced by the workers. We insist that the
uniformed corps, which are no guarantee of revolution, be dissolved. The
unions must supply the men whose task it is to guard the new order we
wish to implant.

We are introducing a slight variation in anarchism into our programme.
The establishment of a revolutionary Junta.

As we see it, the revolution needs organisms to oversee it, and repress,
in an organised sense, hostile sectors. As current events have shown such
sectors do not accept oblivion unless they are crushed.

There may be anarchist comrades who feel certain ideological misgivings,
but the lesson of experience is enough to induce us to stop pussy-footing.

... some comments:

Yes, I know about the role of the churches as a state-supported
institution, a propaganda stronghold, a military entity. But if the
anarchists were ready to really win a revolution, they would have figured
a way to stop the church where it needed to be stopped, without burning
them all down. Overzealous anti-religiousness smacks of Marxism - and of
a political philosophy that accepts censorship as a means. Suppressing
political parties? Always wrong, but in the case of fascists it's bloody
dangerous! When you put them underground, what are they going to do?
Shooting provocateurs is less wrong than just plain STUPID - you might as
well get out your gun and start blowing away your fellow anarchists at
random, at least that way the government can't decide who you kill...

The comment on lack of political theory is damn near a signature quote.
There are so many people who, for whatever reason, say that it's useless
to talk about anarchism, especially between people who already support
the cause. I continue to maintain that anarchism is a social technology,
which needs to be developed piece by piece the same way you'd invent any
other major technological advance. Ask somebody in a statist society how
something will be controlled, and damn near whatever it is, they'll say,
"duh, dah goverment shud figger id out". Even if they decide to turn
anarchist, they're still going to need a lot of help.

[dckom]

On Thu, 9 Jan 1997 05:18:18 GMT c.e., tims...@netcom.com (Tim Starr) wrote
:

>In article <Pine.SCO.3.91.97010...@delta1.deltanet.com>,
>fire ant collective <fire...@deltanet.com> wrote:
>
><SNIP>
>

>> You have tried to quote various sources depicting the anarchists as
>>brutal villans. Heres a couple of examples of the real anarchist attitude
>>toward violence and state assimilation:
>> An unforseen possibility is in the prospect through the occupation of
>>the factories: that of accomplishing a great revolution without the
>>shedding of blood, or the disorganization of national life. Do not allow
>>the opportunity to get away from you.
>> -Errico Malatesta, writting for the Italian anarchist labor daily
>>Umanita
>> Nova, during the short lived Italian revolution of 1921
>

>Are you really citing an Italian writing in 1921 as evidence of what the
>Spanish anarchosyndicalists belived in 1936?

Tim,
Malatesta had a major theoretical influence on some Spanish
librarians. It's hardly dishonest history to point to the believes of
predecessors in analysing a movements theoretical development.
Also, many Italian anarchists were in Spain at the time. Many of them
CNT members. They had grown up with Malatesta as a teacher.

David
>
>BWAHAHAHAHA!!! :-)

It's far less absurd then a pro-cap libertarian using a socialist to argue
against gun control.

>
>*******************************************************************************
>"That rifle on the wall of the laborer's cottage or working class flat is the
>symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there!" - George
>Orwell, 1940, in the democratic socialist weekly "Tribune," quoted in "Orwell:
>The Authorized Biography," by Michael Shelden
>

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Free thought, neccessarily involving freedom of
speech and press, I may tersely define thus:no
opinion a law-no opinion a crime.
Alexander Berkman

[Andrew Flood]

James A. Donald wrote:
>
> secondly you seem to be under the impression
> that before the civil war Spain had a right wing government that

> engaged in tight government repression of the left. This was not the
> case. The government engaged in tight government repression of the
> right and employers, and gave unions and revolutionaries a free hand.

James you couldn't possably be talking of the republican government
which had been in power all of four months by the time of
the revolution could you!! Have you forgotten that the
right wing government in power before it had 30,000 anarchist
and other political prisoners cramming the jails! Perhaps you
have alos forgotten that the reaction of the republican
government to anarchists pointing out the approaching
military coup was to accuse the anarchists of attempting to
undermine the army...perhaps you imagine this was 'tight
government repression of the right'!!!

Andrew

--
----************************************-----
For lots about anarchism
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/2419

What are revolutions?
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/2419/revoindx.html

[Andrew Flood]

Tim Starr wrote:
=

> Which would at most justify returning fire in self-defense, then arrest &=
trial
> by jury. When were the culprits arrested? When were they tried? Were t=

hey
> all convicted? Were any acquitted?

