What do you think?
Rate this book
Anarchism, the Republic and Civil War in Spain: 1931-1939
The Spanish Civil War became the setting for the struggle between revolution and counter-revolution as well as being, for many outsiders, the place of armed conflict between the forces of democracy and fascism. This book is a path-breaking synthesis of political, social and cultural history concerning the anarchist revolution during the Spanish Civil War by Spain's leading historian of the Civil War.
- GenresHistory
242 pages, Hardcover
First published June 10, 1999
23 people want to read
About the author
Julián Casanova
44 books73 followersJulián Casanova Ruiz is a Spanish historian and columnist.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
June 3, 2015
An odd and frustrating book. It's difficult for me to understand the purpose of such a work, by an academic historian who considers anarchism a dead ideology, utterly superseded by pacifist "new social movements" that operate in civil society, protagonized by subjects who desire a new fridge instead of revolution. Having internalized the "rationality" of capitalism, such a writer can never understand what motivated anarchists, who can only appear as irrational, quasi-religious actors with the usual epithets - utopian, messianic, millenarian, fanatic, naive, romantic, idealist, obsessed with an "earthly paradise" and a faith in dreams. Their ideas – direct action, anti-politicism, anti-militarism, etc., are only "identity marks" by which they are "convinced of their own purity."
Casanova seems to view his main purpose as deflating the claims made for Spanish anarchism in this period, and overturning the "commonplaces." The consensus among anarchists today is that the leading committees of the CNT did not push the Revolution far enough, and that collaborating with the government was not just a violation of fundamental principles, but a mistake in tactics. Casanova takes the opposite view, and shows some sympathy for the "treintistas," the moderate wing of the CNT. Durruti, today universally respected by anarchists, "contributed little of importance to anarcho-syndicalism." The defense of Barcelona and the collectivizations were not spontaneous, and not all workers were revolutionary. The CNT had constant problems with funds, membership, infighting among activists. Its anti-electoralism had probably not affected the elections anyway. The extremists brought the May Days down on their own heads. While these are interesting points to consider, and we should look critically at all sides, it does seem that Casanova is nitpicking.
Perhaps we can see Casanova as weighing in on a paradox of anarchism: it obviously entails the active participation of considerable numbers; but how many? When is an uprising "authentic" and when is it a useless adventure by an isolated minority? There is no a priori answer. Casanova seems to think, as the treintistas did, that one must have a "majority" (not a self-evident concept) to be revolutionary. The reality, however, is that a majority will never be anti-capitalist in a capitalist society. The change must come when most are indifferent or hostile, and it will not appear spontaneous or democratic.
Casanova seems to view his main purpose as deflating the claims made for Spanish anarchism in this period, and overturning the "commonplaces." The consensus among anarchists today is that the leading committees of the CNT did not push the Revolution far enough, and that collaborating with the government was not just a violation of fundamental principles, but a mistake in tactics. Casanova takes the opposite view, and shows some sympathy for the "treintistas," the moderate wing of the CNT. Durruti, today universally respected by anarchists, "contributed little of importance to anarcho-syndicalism." The defense of Barcelona and the collectivizations were not spontaneous, and not all workers were revolutionary. The CNT had constant problems with funds, membership, infighting among activists. Its anti-electoralism had probably not affected the elections anyway. The extremists brought the May Days down on their own heads. While these are interesting points to consider, and we should look critically at all sides, it does seem that Casanova is nitpicking.
Perhaps we can see Casanova as weighing in on a paradox of anarchism: it obviously entails the active participation of considerable numbers; but how many? When is an uprising "authentic" and when is it a useless adventure by an isolated minority? There is no a priori answer. Casanova seems to think, as the treintistas did, that one must have a "majority" (not a self-evident concept) to be revolutionary. The reality, however, is that a majority will never be anti-capitalist in a capitalist society. The change must come when most are indifferent or hostile, and it will not appear spontaneous or democratic.
Displaying 1 of 1 review