Review: The Battle for Spain by Antony Beevor

This is a book review of "The Battle for Spain: The Spanish Civil War 1936-1939" By Anthony Beevor. (This is my first shot at doing a book review so feel free to tell me if I do a horrible job or not I'd also like to hear how I could better review a book.)


For a book that has 432 pages of reading material the book has many ups and downs. During some parts of the book it is impossible to put the book down. Other parts get kind of dull and can be confusing at times.


One of my favorite parts of the book is the very beginning, Anthony Beevor (AB) does a great job of laying the political, class and economic landscape to show how events led up to the seeming inevitable chaos that would become the Spanish Civil War. By listening to the drawn out constant arguing between leftist, many factors of the war are left out and AB does a good job of filling many of these gaps.


The book is overall very informative and mainly un-biased despite a few comments which are baseless and pure attacks on communist, and later in the book he also starts calling the nationalist "brave" and things of that nature. Funny considering the Italian's practically won the war for the Falangist. But for example the author writes that while the fascist killed many people: "....if the Republic would have won , how many would have been executed and might have died in their camps? As several historians have pointed out, the winner of a civil war always kills more than the losers. Everything would have depended on the Republican regime which would have emerged. If it had been a communist regime, then to judge by other communist dictatorships, it would have been very high because of the paranoid nature of the system"(page 405-406)(1)


This is strange to me since in the book he says that around 200,000 people were killed and executed during and after the war by the fascist(page 94) he goes on to quote nationalist General Gonzalo Queipo de Llano as saying to the Republican forces: "on my word of honor as a gentleman that for every person that you kill, we will kill at least ten."(page94) And to prove a point further about how no one probably would have killed as many people as the Fascist Falangist did, again on page 94 he quotes Franco as saying when asked if he forgave his enemies: "I have none. I have had them all shot."


One thing the book confirmed for me is that the anarchist were not the angels that the modern day anarcho's paint them as. This is not to say that they were evil but the picture most anarcho's paint is that in the anarchist controlled areas that everyone was free and that it was pretty much a Utopia of classless freedom. This book is more realistic painting the CNT as a multi-tendency which at times acted childish not wanting to work with communist and republicans and at other times the CNT and UGT were the only organizations that were standing up for the poorer classes. I never knew that the CNT was a union that had both reformist and revolution Anarchist in its ranks. Untill reading this book I never realized how small of a roll the FAI actually played in the war as I thought the CNT and FAI had the same amount of influence.


It is strange how the anarcho CNT seem to support the republican one month then switch the next month. On one occasion Caballero invited the anarchist to form a government with out the communist and the anarchist refused. Not to mention that a anarcho leader was quoted as saying: ".....there is a foreign ambassador in Madrid who is interfering in Spanish affairs. We warn him that Spanish affairs only concern the Spanish."(all info on page 146) This is a lovely display of internationalism if you ask me (not). Not to mention that ambassador was the one helping to arm the different armies and militias. The book points out many times how without USSR weapons and ammunition, aircraft and artillery that the civil war could not have lasted three years.


In fact in one case some CNT members arrested both communist and CNT members for simply fleeing Madrid to escape death AKA for retreating. I think this display helps show that even libertarian socialist, anarchos etc can be authoritarian. They eventually release the soldiers on persuasion of the CNT national council. (page 171) But not to play one side of the field it should be said that the communist were more so authoritarian and made many useless arrest and some crazy generals would kill their soldiers for little or no reason.


But I don't mean this to demonize the Anarchist CNT as they did give an invaluable sacrifice against the nationalist/religious/fascist movement. At times even giving up their own wants and needs to better combat the fascist, something the POUM was not capable of doing. In-fact the book points out how even the POUM was getting weapons from the USSR until the POUM started critiquing the CNT/Communist party and the USSR.


History, as time has gone on has painted the POUM incorrectly and I think that AB does a good job of clearing this up. Most Trots and Stalinist claim that the POUM was a Trotskyist organization. However the author correctly points out many times how this was just assumed as time went on even though there is no basis for this other than the fact that the USSR called them "trotskyist fascist" and the leader of the POUM (Andres Nin) used to be good friends with Trotsky himself.