Once again the historical attitude is clear on the reaction
of the anarchist organisations to church burning and
the execution of priests

According to 'Blood of Spain' which is what our capitlist
fans quote in these arguments (but have either not read
or are being entirely dishonest in spinning their story
around the quotes) it is certainly true that many priests
were killed in the republican zone. But why were
they killed, who killed them and what attitude did the
anarchist take to these killings and church burnings.

I looked up Blood of Spain in the libary the other day
and here is the story it tells

1. Why were they killed

The Catholic Church was hated by almost all progressives
in Spain as the bastion of reaction. This included
anarchists but also included the democratic minded
capitalist parties. It was even disliked by many
practising Catholics at the time.

Frazer himself explains the background when on page 525
he says
"From the preceding period of absolutism, the church provided
the ideological categories to justify the repression and intolerance
necessary to maintain the system"

What sort of repression are we talking about, everyone knows
of the inquisition which had killed 500,000 in an earlier period
but in the 20th C

"After the economic boom of the First World War and increasing
proletarian militancy, Catalan employers confronted lean times
by attempting to crush the anarcho-syndicalist movement in
Barcelona. The crushing took the form of creating 'yellow' unions
and. . .the hiring of gunmen to assassinate CNT leaders." [p. 547]

The church was also an enormous burden for the peasantry to
carry, not only did it own vast lands and get money from the
state but it represented tens of thousands of idle hands the
peasants had to feed. According to Frazer before the war there
were 30,000 priests, 20,000 monks and 60,000 nuns.

So even before the Civil war the church was resented, often
even by religious people who saw it as not living Christ's
teachings. This even included priests like

Regulo Martinez (page 528)
"I agreed with the dissolution of the Jesuits [under the republic] =

=2E..one preached a sermon saying that any woman who applied
for a divorce was no better then a whore"

The republican government at the start of the 30's which the
anarchists deeply opposed and which in turn repressed the
anarchists, jailing and killing many was in itself anti-clerical,
the dissolution of the Jesuits was just one example.

Indeed on May 11 1931 an anti-clerical wave centred on Madrid
swept through Spain in which convents were burned.

The fascists side conducted atrocities as a matter of policy
throughout the war, commonly slaughtering more then
10% of towns, the fascists made no secret of these, the
policy was announced on radio for instance

Blood of Spain page 154
"Let us repeat the phrase so often pronounced by our
illustrious general Quiepo de Llano: the words 'Pardon'
and 'Amnesty' must disappear from the Spanish
dictionary" ABC (Seville 1 Sept 36)

page 128
"I order and command that anyone caught inciting
others to strike, or striking himself, shall be shot
immediately"
General Queipo de Liano on Seville Radio, 22 July 1936

These killings were often carried out in a barbaric manner and
being a Civil War those living in the republican zones often
knew those who had been murdered as friends, relatives or
comrades.

Large numbers of deaths become dehumanised statistics but
this execution by Francoist forces in the first days of the
Civil War at Castilla de Pino as reported by a boy whose father
had been killed by republican forces gives a flavour of the
brutality

page 153
"an anarchist couple... was taken to a village 25km away and
shot. From a falangist who was present I later heard that the
women had been raped by the whole Moorish firing squad
before being executed"

The Church encouraged those carrying out these killings as
reported by a Falangist (fascist)
page 122
"Rafarel Garcia Serrano and his falangist comrades had been sent
to a convent for food "Eat all you want, my son" a friar had said
to him "for you are going to die for religion and us poor friars"

or in another example where
Dionisio Ridruego, falange chief of Seiguia quotes a sermon he
heard in the Cathedral that he thinks was directed at him because
he was trying to prevent executions
"The fatherland must be renewed, all the evil weed must be
uprooted, all the bad seed extirpated - this is not the time for
scruples"

This attitude led to the situation where on the 15th of August,
the feast day of the Virgin suspected republicans were
slaughtered throughout the fascist zone

For those living in modern democracies where the church
lacks any real power except over the faithful the depth of
hatred for the Spanish church can be hard to understand,
the above examples show why this hatred existed but lets
move on to a more central question

2. Who carried out the church burning and killings

The propaganda of the right internationally at the time
put these killings at the hands of communists and
anarchists. It is no surprise that the right today in
its internet manifestation tries to repeat the
same claims today to scare people from anarchism,
but was it in fact the anarchists who carried out
or even ordered these killings or the church
burning?

