The Anarchist Communist Group (ACG) held an on-line meeting on June 1st last on the topic of what they call the “Spanish revolution” of 1936. This event is of vital importance for revolutionaries because, among others, it highlights the defeat of the revolutionary wave from 1917 to the mid-1920’s and shows how, in this counter-revolutionary period, events in Spain were not a revolution, not a “civil war”, but a crushing defeat where the interests of the working class were derailed from its own terrain and then mobilised in a rehearsal for the second, imperialist world war by both the right and left wings of capitalism.

The presentation, by four members of the ACG, lasted one hour with each taking about 15 minutes. The two-hour meeting advertised was thus reduced to 90 minutes including 30 minutes “for questions”.

From the outset “The Spanish Revolution” was hammered home by the ACG; there were lots of meanders about the various factions (the FAI, for example[1]), but according to the ACG, events in Spain were part “of an unrivalled movement of anarchism in over 50 years of libertarian communism”. Collectivisation was necessary, it said, in order to win the war against Franco before making the revolution. They added “what happened on the land was more important than the factories”. In fact, there was a strong emphasis throughout on the role of the peasantry as the driving force of this so-called revolution. There was also criticism of the POUM (the Trotskyist group which was part of the “Popular Front”), for putting war aims before the revolution. They mentioned The Friends of Durruti (FoD – see below) for according priority to the ‘revolution’ rather than to winning the war against the right.

We insisted in our intervention that there was no revolution in Spain and the political and military situation was dominated by imperialism. In this context “collectivisation” was the organisation of the war economy, just as workers’ self-management and occupations have always turned out to be the working class managing its own exploitation.[2]

We made the point about members of the CNT in the government of the Spanish Republic (four members joined in 1936) telling the workers “we are all brothers in the Republic”, thus contributing to mobilising them in the service of the Republic and preparing the brutal repression of the proletariat by the Republican army and police. The CNT was part of the democratic process that crushed the working class and elements like the FoD were a workers’ reaction to the betrayal, but this didn’t demonstrate “the vitality of anarchism” as the ACG claimed, but its inability to draw the conclusion that it was the CNT itself that participated in the mobilisation of the working class behind the democratic faction of the bourgeoisie against the fascist faction, and was thus part of the build-up to imperialist war – a link in the chain of imperialism. We concluded that the defence of democracy always opens the working class to defeat, and it’s clear that in Spain democracy and Stalinism was on one side and Germany, Spain and Italy on the other. Spain was the final expression of the international defeat of the working class through the crushing of the 1917-23 revolutionary wave.

The ACG immediately denounced this ICC intervention as “gibberish and deranged” with general approval and silence from the majority. This made it possible for them to avoid any in-depth response and to steer the debate onto a number of secondary issues.

The avoidance of debate also enabled the Communist Workers Organisation, a member of whom was present at the meeting,  to express its unfortunately habitual opportunism This group, which is part of the Communist Left, had listened to an hour-long attack by the ACG on marxist positions, including support for anti-fascism in an imperialist war, and its only response was an empty question about possible differences in the FAI. It did speak again after the ICC intervention, not to support a proletarian position, but to sheepishly and half-jokingly talk about historical differences between marxism and anarchism, without the least mention of Spain in the 1930’s. A possible explanation for the CWO sucking up to the ACG in this meeting was revealed in a previous meeting in March this year by the latter on “Anti-militarism”, where the ACG revealed that it was “affiliating” to the CWO’s entirely opportunist “No War but the Class War” committees.

The Communist Left defends internationalism

The analytical framework of the Communist left is essential for understanding what happened in Spain in 1936. We will recall some of its most important positions.

On the one hand, the fundamental context for a proletarian revolution is its internationalist dynamic against all and any support for nationalism and the nation state, including its democratic and anti-fascist factions. The “Spanish Revolution”, a build-up to imperialist war in which both fascist and anti-fascist, democratic and Stalinist forces were involved, was a local expression – a very significant local expression which had international consequences – of the defeat of the working class which took place entirely within the international framework of imperialism’s preparation for the Second World War. It was also part of an internationally orchestrated ideological campaign against the working class, aimed at driving that defeat home. In this respect, the ruling class had learned its lesson from the revolutionary wave that followed – indeed ended – the First World War, that the working class had to be crushed as a precondition for marching it off to war, and it used its left wing to complete the job.