The book states many sources for how Nin had broken with Trotsky and how Trotsky and his fourth international criticized the POUM many times. Including how Trotsky himself repudiated his former colleague in furious articles. The fourth international attacked the POUM personally for joining the popular front in the elections to beat the Carlist, royalist and the nationalist.(page 262) But as time went on in the civil war the POUM was still discredited and attacked by both the fourth international and Stalinist alike until it was suppressed and its leaders arrested by the republican government. (page270)


Now I want to bring up Stalin in this civil war, I have heard him be single-handedly blamed for the lost of the Spanish Civil War. Despite the fact that the USSR was very poor and had little to give in weaponry at the time. The book goes to great lengths to explain how Stalin and his people in Spain had very different ideas for Spain. In-fact many Russians who served in Spain got executed for their actions in Spain.


Stalin was afraid to enter into the Spanish Civil War because he thought that Hitler would see this as a time of USSR weakness and that his nation would be attacked. But at the chance of proving Trotsky wrong (Trotsky wrote an article attacking Stalin for not intervening in Spain) he decided to send supplies to Spain. But it was the Russian workers who saved the day, forming up discussion councils and giving donations to help fund the supplies to Spanish militias to fight the fascist.(page 139)


Stalin said to his advisers going to Spain: "....Always remember that, in spite of the great solidarity which now exist between the Spanish people and the people of the USSR, a Soviet specialist, being a foreigner in Spain, can be really only useful if he stays strictly within the limits of an adviser and an adviser only." (page 256) He goes on to quote Stalin on page 257 that Spain should become a democracy.


The book makes it seems as though Stalin wanted one thing for Spain; a democracy and self-determination while his advisers and Comintern members wanted one thing; a communist ruled Spain.


One reoccurring theme through out the book is that AB says how the USSR and the Spanish Communist Party was paranoid of nationalist and fascist infiltration. And how they were practically crazy for being so paranoid about this "fifth column". Only to later in the book to go on to confirm that there was many fascist, nationalist and loyalist infiltrators into the republican army. (page 388, 390, 391)


The book overall is informative with a very in depth history leading up to the events of 1936. But the book is well written in some areas and in other parts the book is very poorly written. If you have a hard time concentrating then this book may not be for you. It jumps around dates and events that at times seems like a bi-polar kid hyped up on red bull. It is very hard to follow is what I am saying. AB jumps from date to date so fast and often that some times you have to re-read multiple pages to reassure yourself that you know what is going on.


The battle chapters (where he describes the battles and gives the layouts of the battles) are horribly written, unless you are an expert in Spanish geography you will mainly have no clue what is going on. There are no good maps in the book to really help you know where he is talking about. Only a few maps of battles and one map of Spain that labels the capitals are the maps you get, making it hard to know what and where he is talking about in many battles. However if you are an expert in Spanish geography then I'm sure you will love his descriptions of battles. He does give deep details of the battles to his credit.


Let me say that one thing that had me angry is the ending to this book. This is not structured or sold as an opinion book but as a history book. So there is no real need for a good ending or conclusion. The last sentence of this book reads: "Conclusions are much too convenient." So is laziness, there is a conclusion; The Republicans, Communist, Socialist, Anarchist and Independence movement's couldn't stop fighting among themselves long enough to fight the right wing forces. The nationalist, fascist, royalist/carlist Italian and German coalition forces won, the Falangist consolidated power, killed almost a quarter million people and denounced both Fascist Italy and Germany when it was obvious they were going to lose their wars. The Falangist ruled with an iron fist until the 70's. The conclusion isn't hard to come up with.


Overall I would give this book a five out of ten.




(1) Which Historians say this? And can one in a history book really claim that the winning side ALWAYS kills more? Not to mention the statement about communist is completely biased and a baseless claim almost as to humanize the fascist regime by saying 'well the communist would have been worse'



Written by: Dustin Slagle

Calling Out Sectarianism!

Sometimes the best way to combat something is to bring it out into light. One thing the socialist movement in the US suffers heavily from is sectarianism (not the broadly misused form of the word sectarian where people call you sectarian for writing a polemic against a certain group or ideology, or for calling an idea Utopian or liberal). Sectarianism is when someone or a group cause splits in the movement for opportunist reasons rather it be money, members, leader control etc etc etc. A great example is when two groups share the same politics, same political line and yet still do not unite their parties for silly reasons thus keeping divisions over small or petty reasons (members, money, leader control.)


Nothing annoys me more than when I say I disagree with the Trotskyist/anarchist/social-democrats and their tactics and instantly the other person yells; "sectarian!". This is a misuse of the word. If I had said; "don't be a trotskyist/anarchist/social-democrat because they eat babies and want to enslave the working class" with the intention to keep people from joining a Trotskyist/anarchist/social-democrat ORG so they would join mine then that would be sectarian. I just wanted to make that clear before moving on.


I hope to bring light to some sectarian organizations and parties in this post. Not just to attack these groups but to hopefully help them get over this problem and maybe we can create a bigger movement if we can get over sectarian problems.


First I'd like to address the Trotskyist sectarian groups. First of all it is important to point out that the third campist who constantly blame Stalin for everything to the point that they sound like conspiracy theorist are being sectarian (and annoying). They cause the largest split between socialist in this nation. What happened in the thirteen congress is over, Trotsky lost, Stalin won, there was no conspiracy, Trotsky was in the party for only a few years and Stalin's line won get over it and move forward this is the USA 2011 not Russia 19-anything. You will have to work with Stalinist if you want the revolution to happen. (this is just a small example but I don't wanna turn this into a Trot bash but in my opinion the Trotskyist line is almost pure sectarian under fake calls for unity/solidarity)


Now I would like to point out point blank the sectarian Trotskyist parties who's politics differ so little that the fact they do not combine their groups is prof of true sectarianism. Even though I don't view them as real communist and see them as no more than paper boy liberals the ISO (international socialist ORG) is one of the first groups I think of when sectarianism comes to mind. Besides their members being notoriously rude/sectarian and pompous asses they share many political stances with other groups. The ISO could easily merge with the SWP (socialist Workers Party) they could also absorb Socialist Action. If all of these groups joined together they could have a small but considerate amount of influence on the political landscape. But that would mean working together across their international groups which would mean throwing off the chains of sectarianism. I can't speak for the SWP as I have never even met a SWP member but I don't think that the ISO would be capable of building this network between other groups.


Other groups that could be joined in with those same parties are the Socialist Organizer, the International Marxist Tendency's US group, the Workers International League and the Socialist Alternative. Though these groups are much smaller and would have a smaller impact but coupled with the SA, ISO and SWP they could have some political relevance.


Now I am going to address the APL (American Party of Labor) who seem to think only Hoxha and Stalin had any clue what socialism was and how it is to be built and everyone else is a revisionist/reactionary etc etc etc. This is another group who's members are notoriously assholes and are almost irrelevant in every struggle. If the APL got over their selves and focused on ground work and not insulting other groups they could probably grow and become relevant. Although to give credit where credit is due; they are pretty much unique in their political line so their main form of sectarianism is their in-ability to work with anyone who is not a Hoxhaist.


My next group of people I address will be the tankie Marxist Leninist groups. Now seeing as I was in one of these groups I am most knowledgeable in this section and this section breaks my heart the most. Unfortunately the sectarianism in this area is based on recruiting members to their groups and leaders. I think if the tankie/anti-imperialist groups all got together that they could have a large group with a good amount of political sway in the country. You probably know all of these parties if you are from the US left if not; The PSL (Party for Socialism and Liberation) the FRSO-FB (freedom road socialist organization-fight back) and the WWP (workers world party). I think if these groups joined together that the US would have the biggest socialist movement it has had since the 60's. With the PSL's numbers and the FRSO's ability to motivate people into the streets I really think this coalition would be an unmovable force with a great amount of influence.


What is sad that these groups are not very sectarian besides this aspect, in fact I think all these groups are good at working with other parties and groups to achieve their goals.


The differences between these three parties are so minuscule that they are not even worth mentioning. This is the saddest case of sectarianism I see in the US today. When I think of the best opportunity to create a large and relevant movement in the USA this is the number one way I think that it should be done. These three groups should unite and they should unite today!

