Néstor Makhno, exiled in Paris, was in contact with Spanish anarchists and "hoped they would learn from the Makhnovist experience[...]'Makhno has never shied away from a struggle; if I am still alive when you begin yours, I will be with you'"1. Two texts on Spain appear in The Struggle Against the State and Other Essays. ---- Part One ---- Our friend Néstor Makhno, whose insurgent activities in Ukraine are too well known in these circles to need repeating, scribbled some notes on the Spanish revolution a few months ago from his impoverished exile in France and sent them to us for the consideration of Spanish anarchists. A follow-up text will appear in the next edition.
In recent months, the character and form of the Spanish revolution have been determined partly by the pressures of the revolutionary masses of the proletariat and partly by the desires of the liberal bourgeoisie as such, who decided once and for all to break with the constitutional monarchy and secure (support) a Republic, which better suited their interests.
It should be noted that the Spanish Revolution began with a novel compromise (hidden from the masses, of course) reached between the king and the liberal bourgeoisie. We all know that this bourgeoisie, after defeating the monarchists in the municipal elections, perceived that it had political control over the country's political forces. It exerted pressure on the troops, which, from its perspective, was already in place, and King Alfonso XIII became frightened. It is also common knowledge that the monarchists, after some kind of negotiation with the liberal bourgeoisie, ensured that the executioner King Alfonso XIII was allowed to leave the country unhindered and without facing any punishment. Moreover, he left with his entire entourage, taking with him the means for a life of luxury. The king reserved the right to return to the throne and appoint a successor to take his place. All of this shows us that the liberal bourgeoisie, by rescuing the king from the justice of the people and transferring him to the territory of another State, was aware that the king could be useful to them in frightening the people, just when the latter were about to wrest more freedom from them than the bourgeoisie was prepared to grant.
The bourgeoisie made their calculations well. It is evident that the leading figures of Spanish liberalism took careful note of the mistakes made by their counterparts in the Russian Revolution regarding the awakening working people, and the liberals behaved as faithful guardians of the principle of servitude forged in Spain over the centuries. This servitude served the purposes of the king, his entourage, and his admirers, but the people barely figured in history the great people at whose expense the king and his courtiers lived. And, shamefully, today's liberals are once again appealing to these people, now that they have sealed their deal with the monarchists regarding the unhindered departure of the criminal king. A question arises, of necessity: where were the true friends of the people at that time, those revolutionaries of all stripes? Where were those people who had so often orchestrated attempts on the life of the criminal king? Had the ideals that drove the best sons of Spain to acts of heroism grown cold? It cannot be argued that such elements did not exist in Spain at that time. Nor can it be asserted that they reached any agreement with the liberals to allow the king to leave. The only acceptable explanation is that the Spanish revolutionaries, having secured freedom of expression and the right to organize, were busy regrouping their forces and developing practical action plans so that the working people could better understand them and be in a position to support them in the struggle for liberation. And if this last point is correct, what results have their meetings produced? Well, there is no trace of them in the revolutionary camp: the socialists are at the service of the liberals, and as for the trade unionists and anarchists, it seems that the time has not yet come to implement and embed their ideals in the lives of the people: in all likelihood, they are waiting for better times. The Bolsheviks (State Communists) are, as always, confined to street demonstrations, without assuming any responsibility in the eyes of the working people. Meanwhile, the liberal leaders, emboldened, boldly dictate to their party and the government the means by which they must advance toward "strong power" and "restored order." This is what the liberals want from the Spanish revolution. With such appetites at work, and without further delay, they introduce into the life of the country everything that does not conflict with their class interests.
This is how the liberal bourgeoisie has reached the heights of power and is rushing to place new chains on the country. Moreover, they do all this with the certainty that the socialists will support them in this battle and will crush the extremists as soon as they attempt to incite the people against them.
