For the anarchists.

Must of been incredible !

And they were so close.

Good video.

Black_Cross wrote:

And they were so close.

Good video.

An argument I get into quite often is that "the Spanish Revolution failed."

I truly don't see how it did, though. Collectivization worked well enough; people generally received enough to secure well-being and they were not terribly overworked. They produced quite well, considering how few communities they had, and the population generally received the goods of production equitably. Also, the people were not coerced into collectivizing, which is an extremely important point; temporary workers' councils that were formed in the cities captured by the Anarchists were based on voluntary participation and, by and large, almost everyone in the cities took an active role in them - compare this to the collectivization in Russia, and you'll see why I think that the voluntarist aspects of Spanish collectivization is so important of a point. Sam Dolgoff's book on the collectives that existed during this time convinced me of the Revolution's successes.

So how did it "fail?" Does failing to defeat the armed violence of multiple States - the Soviet Union and Spain - constitute a "failure" in the Revolution? I don't think so, because I don't think that we're out to prove any kind of military strength; our purpose is to prove that collectivization, coupled with a libertarian - i.e. stateless - political arrangement, is not only workable and practical, but good and can be successful.

Besides, resisting, restraining, and defeating the violence of the State - and, in this case, multiple States - is no simple task, so I applaud the Spanish Anarchists for being as successful militarily as they were. They actually did achieve certain victories militarily, let's be perfectly clear about that.

For me, the Spanish Revolution, more than any other event in history, highlights how libertarian socialism is a completely legitimate and workable idea.

So do I think that they were "so close?" No. I think that they were successful. There's no doubt about that in my mind.

i think the only failure that exists in it is the length in which it existed, its like the ukrainian free territory, it was brilliant, it was beautiful, it was incredible, but thanks to the (reactionary) forces fighting against them, they lost the power, potential, and credence of being a true bench mark for a truly remarkable anarchist movement.
however!
the paris commune, the ukrainian free territory, and the spanish revolution are all brilliant examples of what is to come.
so in this respect, yes they were a success as a form of awareness, but as a long lasting functioning society, they were crushed far too soon :[

btw how are you guys its been forever?

Again I have to agree with Wei. One thing that extremely pisses me off is when people say the Spanish communes failed just because they were not able to survive militarily.

I like use this analogy: Suppose you have a couple of friends with their families get together on a certain territory. Now suppose you all ae managing to produce the food you need, extract the water you need, make the clothing you need, produce the electricity, etc. You are literally able to support yourselves. All decisions are made by all of you equitatively and no one's forced into accepting anything. You agree all is working well right? You could say you have a succesful economy. Now imagine you got a bunch of guys come with machine guns, kill some of your friends and then tell you to surrender and give them the territory you live in. That's pretty much what happened in the Spanish Revolution.


Now, were they close or succesful? Unfortunately they were not unable to suffice one of the needs their circumstances required them: military survival. Indeed as Wei says it was not even slightly easy but it was a necesity and it's something we must learn from and which gets me to the following point: Any starting revolutionary community must be large enough and control a big and rich enough territory and have the greatest military proficiece possible to be autarchic and be able to survive. This or these spearheading communities will most probably have to face strong military intervention from the reactionaires.

WeiWuWei wrote:

Black_Cross wrote:

And they were so close.

Good video.

An argument I get into quite often is that "the Spanish Revolution failed."

I truly don't see how it did, though. Collectivization worked well enough; people generally received enough to secure well-being and they were not terribly overworked. They produced quite well, considering how few communities they had, and the population generally received the goods of production equitably. Also, the people were not coerced into collectivizing, which is an extremely important point; temporary workers' councils that were formed in the cities captured by the Anarchists were based on voluntary participation and, by and large, almost everyone in the cities took an active role in them - compare this to the collectivization in Russia, and you'll see why I think that the voluntarist aspects of Spanish collectivization is so important of a point. Sam Dolgoff's book on the collectives that existed during this time convinced me of the Revolution's successes.

So how did it "fail?" Does failing to defeat the armed violence of multiple States - the Soviet Union and Spain - constitute a "failure" in the Revolution? I don't think so, because I don't think that we're out to prove any kind of military strength; our purpose is to prove that collectivization, coupled with a libertarian - i.e. stateless - political arrangement, is not only workable and practical, but good and can be successful.

Besides, resisting, restraining, and defeating the violence of the State - and, in this case, multiple States - is no simple task, so I applaud the Spanish Anarchists for being as successful militarily as they were. They actually did achieve certain victories militarily, let's be perfectly clear about that.

For me, the Spanish Revolution, more than any other event in history, highlights how libertarian socialism is a completely legitimate and workable idea.

So do I think that they were "so close?" No. I think that they were successful. There's no doubt about that in my mind.

I never said they failed; i just said "they were so close". I also didn't qualify that (which is the reason for this confusion i suppose); when i said they were close, i meant they were close to achieving significant, lasting change. I didn't say it was their fault, that the anarchist agenda was flawed in some way (could they have done better? Maybe; is that relevant? Not so much) that doomed these changes to failure.

I think i conveyed my views on the subject clearly enough in my thread on the revolution.

Yeah, but can you really base the future on something that happened for 4 years max? Maybe if it was long term, it would be more credible.

Jesus wrote:

Yeah, but can you really base the future on something that happened for 4 years max? Maybe if it was long term, it would be more credible.

You can base the future based on things that happened for 5 seconds.

If something works in principle, it always works. It was not an experiment, it was a fully workable organization.

No this is not science, this is government types, + it didn't lasted enough longer to know if it could turn bad.

Jesus wrote:

No this is not science, this is government types, + it didn't lasted enough longer to know if it could turn bad.

How is this "government types" when there's no government involved here?

It's about people owning and controlling everything. If it fails it's everyone's flaw and their correct it. If it's awesome it's everyone's merit. Instead of just some guys making all the decisions and absorbing half of the responsability for all.

zealot wrote:

How is this "government types" when there's no government involved here?

Wow, pwned, Jesus

comrade110397 wrote:

zealot wrote:

How is this "government types" when there's no government involved here?

Wow, pwned, Jesus

Not really, this doesn't destroy my point at all, well not government type, but whatever you want to call it, it's still not science, and 1 experiment or 2 aren't foolproof.

Jesus wrote:

whatever you want to call it, it's still not science

Economics....

Jesus wrote:

it's still not science

Political Science

Liche wrote:

Jesus wrote:

whatever you want to call it, it's still not science

Economics....

Jesus wrote:

it's still not science

Political Science

... You knew what i meant ...

Jesus wrote:

Not really, this doesn't destroy my point at all, well not government type, but whatever you want to call it, it's still not science, and 1 experiment or 2 aren't foolproof.

Ehmm... what?

Is anyone claiming something to be foolproof here? Hmmm? Experiment? Who talked about experiments?

I already refuted your point, I would explain you why but there is a 99% chance you won't read it.

Cause you don't deserve it lollololololoolollololololololololololol.
Jezz...Jezzz...Jesus.

Hutin wrote:

Cause you don't deserve it lollololololoolollololololololololololol.
Jezz...Jezzz...Jesus.

Wtf? You haven't made a relevant post in ages, just spamming around, so yeah stfu

Jesus wrote:

Wtf? You haven't made a relevant post in ages, just spamming around, so yeah stfu

Will you mind defending your point or is this the second time you'll concede?

Our dear Ernst Busch sing this great Hymn of CNT-AIT
Hijos del pueblo




sorry for the flag. but best video i could find.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Jesus wrote:

Wtf? You haven't made a relevant post in ages, just spamming around, so yeah stfu

Will you mind defending your point or is this the second time you'll concede?

He hasn't attacked my post, and i won't mind when i'm not getting raped at 1 Vs 7 socialists.

Jesus wrote:

He hasn't attacked my post, and i won't mind when i'm not getting raped at 1 Vs 7 socialists.

I'm asking you if you will reply to me. Will you? If not, why not?

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Jesus wrote:

He hasn't attacked my post, and i won't mind when i'm not getting raped at 1 Vs 7 socialists.

I'm asking you if you will reply to me. Will you? If not, why not?

I answered blind person, i said i won't mind reply when you won't be 1 vs 7 and No that's no conceding a point, debating agaisnt 7 guys at once is just unfair

Jesus wrote:

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Jesus wrote:

He hasn't attacked my post, and i won't mind when i'm not getting raped at 1 Vs 7 socialists.

I'm asking you if you will reply to me. Will you? If not, why not?

I answered blind person, i said i won't mind reply when you won't be 1 vs 7 and No that's no conceding a point, debating agaisnt 7 guys at once is just unfair

SORRY

Jesus wrote:

Hutin wrote:

Cause you don't deserve it lollololololoolollololololololololololol.
Jezz...Jezzz...Jesus.

Wtf? You haven't made a relevant post in ages, just spamming around, so yeah stfu

Serious.Business.