On the Question of Allowing Factions in the Party.

I'd like to start by mentioning that I am referring to factions with in a party who's guiding system is Democratic Centralism. There are many sides to this argument and many differing reasons why one supports or does not support factions with in a party.


Most believe that factions within a party will only lead to an inevitable split within that party. There is no evidence to suggest that this would happen but there is no evidence to the contrary. I would like to take this subject from an objective stance. I would love to have comments on this post and see what others think on the subject.


One down side could be that important issues could cause a split or if a hot button issues is decided by only a few percentage like 55-45% on a vote it could cause anger and division among the party.


On the other hand, greater inner democracy could create a feeling of unity within the party and energize some members that would otherwise be down heartened with the bureaucracy of the normal democratic centralist party. I for one would enjoy a party where I could express my individual ideas behind closed doors with other members of my party that shared my same ideas. Then take those ideas to the central committee to be voted on at a congress. It would make me feel more empowered and give me a greater feeling of duty to the party.


Something that comes to mind when I think about a party that would allow multiple factions in it; is that with factions openly encouraged the party could grow larger. For example if a party let everyone in that adhered to any form of Marxist Leninist theory than everything from Leninist to Stalinist and Maoist could join the party. As a Maoist in this country at this time there is no party that truly represents my ideas as a Maoist. I would not and will not join a party that will not allow me to be openly Maoist and express my Maoist ideas and theories. I would join a party if I could openly propagate and advocate a Maoist line with in the party.


However I do not think this idea could work with all the communist tendencies, I do not see a world where Maoist and Trotskyist could be in the same party and peacefully exist. I think an attempt to do so would be a waste of time and resources.


I will touch a little more on this subject in an upcoming post that will be about "A Unified Communist Party of America."

What are the differences between the fronts and when are they applicable?

There are different kinds of fronts that are created for different reasons in different places. Different situations and conditions in different places call for a formation of different fronts.



This post will be mainly discussing the two fronts that communist would be dealing with in different situations. The United Front and the Popular Front.



The idea of the United Front is thought to have originated from the Comintern who declared in their 1921 congress that a united front is "an initiative whereby the Communists propose to join with all workers belonging to other parties and groups and all unaligned workers in a common struggle to defend the immediate, basic interests of the working class against the bourgeoisie.”



The Popular Front was created to fight fascism and is more broad than the United Front, allowing liberal and bourgeois elements to join the front in order to fight a common enemy. The Popular Front was highly criticized by Leon Trotsky because he claimed that only United Fronts could be progressive and that Communist collaborating with liberal elements was betrayal of the working class. Big words from a man who was a liberal class champion before the Bolsheviks made it clear that they would be the winning force and Trotsky party jumped opportunistically again as it is explained here (1). And better explained here by Lenin (2).



I see a popular front as essential when fighting a imperialist army or trying to overthrow an oppressive dictator etc. For those who are opposed to popular fronts out right; I'd like to point out two great examples of why and when the Popular Front is needed.



One historical example would be in China when the Japanese invaded in 1937. Sometimes the coalition is referred to as a United Front, but seeing as there were pro-capitalist elements it was technically a Popular Front. If the communist and the Nationalist forces had never coupled with some Soviet volunteers and war lords to create a Popular Front then the Japanese would have easily smashed all forces separately. All the different groups knew that they had to join their forces together to defeat Japanese imperialism. China today would be either a US or Japanese colony if it wasn't for the Popular Front.



But China also teaches us another very important lesson when it comes to any kind of Front. The need to keep your ranks and stay an organization within the front. After the Japanese were defeated the civil war continued but it was keeping their ranks and their party together that allowed the communist to rise as the main power in China (after the long march the communist party gained a lot of respect from the people of China and after they showed their strength in the war against imperial Japan the communist were seen by the people as the party of and by the people) after defeating the Nationalist KMT.



A more recent example would be the situation in Palestine. The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine is a organization that is geared towards nothing less than the liberation and a free state of Palestine. They have joined with many forces through the years to fight the oppressive and imperialist puppet state of Israel. If it wasn't for the formation of these Popular Fronts joining their resources and armies together to fight the Israeli army then the Israeli's would have invaded and destroyed Palestine a long time ago. If they would have stayed Utopian purest like most Trotskyist would say they should have done and only formed United Fronts and only allowed communist, anarchist and socialist elements join then the Israeli Army would have played simple divide and conquer and the Palestinian people would be mostly extinct today.



Now that we have discussed why and when it is needed to create Popular Fronts let's talk about why and when it is needed to build a United Front.



The conditions arise only after the contradiction is primarily between the masses (poor and proletarian peasants and the working class) and the bourgeois (capitalist class, national bourgeois and petty bourgeoisie). A United Front is created when communist and other working class groups (anarchist, and other revolutionary working class movements) need to join forces to fight conservative and/or liberal elements. One example we can see is the United front between the ELN and FARC-EP. The two left-wing guerrilla armies have a common enemy in the neo-liberal government and have joined forces to combat the Colombian government.



Mexico is a place that could use a United Front, the EPR had suggested such a United Front with the EZLN but in a amazing betrayal of the Mexican people the EZLN refused the alliance. This keeps both groups smaller and less able to overthrow or even combat the current Mexican government. If these groups were to create a United Front then there would be a real possibility of destroying the current government.



To put it simply; different times call for different measures. It is always important to recognize the current contradictions in your nation and to organize and act accordingly to fix the current contradiction. If your nation is being oppressed or occupied then it may be needed to create and organize a Popular Front. If the main contradiction is between the people and the government and/or between the working class and bourgeois classes then you may need to create and organize a United Front.


Written by: Dustin Slagle

(1) http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1939/x01/ch04.htm#4._

(2) http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/may/x01.htm

The Point of Polemics.

A polemic is a critique of a organization, groups, person, idea, tendency etc. It was brought to my attention lately by a leftist pal of mine that I am not a good communist because I don't help the local reformist and liberal class collaborators who pose as communist (not his words, but mine). I didn't think much of it at first because he is a "do something, anything-ist" but I think that he had a point in there somewhere. That even by not supporting a reformist party I am doing nothing because I don't participate in many local activities. While I do participate in some local activities, I try to keep to little circles who I think have potential or to participate in militant activities. I am not interested in how many news papers I can sell at a rally, but rather I am interested in meeting people and hearing of their thoughts and experiences. And through discussion trying to reshape their ideas to be more communist and create more awareness among the people, person by person.



While I must confess that to some leftist this does not fall into their category of "doing something" but I have had great success with this strategy. It is also more inspiring and energizing for me to do this than to go to a leftist event and hearing liberal and reactionary ideas being regurgitated as fast as they can be re-consumed by the ORGs followers.



It is no secret that others in my area read this blog. The reason why I write polemics about these groups and people (most polemics I write are about multiple ORGS and many of them are taken out of context) is because they have many incorrect theories, they are calling themselves revolutionaries while championing reformism and liberalism under the guise of workers power. They are using other leftist to further their goals and have personally told me that there will come a day when they have to turn their backs on the other groups (that's called opportunism). I write polemics because many groups have become theoretically ignorant and use dogmatism as their guiding light.



Polemics are important in making groups and people better themselves. If you read a polemic about your group or about your ideas and you brush it off for any reason than you may be a dogmatic follower. If you discredit anything that was said or written by Mao simply because it was written or said by Mao than you are dogmatic and thus anti-dialects. Same goes for other people if you discredit everything Stalin said because it was Stalin who said it, if you discredit everything Trots say just because they are trots than you are a dogmatic person. This is not to say that you can't disagree with all of someones thoughts and ideas. But disagree because you've read it and don't just refute because of who wrote it. I don't agree with 99% of what Trotsky wrote. But it is because I think he wrote things from a purest and Utopian view point and not just because it was Trotsky who wrote it.



If polemics scare you as an ORG than you probably need to reevaluate yourself as an ORG. Only great people and groups use a good polemic to better themselves. Only cowards who are theoretically bankrupt and dogmatic cry when a polemic is written about them. A polemic is a good place to start doing some self criticism and theoretical advancement.



Written by; Dustin Slagle