USSR-aligned groups, where they had power in Spain, in many instances used that power to imprison, smear, and seize weapons from, and attack non-USSR-aligned groups. You can look up José Cazorla’s anti-subversion measures in Madrid, or PSUC’s attacks on POUM during the Barcelona May Days.
Yes, and the anti-USSR groups used their power to imprison, smear, seize weapons from, and attack USSR-aligned groups.
It wasn’t a “betrayal,” it was a conflict in how the war should be fought. The Anarchists tried to stick to decentralization even within the context of war, and lost. Had the Anarchists adopted a more Marxist line, they may have succeeded.
What’s your understanding of the entire situation? Are you suggesting that it was going well until the Communists backstabbed the Anarchists? Taking a real, materialist analysis of the situation is necessary. Historically, Communists and Anarchists have had uneasy alliances until differences in organizational theory lead to friction and then conflict.
I don’t know how the war would have gone if those events hadn’t taken place, but it seems to have undermined the strength of the popular front. And from what I’ve read the anarchists were sufficiently organized. The type of Anarchism popular amongst the Spanish was a syndicalist strain very different from the hyper-individualism people expect from anarchists today.
Why what happened? As far as why anarchists were attacked by communists, it is ppssible the USSR was more interested in developing a strategic ally than simply fighting fascists. As far as why Franco won, I think the biggest reason was his much greater international support from Germany, Italy, and even American corporate powers.
USSR-aligned groups, where they had power in Spain, in many instances used that power to imprison, smear, and seize weapons from, and attack non-USSR-aligned groups. You can look up José Cazorla’s anti-subversion measures in Madrid, or PSUC’s attacks on POUM during the Barcelona May Days.
Yes, and the anti-USSR groups used their power to imprison, smear, seize weapons from, and attack USSR-aligned groups.
It wasn’t a “betrayal,” it was a conflict in how the war should be fought. The Anarchists tried to stick to decentralization even within the context of war, and lost. Had the Anarchists adopted a more Marxist line, they may have succeeded.
I’m not sure they did, at least not preemptively. Do you have examples?
What’s your understanding of the entire situation? Are you suggesting that it was going well until the Communists backstabbed the Anarchists? Taking a real, materialist analysis of the situation is necessary. Historically, Communists and Anarchists have had uneasy alliances until differences in organizational theory lead to friction and then conflict.
I don’t know how the war would have gone if those events hadn’t taken place, but it seems to have undermined the strength of the popular front. And from what I’ve read the anarchists were sufficiently organized. The type of Anarchism popular amongst the Spanish was a syndicalist strain very different from the hyper-individualism people expect from anarchists today.
Why do you think it happened? You implied the fighting was one-sided and a betrayal.
Why what happened? As far as why anarchists were attacked by communists, it is ppssible the USSR was more interested in developing a strategic ally than simply fighting fascists. As far as why Franco won, I think the biggest reason was his much greater international support from Germany, Italy, and even American corporate powers.
You’re dancing around the issues, I’m asking why you say the Communists “betrayed” the Anarchists, as though it was a one-sided afair.
I mentioned examples. I don’t know of any counter-examples.