At the same time, in the 1920s and 30s, the fractions of the Communist Left had already begun the difficult task of deepening the marxist understanding of the dynamic of capitalism, war and the reasons for the defeat of the revolutionary wave of the early 20th century. In the epoch of capitalist decadence, colonial wars had been replaced by “imperialist war for a new division of the market” between “old” and “young” capitalist nations. “War no longer expressed the ascent of capitalism, but its general decadent nature” (Bilan, no. 11)[3]. Wars of this time couldn’t be compared to the progressive wars of capitalism against feudalism. No war could be “progressive”, “just” or “anti-reactionary” except the class war, and this was in line with the position of the Bolsheviks and Rosa Luxemburg that the choice facing humanity was revolution or barbarism – and the war in Spain was precisely an expression of capitalist barbarism. So no more support for bourgeois democracy:“the war in Spain had carried out this pitiless selection, demarcating the proletarian from the capitalist camp”.[4]

In 1934, Bilan had already denounced the Spanish Republic, founded in 1931, as “reactionary” after it killed at least 1500 striking and fighting workers in Asturias: “...October 1934 marks the frontal battle to obliterate all the forces and organisation of the Spanish proletariat”[5]. Further attacks on the working class from the Republic were made on the working class as they were mobilised into the Spanish war economy. If the Spanish working class fell into this trap, it was also to a large extent due to the illusions propagated by anarchism, illusions maintained and spread today by the ACG.

Workers tried to fight back against this “betrayal” by the left and the CNT in particular, fighting on their own ground and dying for it – notably on the barricades of May 1937 in Barcelona. Others were armed by the Republic and Fascist gangs and, dizzy with the ideological and physical onslaught taking place in an international context of defeat, were used as cannon-fodder in the war.

There were also political expressions questioning the role of the CNT and the left in the war; we’ve mentioned the FAI and the Friends of Durruti above and it was the latter that the ACG – along with many anarchists – refer to as showing the positive dynamic of anarchism. But although the Friends of Durruti criticised the CNT for its “collaboration”, it could not understand that it was the CNT itself that was part of the forces of the bourgeoisie in this imperialist war.[6] The group could not see beyond the frontiers of Spain and the “Spanish Revolution”, blinding it to the international defeat of the working class which dictated  a course towards world-wide imperialist conflict, and the events in Spain were part of this.

The events in Spain in 1936 once again illustrate the historical bankruptcy of anarchism

The depiction of war in Spain in the 1930’s as a workers’ revolution when it was in fact an imperialist war coming out of the defeat of the working class internationally, its support for “anti-fascism” and its democratic coalition, show that the ACG is fundamentally unable to defend the demarcation lines between proletariat and bourgeoisie. Without the defence of those lines, deemed essential by the Communist Left, this group is doomed to incoherence and further slides into leftism.

This slide is evidenced from statements from the ACG paper Jackdaw (February 2024). It quotes the ACG as saying: “For all the anger and opposition its (Israel’s) genocidal actions are creating amongst ordinary people, there are not, so far, any allies amongst the nation states of the world, notwithstanding South Africa’s filing a case of genocide against Israel at the International Court of Justice, that might intervene meaningfully on their behalf”[7]. Thus, these anarchists are appealing to capitalist states to come to the aid of Palestinian nationalism, citing the concerns of “ordinary people".

  As the ICC article says, the ACG go further in supporting an end to arms sales to Israel while calling on the British government to support a ceasefire. When one of our militants at the ACG meeting of April 23 called the ACG out on this outright support for the bourgeoisie and its manoeuvres on the level of imperialism, the ACG flatly denied that such a thing was suggested. Nevertheless, the ACG presenter said that “it was the human thing to do” to denounce Israeli atrocities while their paper states that: “Iran and their Hezbollah allies have refrained from any full-blooded commitment, despite provocation from Israel, because they know the consequences of an escalation”. Here they put forward the suggestion that restraint and moderation are being shown by the proxies of Iranian imperialism. This innuendo and suggestion is rife throughout the ACG’s position on the Middle East and it boils down to support for Palestinian nationalism – or the “resistance” as their speaker kept referring to it at the April meeting, with no clear position on the imperialist nature of Iran and its allies, i.e., all sides in this imperialist war.  Even the CWO has recognised the drift on the ACG position from that of proletarian internationalism to the support of Palestinian nationalism: "The ACG has been clear in its rejection of nationalism in Ukraine, but now seems to be entering the mire of bourgeois politics in Palestine".[8]

The “clarity” of the group on the fundamental issue of proletarian internationalism is paper-thin, virtually devoid of any theoretical foundations. The real substance and content of the ACG’s political positions were fully on display at its last two meetings above: support for anti-fascism, the “progressive” factions of the bourgeoisie and the capitalist state; tacit support for warring factions in the wars in the Middle East. The Anarchist Communist Group is sliding further into leftism.

Baboon, 22.6.26

 

 

 

We publish an account of the ICC’s recent online international English-language public meeting, written by a close sympathiser. We think the comrade has approached the discussion in a very clear way and we support his contribution.

The subject of this online public meeting marked a change from recent ICC meetings that have focussed on current events, including the wars in Gaza, Iran and Lebanon. This was deliberate given the salience today of questions of fascism, democracy and the situation of the working class.

Following the brief presentation made by the ICC the discussion first considered the significance of events in Spain in 1936 and then the lessons for today.

On Spain 1936

With no interventions directly defending the Republic, anti-fascism, or the idea that the ‘revolution’ in Spain went beyond Russia in 1917, the discussion focussed on understanding the method that enabled a minority of the proletarian movement to analyse the events leading to the Second World War and drawing out elements of that analysis.

In the maelstrom of events that marked the rise of the revolutionary wave in Russia in 1917, the defeat of the revolution in Germany in 1919, and the isolation and degeneration of the revolutionary wave leading to the counter-revolutionary victory of Stalinism, the majority of the revolutionary forces of the working class were profoundly disoriented with many lapsing into defence of the USSR, a position that would end in their active support for the Second World War. Foremost of those struggling to remain true to the working class were the militants grouped around the journal Bilan. It maintained the internationalist and proletarian traditions of the Bolsheviks and the Zimmerwald left in its defence of the historical interests of working class and, as a result, suffered not only isolation but also condemnation and physical threats from Stalinists, anarchists and ‘socialists’ alike. Several participants emphasised that it was the method developed by Bilan that lies at the heart of the communist left today and the ICC in particular. “Reading the texts of the Italian Left and MC [Marc Chirik, a militant of the communist left and one of the founders of the ICC] reinforces the momentous work to reestablish this link with the workers’ movement, clarifying lessons in a period of counter-revolution… a method of long patient work against the tide.”

An essential expression of this method was the importance of understanding the context in which the events in Spain happened. It came after the defeat of the revolutionary wave of 1917-26. As the ICC noted in one of its interventions: “We have to analyse the balance of class forces on an international scale and across an entire historical period.” This defeat did not preclude outbursts of determined struggle, such as those by workers in France. Spain also saw such outbreaks in 1936 and again in 1937, but these were derailed by the forces of the republic and its enablers in the POUM, the CNT and the Socialists. Class autonomy was replaced by the dictates of the Republic and class struggle by the defence of democracy. Spain ’36 was part of the trajectory of the defeat of the working class and the revolutionary wave that started in 1917. The workers’ struggles in Spain were the dying gasp of this dynamic. The diversion of the working class in Spain from the defence of it class interests against the bourgeoisie as a whole to the defence of one faction of the ruling class, obscured by clouds of rhetoric about revolution and collectivisation, was one of the last acts in sealing the trajectory towards 1939.

The discussion was able to point to some of the main players in this defeat and the process through which it happened. At its heart was the failure by the working class to challenge the state in all its forms. This is what happened in Russian 1917 when the Soviets confronted the Provisional Government, creating a situation of dual power and then the seizure of power by the working class. In Germany in 1919 the workers’ councils were betrayed by the SDP into handing power to the bourgeoisie. In Spain this reality was disguised by the myth of the collectives and performative actions against expressions of the ruling class such as the church. The establishment of collectives in factories and farms did not challenge state power but kept the working class contained both physically and politically, easy prey to calls to defend what they had ‘gained’ against the fascist menace and thus to leaving the class front for the military fronts. Ultimately, collectivisation led to mobilisation for war. The anarchist CNT, the POUM and the Stalinists all played their part in the betrayal and defeat of the working class. As one comrade remarked with reference to the CNT: “In essence they were fooling the workers into their defeat.”

The lie that the anti-fascist struggle would lessen the oppression and slaughter of the working class resulted in its greater oppression. The pursuit of the lesser evil helped open the door to the greatest evil to befall the working class and humanity until that point.

One comrade, Mario, asked whether democracy or fascism was preferred by the bourgeoisie: “Leftists say that fascism is preferable for them… I think that bourgeois democracy is more stable and better for business than fascist oscillation,” supporting this by pointing to countries such as Spain, Greece, Chile, South Korea and Taiwan that have transitioned to democracy. This was echoed by another participant who argued: “Democracy seems to be the lesser evil here. Under a democratic state it is much more sustainable for the bourgeoisie.” In response Karl stressed the ideological role of democracy in disorienting the working class: “An important aspect on the question of democracy is that you are supposed to be part of decision-making in the state… I think the important aspect is not what is preferable for the ruling class – democratic or fascist state – but the way they can use the democratic ideology to get people to adhere to and support the state… that was one of the main recruiting arguments in WW1 and WW2 when everyone thought they were supporting the democratic state against threats.”

The ICC argued that democracy was the classic form of the way the bourgeoisie organises but distinguished between its use in the 19th century, when it was an effective tool to manage the differences within the bourgeoisie, and its use in the period of decadence when it is central to the organisation of the economy and preparation for war. Above all, democracy has been central to defeating the working class. “The comrades of Bilan portrayed democracy as the most cunning weapon as it pulls workers from their economic and political interests and disarms them politically in order to enrol them for the defence of democracy.” (ICC intervention).

On the lessons for today

This part asked whether participants saw fascism on the rise today and the reasons for their position. Overall, there was agreement that fascism was a product of specific historical circumstances, principally that it was based on the defeat of the working class’s revolutionary efforts of 1917-26; the conditions for it do not currently exist because the class has not been defeated.

However, an important difference was expressed by Carter, who argued that the Trump administration is moving towards fascism in its disregard for democratic norms and open deployment of force: “Not full authoritarian rule but several authoritarian measures without being challenged. Redefined terrorist identification to target people on the left. I’m not saying the working class is defeated but normal legislative checks failed in stopping Trump as he is able to engage in fascist repressive actions in and outside the US.”

Another participant, Mario, responded by arguing that it is necessary to distinguish between the form and content of fascism: “The form can look similar, but fascism historically has been based on the defeat of the working class with the state employing its authoritarian measures against it; crushing the unions, free speech, assembly, universal suffrage and all aspects of bourgeois democracy in favour of authoritarian rule by the state accompanied by other mystifications such as chauvinism, racial superiority of one group… What Trump is trying to do is limited by the working class not being defeated….”

The ICC pointed out that the type of measures imposed by the Trump regime are far from unique, giving the examples of repressive measures by the European Union forcing migrants to live in squalor inside the EU or facing imprisonment and torture at the hands of states outside, but paid for by the EU. Trump has simply been more open about what he is doing. In response Carter maintained his argument: “If he [Trump] is not fascist, he is building up to be fascist very soon.”

Other participants who rejected the argument about the current possibility of fascism pointed to the development of populism and how its irrationality gives impetus to the calls to defend democracy: “Despite similar rhetoric, today’s rise of populism occurs not in the context of a bourgeoisie united with a perspective towards total war, but of a bourgeoisie which cannot organise itself for even the most basic regulation of its economy and state. We think this is an important distinction, but clearly we should not be caught off guard; the situation is in many ways more dangerous today than in the past.” This was echoed in another intervention: “Today’s populist movements, which are often presented as fascist, are a product of the current situation and specifically the decomposition of capitalism with its consequences of incoherence, irrationality and often incompetence.”

Conclusion

This was a useful discussion with a high level of engagement by a large number of participants showing that the subject remains relevant. At its core was the question of the nature of democracy and its relationship to fascism. They are presented as polar opposites but, by considering the history of the ‘Spanish revolution’, we can see that the one was the condition for the other. By drawing the working class from its fight against the whole of capitalism and bourgeois society, the democratic myth and the forces of the left that called for its defence helped defeat the working class and open the road to fascism and global war.

In understanding how the ideology of democracy has been used against the working class and by showing how ‘revolutionary’ posturing by the forces of the left of capital, whether under the mask of socialism, Trotskyism or anarchism, reinforced this ideology, revolutionaries can arm themselves against its use today and tomorrow. Today the campaigns against Trump, and populism generally, are drawing on this ideology, seeking to pull the working class into defending democracy, and with it the whole edifice of obsolescent, decomposing capitalism. This cannot be halted by united fronts, popular fronts or any compromise with ruling class but only by the independent, self-organised struggle of the working class across the globe. If this seems a distant prospect today it is not brought nearer by compromise with any part of the class enemy. In seeking to clarify this, the meeting was a small moment in an essential process.

PW 21/06/26