As already pointed out all progressives hated the church,
its widely know that the anarchists were strongest in =

Catalonia so you might expect this to have been the
centre of attacks, if they were due to them, but even in
the convent burning of 1931 Frazer is forced to
acknowledge that

page 529
"In Catalonia, homeland of industrial anarcho-syndicalism,
no churches or convents had been fired in 1931"

One could simply blame the other political parties but
would even this be accurate. Other observers have commented
that those who supported the republican and left parties or
were members of the unions were also commonly religious.
I've already commented on how many religious people saw
a huge gap between the practise of the church and what they =

saw as the practical example of the life of Christ.

Maurio Serrahina, was a leading member of the Catalan Christian
democratic party and who in the Civil War was to be arrested and
threatened by a self-described FAI (anarchist) patrol who
suspected him of hiding church money and monks. How
did he see the church burnings?

page 153
Maurio Serrahina "I always maintained that deep down these
burnings were an act of faith...In protest against the churches
submission to the propertied classes"

Some of the anarchists Frazer quotes were clear enough as to the
source of the burnings and killings, they saw that the legacy
of the church and its encouragement of atrocities in the
fascist zone created a situation where

page 151
"There was a deep, very deep wave of popular fury as a result
of the military uprising which followed on so many years of
oppression and provocation"
CNT journalist, Jucinto Barrus

Of course there were two million anarchists in Spain at the
time, it would be foolish to claim that none of them took
part in the burning of churches or killings of priests
as individuals. But what were their organisations
saying, if anything, at this time.

3. What was the role of the anarchists in this situation

The most infuriating aspect of the use of "The Blood of
Spain" by the anti-anarchist gang is that they are incredibly
dishonest as they seek to imply Frazer would have agreed with
them in painting the anarchist organisations as the villains
in this piece. To do so they have to ignore all the evidence
Frazer presents that the anarchist organisations tried to stop
the popular fury on the streets and at the front from killing
innocent victims. Frazer is hostile to anarchism in his
assumptions but he at least tries to be fair in describing
their actions.

The situation in Spain was one where the anarchists
were in a minorty and although many of their ideas
were influential they did not control the situation, one
militant for instance describes how guns were distributed
in Barcelona
"There was total disorder. We formed a commission and
thereafter all arms were handed only to revolutionary
organisations ... 10,000 rifles, I calculate as well as some
machine guns, were taken. That was the moment when
the people of Barcelona were armed; that was the moment,
in consequence, when power fell into the masses hands. =

We of the CNT hadn=B9t set out to make the revolution but =

to defend ourselves, to defend the working class. To make =

the social revolution, which needed to have the whole of =

the Spanish proletariat behind it , would take another ten =

years....but it wasn=B9t we who chose the moment; it was =

forced on us by the military who were making the =

revolution, who wanted to finish off the CNT once and =

for all.."CNT textile worker Andreu Capdevila quoted
in Blood of Spain, Page 72

At the front for instance
page 132
During the advance of the Militias on Saragossa the village of
Calacite was taken. Soon afterwards the church was set on fire,
according to Frazer the "CNT leader gathered the column and
villagers in the square" and told them "you are burning the
churches without thinking of the grief you are causing your
mothers, sisters, daughters, parents in whose veins flows
Christian Catholic blood"

The CNT understood well that such actions could only alienate those
who would otherwise support them. They hated the church but saw
that with the state out of the way it was a battle of ideology and not
a physical battle that was needed. They moved to stop the acts
of revenge that had broken out on the streets. Frazer recognises
this when he says

page 141
"Little did it matter that leading CNT militants, like Joan Peiro,
fulminated openly against such actions; not that both the CNT
and FAI issued statements categorically condemning
assassinations....Anyone proven to have infringed peoples rights
would be shot - a threat which was carried out when some
anarcho-syndicalist militants were executed"

from 'Blood of Spain' (page 451):

"In July 1936, as soon as the military uprising was crushed, some
2000 people attacked the monastery, burning its pharmaceutical
laboratory and nearly burning its library, reputedly the third most
important in Catalonia for its incunabula. The CNT dispatched men
to prevent it.

"But we were unable to prevent the crowd bringing thirty-eight
monks, including the prior, down to Badalona to kill them. Two
were killed and two wounded en route. Seeing men armed with
pikes bringing the monks in I thought I could see the guillotine
waiting in the square, so much did the scene remind me of the
French revolution..."

He and other CNT leaders had taken precautions, assembling 200 of
their militants in the square where the mob was threatening to kill
the monks. Pistol in hand, the militants arrested the crowd's
ring-leaders, and took the monks back to the monastery."

This is Frazers view of the real situation, not as our 'new speak'
friends would have you believe that the organisations were
secretly carrying out the repression. Instead they went so
far as to execute some of their own militants who had
carried out assassinations.

The revolution in Spain was marked by a massive propaganda
offensive of the right, which presented the revolution as
being a godless, communist monster slaughtering priests
left right and centre. To do this they had to ignore the
fact that in the Basque country the Catholic church supported
the republican government. At the time this propaganda met
with some success, the fascist Blueshirts who left Ireland to
fight for Franco were blessed on the quay sides by the Irish
bishops before they departed.

It is no coincidence that the pro-capitalists today seek to
resurrect the same lies to smear anarchism with but the
actions of the anarchists speak for themselves. The =

anarchist organisations may not have been able to =

prevent all revenge killings but as the Christian =

democrat Maurio Serrahina said of Barcelona which
they controlled

page 154
"People were being assassinated - though in far fewer
numbers then propagandistically had been claimed; in
fact relatively fewer then in other republican cities like
Madrid"

In this brief piece I have not gone into the constructive
work the anarchists carried out. It is this constructive
work that the anti-anarchist gang are trying to scare
you from with their horror stories. If you want to find
out about it have a look at the Spanish section of
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/2419/revoindx.html

Andrew

-- =

[Andrew Flood]

James A. Donald wrote:
>
> fire ant collective <fire...@deltanet.com> wrote:

> Orwell had no knowledge of what was happening on the home front until
> he returned to convalesce after being wounded in battle.
>
> When he returned he was horrified by oppression, injustice, and
> inequality, and blamed it all on the communists, who were at that time
> close to ascendency.

Oh I see so Orwell was so easely duped that in the May Days
when the communists attacked the CNT and POUM precisly
because they wanted to destroy the collectivised industries
and restore capitalism Orwell foolishly sided with the
anarchists rather then the Communist Party!! You have
obviously been reading a different version of 'Homage to
Catalonia' then the rest of us, in fact your version
must have a different title as well, something like 'All
Hail Stalin, Franco and Hitler in their fight for Spanish
Democracy'. Oh dear!!!!!!

Andrew

--

[Andrew Flood]

Tommy the Terrorist wrote:

> Nonetheless, I did not stray completely out of the range of

> perception. The "Friends of Durutti" put together a declaration, which i=
s archived at

I'm going to make a few comments on this as I'd identify
quite closly with the 'Firends of Durutti' and the
tradition within anarchism they are part of, often
identified as 'Platformism'. You'll find more on
this tradition at =

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/6170/

> Still, these quotes should show to what degree the =

> spirit of the Communists had infiltrated into some so-called =

> anarchists, and to what grim end things might have gone.

This concept is what I intend to argue against, the Friends
of Durruti in their document 'Towards a Fresh Revolution'
made the first and in many respects the best attempt to
analyise what had gone wrong with the Spanish anarchist
movement that despite having over one million members
and putting down the fascist coup of June 19th _almost_
single-handly they then failed to complete the
revolution. =

You'll find 'Towards a Fresh Revolution' at
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/6170/towardsintro.html

This is the real question that should
concern anarchists today, not the crude propaganda
of the pro-capitalist nuts. They have pretty much
exposed themselves in any case by their defence of
Pinochet, the Peruvian state and other capitalist
dictatorships who have killed far more people then
the exaggerated and unsubstantiated figures they have
claimed as 'victims' of the Spanish anarchists.
=

> I propose anarchy by peaceful means, above all!, because
> I desperately fear that someday the real anarchists will
> fight through years of civil war like the Spanish
> Anarchists did, only to "win" in the end by handing
> over power to the likes of these, who always do best in war.

Ovbiously a legitimate concern but to date one that has
to take into account two other factors

1. Capitalism and the state will not accept their
abolition just because most people desire it. They will
use force that includes detention, torture and execution
against even minor movements that advocate their abolition
where they feel threatened. Against larger movements
that begin to actually gain control of areas they unleash
fascism and/or full scale war. It would appear a peaceful
transition may not be possable in which case we need
to consider how to defend the revolution in a libertarian
fashion

2. Revolutions are not simple occurances where all the
revolutionaries agree on stratergy etc. In all revolutions
to date there have been strong authoratarian tendencies
that wished to create a new state and were willing to
use violence against other tendencies to acheive this. So
anarchists need organisational methods to defeat such
tendencies in at least their ideology and where they
turn to violence (as the CP did in Spain) to militarly
defeat them without either losing the revolution to
capitalism or becoming authoratarians themselves in
doing so.

It is in answering these two very real, and complex
problems that 'Towards a Fresh Revolution' needs
to be considered in.

> Now, some quotes from the actual 1938 declaration:

=

> What happened was what had to happen. The CNT was utterly =

> devoid of revolutionary theory. We did not have a concrete
> programme. We had no idea where we were going. We had
> lyricism aplenty; but when all is said and done, we did
> not know what to do with our masses of workers or how to
> give substance to the popular effusion which erupted
> inside our organisations. By not knowing what to do, we
> handed the revolution on a platter to the bourgeoisie and
> the Marxists who support the farce of yesteryear. What is
> worse, we allowed the bourgeoisie a breathing space;
> to return, to re-form and to behave as would a conqueror.

This is what I would consider to be an accurate assessment
of the weakness of the CNT in theoretical terms going into
the revolution and what the consequences of that weakness
were. Quite simple because the CNT had not considered how
industry could be re-organised or how the revolution could be
defended and extended in the context of a situation where
it was in the minority it became paralysed, the revolutionary
gains were made not by the co-ordinated and previously
discussed actions of the CNT as a body but rather by the
spontaneous and local actions of each CNT section or
community where it had support in the first weeks of the
revolution when the state was essentially powerless

I discuss these gains and the limits of them is some
detail in the article 'The first two weeks' at
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/2724/spain49.html
but the main point to be made is that although in most
cases this resulted in workers running the individual
workplaces and peasants taking the land and co-ordination
of economic activity came to fall into the hands of the
state and foreign owned enterprizes were not taken over
by workers but rather saw 'workers control' where the
workers were restricted to preventing management
sabotaging production.

This may have led to massive increases in production
and the improvement of wages and working conditions
but it was neither the creation of anarchism nor
was the scale of change consistent, there were
radcal variations in what happened on both
geographical and industry basis which were to
led to problems later.

The limiting of the revolution meant a situation of
'dual power' existed where the workers controlled
the base of industry and agriculture but the state
and republican capitalists controlled both money and
the national organisation of the economy. This in
effect gave the state a veto over any large scale
action the anarchist wished to take as they lacked
money to buy raw materials to change production
and to buy arms to step up the offensive against the
fascists. It was this weakness that enabled the
state to regain control of both the army and
industry once it had re-built the police by
simply withholding arms and funds until the
anarchists were forced to comply with its wishes. =

> They labelled us agents provocateurs because we demanded that
> provocateurs be shot, that the armed forces be disbanded, that political
> parties who had armed the provocation be suppressed, and also that a

> revolutionary Junta be established, to press on with the socialisation of=

> the economy and to claim all economic power for the unions.

All of this was necessary in the context of carrying the
revolution to completion. The term 'revolutionary Junta'
needs some explanation however as the modern day connortation
of Latin American military dictatorships ins not what was
meant here. The FOD said by this they meant

"This body will be organised as follows: =

members of the revolutionary Junta will be elected by
democratic vote in the union organisations. Account is
to be taken of the number of comrades away at the front;
these comrades must have the right to representation.
The Junta will steer clear of economic affairs, which are
the exclusive preserve of the unions. =

The functions of the revolutionary Junta are as follows: =

a) The management of the war =

b) The supervision of revolutionary order =

c) International affairs =

d) Revolutionary propaganda. =

Posts to come up regularly for re-allocation so as to prevent
anyone growing attached to them. And the trade union
assemblies will exercise control over the Junta's activities."

In other words the Junta was to be a body of people elected
by the working class though the unions to organise the
war but it could not involve itself in economic organisation
and could be over-ruled by the workers through
union assemblies. In short it was an attempt to set
up a libertarian mechanism to deal with the two problems
I mentioned at the state in the context of winning the
revolution, that is defeating capitlism and defeating the
authoratarian left.
=

> Nor should the business about religion come up

> for further discussion. The people have already =

> delivered its final verdict on that issue.

> Nonetheless, a tendency aimed at re-opening the =

> churches, has emerged. Implementation of the law of
> freedom of worship and celebration of masses
> lead us to the conclusion that those in Government
> have forgotten the days of the great burnings.

=

This is a fascinating paragraph because it demonstrates
the reality of the church burning during the Spanish
revolution as the spontaneous reaction of a people who
identified the church as a bastion of reaction. By 1938
the state was trying to force the people to accept the
church.

> There must be strict rationing in the distribution of
> goods. That workers should go hungry while hoarders find

> food in restaurants controlled by the working class is =

> intolerable.
=

> Distribution must be socialised and accompanied by rationing.

It seems reasonable that as long as shortages existed there
should not be an elite with better access to resources,
again this inequality was a consequence of the failure
to carry through the revolution in the eary days.

> Revolutionary order will be enforced by the workers.
> We insist that the uniformed corps, which are no guarantee
> of revolution, be dissolved.

Essentially a call for the dissolution of the police and
the protection of the revolution by workers milita. I
have no argument with this.

> Yes, I know about the role of the churches as a state-supported

> institution, a propaganda stronghold, a military entity. But =

> if the anarchists were ready to really win a revolution, they
> would have figured a way to stop the church where it needed
> to be stopped, without burning

> them all down. =

The FOD were not advocating the burning of churches, this
happened spontaneously in the first days of the revolution
and the anarchist organisations in many cases attempted
to prevent this. Many anarchists including the FOD
however the burnings as no more then the church deserved
and not something that they should try and stop. This
position can be debated in tactical terms but we need
to be careful that we understand what they were saying first.

> Suppressing political parties? Always wrong, but in the
> case of fascists it's bloody dangerous! When you put them
> underground, what are they going to do?

You seem to forget that there is a civil war on in this
period, the fascists are already armed and by 1938 have
killed 10's of thousands of unarmed anarchists and workers
in the zone they control.

> Shooting provocateurs is less wrong than just plain STUPID =

>- you might as well get out your gun and start blowing away
> your fellow anarchists at random, at least that way the
> government can't decide who you kill...

Again your forgetting there is a civil war on, for the
anarchists at the front there was no choice either they
shot the fascists or the fascists shot them and came
through the subsequent holes in the line to destroy the
collectives and execute those who organised them (which
is what they did in areas they captured). It's unclear
who the FOD were referring to, probably those who had
attacked the anarchists in Barcelona in May of 1937,
ie the CP and the police (Civil Guard).
=

> The comment on lack of political theory is damn near a signature quote.
> There are so many people who, for whatever reason, say that it's useless
> to talk about anarchism, especially between people who already support

> the cause. I continue to maintain that anarchism is a social technology,=

> which needs to be developed piece by piece the same way you'd invent any
> other major technological advance.

While there is some truth in this it is also the case that
capitalism will not allow this sort of step by step
development. So alongside encourging people to progressivly
control more and more of their lives the anarchists need
to work out and argue for ways of defeating capitalism
and winning the revolution when capitalism decides to =

surpress this movement. This suppression was
exactly what capitalism choose to do in Spain in
backing Franco (and indeed in backing Hitler and =

Mussolini elsewhere) and as the FOD point out the
CNT was not at all ready for moving forwards when
this happened. The quote below starkly illustrates
the situation thier militants found themselves in

how guns were distributed in Barcelona

"There was total disorder. We formed a commission and
thereafter all arms were handed only to revolutionary
organisations ... 10,000 rifles, I calculate as well as some
machine guns, were taken. That was the moment when
the people of Barcelona were armed; that was the moment,
in consequence, when power fell into the masses hands. =

We of the CNT hadn=B9t set out to make the revolution but =

to defend ourselves, to defend the working class. To make =

the social revolution, which needed to have the whole of =

the Spanish proletariat behind it , would take another ten =

years....but it wasn=B9t we who chose the moment; it was =

forced on us by the military who were making the =

revolution, who wanted to finish off the CNT once and =

for all.."CNT textile worker Andreu Capdevila quoted
in Blood of Spain, Page 72

The point being this idea of capitalism waiting for
the anarchists to be fully ready for revolution before
acting was utopian. Capitalism in Spain as =

elsewhere sought to crush the revolutionary movement
long before it had organised the majority of society.

'Towards a fresh revolution' is an attempt to
open up discussion for how anarchists can prepare
for the next time such an opportunity is offered

Andrew

-- =