All of this makes it understandable that neither the liberal bourgeoisie nor the government fears the Bolshevik street demonstrations, nor the general strikes of the workers that are so frequently called throughout Spain under the supervision of revolutionary and anarchist syndicalists and which, despite being so painfully felt, almost always end in bloody failure. The liberal bourgeoisie can rest easy, for its leaders look after its well-being: thanks to the political agility and astute tactics of its leaders, the bourgeoisie can accurately gauge its strength, measure it against that of its enemies, and orient itself in relation to its most dangerous left-wing adversaries. Thanks to this, the bourgeoisie knows when and to what extent its armed forces should be employed against its enemies. Meanwhile, the leaders of the left either fail to notice, or refuse to notice, what the bourgeoisie is establishing in the country. In any case, the behavior of the leaders tells us with certainty that there is a certain confusion throughout the left-wing front, seemingly stemming from the fact that these leaders occupy working-class positions for which they are ill-suited, either by character or determination, or from their belief that the masses are incapable of putting their ideas into practice without state oversight. From a distance, it is difficult to label this. But one thing is clear, and in my view, undisputed: there is a deeply rooted confusion within the ranks of the left. Otherwise, the Manifesto of " The Thirty " would not have appeared, a manifesto that is highly detrimental to the Spanish revolution and the anarchist movement. This manifesto, even coming from veteran, high-ranking, and well-intentioned militants, could prove fatal to the revolutionary project. Its consequences could be even greater considering the many shortcomings of the Spanish revolution, given that, even today, it lacks a defined course of practical action and sufficient resources for social action, in whose absence revolutions are always rendered powerless. The Spanish revolution will remain powerless unless it proves capable of continuing its progress without the bourgeoisie and the Bolsheviks, in collusion with them, being on the verge of bringing it to a screeching halt.
Part two
I would venture to argue once again that, thanks to the absence of defined lines of direct action, as well as the lack of adequate resources for social action, a manifesto has now been published by thirty comrades; something similar could happen tomorrow, and because of this, the revolutionary front is narrowing and the revolution is suffering more. In light of this, the possibility that the bourgeoisie will end up seizing control of the revolution and that open reaction will worsen cannot be ruled out. But then it will be too late to work on forming a genuinely revolutionary front and guiding the revolution toward victorious expansion. As long as the working masses in Spain are not weary and still harbor hopes of achieving something in terms of winning freedom and well-being, and as long as the liberal bourgeoisie wants to be a left-wing bourgeoisie one day proclaiming a bourgeois republic and the next a workers' republic much can be done to strengthen the revolution and put it on the path to fruitful development. But such things come at a cost. They demand the utmost effort, not so much from isolated individuals or groups, but from the workers as a whole, in close ideological and tactical coordination, free from complacency workers who know what they want and who invest all their intellectual initiative in making it a reality. The truth is that our anarchist community is still not accustomed to collective action. Historically, its practice has been haphazard and, almost never in any revolution, has it produced the impact to which anarchists aspired, nor has it managed to win over the masses. But the imperative message of the times is that we must abandon that approach and organize our forces, organizing the working masses and arming them with the resources for social action that will allow them to defend themselves against bourgeois capitalist society. Moreover, that they may emerge victorious from their struggles against it.
The fact is that, to date, such notions have been out of place in anarchist thought, but their absence was notable in the Russian Revolution and caused enormous harm to anarchists. A damaging absence is also perceived in the Spanish Revolution.
When one observes the Spanish Revolution and sees that, within the left, the predominant force belongs to the anarchists, one cannot help but be moved. One cannot dismiss with indifference the errors whose most likely cause is the confusion that has gripped its leading figures: instead of capitalizing on historical developments that occur only very rarely, the movement witnessed the appearance of fissures within its own ranks. And all this happened at a time when the revolutionary calendar demanded the utmost effort from the movement and the initiative of its groups to help the country organize its labor resources in order to create its means of production. There was also a need to begin establishing committees for the defense of the revolution, through which the country could be quickly liberated politically, from the oppression of the bureaucracy; economically, from the exploitative employer; and intellectually, from all past forms of enslavement. Then it could dedicate its efforts to building the new order of a free society and a completely new way of life. All of this would be achieved without any oversight from the State, the Church, or financial capital.
It is not that I think all is lost yet: the Spanish people still harbor the hope of not succumbing to the bourgeoisie and believe themselves perfectly capable of charting the course of the revolution through which they can realize their age-old ambitions: to be free and independent from the bourgeoisie and any order it imposes. Consequently, revolutionary anarchists must make their own independent assessment of the vanguard forces of the revolution and not be distracted by "united fronts" and other abstractions about the future, but live in the here and now and work with their eyes on the present. There must be a outlined program of practical action, brief but clear for all its supporters, who may be scattered throughout the country, and easily understandable for the broad masses of workers.
In that program, anarchists must affirm that all means of production belong to the nascent labor-based society and must be under the management of workers' unions. It must be declared that all land belongs to the new society and must be under the management of peasant societies, communes, and their unions. Finance, education, and other spheres of social life must belong to workers' associations free from sanctions by state authorities.
In propagating these issues, anarchists must act with the new republican system of exploitation in mind. The bourgeoisie must be forcibly dispossessed of the land, factories, mines, and means of transport. Once the bourgeoisie resists these gains, they must be placed in a situation where they have no time to defend the wealth accumulated through the labor of others, but enough time to save their own lives.
Organized and uncompromising struggle will draw the majority of revolutionary workers into the orbit of the anarchists. In that case, no one will be left to remain on the sidelines, neither signatories of the "Manifesto of the Thirty," much less their followers. All the vital forces of the revolution, attracted by anarchist ideology and guided by its organizations and strategy, will set about attacking the strongholds of the bourgeoisie, the government, and its mercenaries. The working people will triumph, and their age-old dream of freedom and equality based on free labor will be a reality.
Nestor Makhno
From Tierra y Libertad (Barcelona) Friday, April 27, 1934 and Friday, May 4, 1934.
The death of Makhno and the Spanish comrades
Where did the Makhno article reproduced above come from, and through whom did it arrive?
Focusing solely on Land and Liberty:
On June 30, 1934, an appeal appeared for "Solidarity with Nestor Makhno, gravely ill," stating that he had been in that condition for five months. "His recovery will be long." Donations were to be sent to Madame A. Faucier in Paris.
On August 9, 1934, a front-page article about Makhno was published, reporting his death on July 27. A shorter text noted that, after his death, the United Press agency in Paris had circulated a telegram, published by a Barcelona newspaper on July 29, which Tierra y Libertad considered defamatory and slanderous against Makhno.
On August 16, 1934, Tierra y Libertad included on page 4 an article by Ángel Calvo entitled "Comrade Makhno Has Died." It read: "At six o'clock in the morning of July 25, the valiant Russian revolutionary and principal driving force of the Ukrainian revolution, Nestor Makhno, passed away. ÁNGEL CALVO."
Calvo has an entry in the Dictionnaire international des militants anarchistes:
"Angel CALVO
Born on October 16, 1899 in Remolins (Tortosa) - alligator - FAI-CNT-Drancy (Seine-Saint Denis)
After fleeing to France, Ángel Calvo, a tiler working in Drancy, served as secretary of the Voluntad group in 1934. This group was active in the Paris area and affiliated with the Iberian Anarchist Federation (FAI). He participated very actively in the 1935 campaign for the right of asylum, along with other members of the Drancy group, including Heriberto Ramos, alias Juan Robles y Robles, Fabriciano Carrasco, Manuel Estrada, and Pelayo López. The FAI then had numerous groups in France[...]Calvo was living at that time at number 17 Rue Jules Verne in Drancy with Fabriciano Carrasco, and his name appeared on a list of anarchist addresses to be checked in the Paris area.
Translation by Liza.
1. Alexandre Skirda, Nestor Makhno: Anarchy's Cossack , p. 277.
2. The Manifesto of the Thirty, so named for its 30 original signatories, was drafted in August 1931 by prominent members of the CNT committees and the editorial board of Solidaridad Obrera . It was designed to halt the process by which the CNT was having to bear the consequences of the revolts and insurrections inspired by the FAI. In the repressions following these events, the CNT faced the closure of its premises and unions, mass arrests, and the cost of financing legal defenses and supporting the families of those arrested, killed, or deported. The government encouraged the Thirty (the so-called " treintistas ") as a more moderate opposition. It should be noted that in previous years some of these supposed "reformists" had belonged to the more radical wing of the anarcho-syndicalist movement .
https://regeneracionlibertaria.org/2026/03/31/la-revolucion-espanola-sus-errores-y-posibles-correcciones/
_________________________________________
Source: A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten