Republic of Egos: A Social History of the Spanish Civil War

by Michael Seidman

Most histories of the Spanish Civil War (1936–1939) have examined major leaders or well-established political and social groups to explore class, gender, and ideological struggles. The war in Spain was marked by momentous conflicts between democracy and dictatorship, Communism and fascism, anarchism and authoritarianism, and Catholicism and anticlericalism that still provoke our fascination.

In "Republic of Egos", Michael Seidman focuses instead on the personal and individual experiences of the common men and women who were actors in a struggle that defined a generation and helped to shape our world. By examining the roles of anonymous individuals, families, and small groups who fought for their own interests and survival—and not necessarily for an abstract or revolutionary cause—Seidman reveals a powerful but rarely considered pressure on the outcome of history. He shows how price controls and inflation in the Republican zone encouraged peasant hoarding, black marketing, and unrest among urban workers. Soldiers of the Republican Army responded to material shortages by looting, deserting, and fraternizing with the enemy. Seidman’s focus on average, seemingly nonpolitical individuals provides a new vision of both the experience and outcome of the war.

Genres: History, Spain, Spanish Civil War, Nonfiction

328 pages, Paperback

First published September 5, 2002

Reviews

[Jessica]

The content chapters, where he actually talks about history, are mostly good, but the political statements of the introduction and conclusion are frustrating (mostly for being wrong). In one breath he'll whinge about "social history" not being adequately individualist, and in the next he'll say that he himself is taking a social-historical approach. He complains that Marxists', feminists' and the aforementioned social historians' focus on social groups denies that "individual dissidence" is a thing – that is, he seems to believe Marxists, feminists and social historians argue that workers, women, whatever group it may be are all monoliths, and who on earth would argue that?! He can't tell the difference between bourgeois and workers' revolutions, and therefore argues that the "Spanish Revolution" may have had more success if only they'd managed to convince the bourgeoisie that they were committed to defending private property. He doesn't think the Nationalists were actually fascists, either. So, I don't know. He takes a good, "history-from-below" perspective to history but his politics are quite messed up and annoying. Skip the introduction/conclusion if you can, maybe.

[sube · Rating 4 out of 5]

Argues inability of Spanish Republicans to enforce order and property respect undermined its own cohesion and war effort. Came away with conclusion that only PCE's middle-class Stalinism was viable, as only its authoritarianism could have allowed it to enforce its anti-radical positions that could have allowed secure property rights that undermine self-seeking individual behavior such as theft and looting that reduce popular support and degrade economic relations.

He makes clear that such 'individualist' behavior increasingly undermined the war effort of Spanish Republicans, as the civil war turned into a war of attrition and the Republicans were simply unable to make the state's commitment credible that undermined any support among the peasants while workers were increasingly alienated from the lack of consumer and supply provisioning.

The polarism of "individualism" and collectivism" is however unhelpful as frame, as counter-productive individual behavior can often be means of ensuring survival necessary for continued participation in the war effort (e.g. food theft) that however undermines it over time.

Nonetheless, a very useful book in emphasising the role of individuals and arguing for microeconomic view of history; yet there is still a gap in properly justifying and theoretising this.

[Micah · Rating 2 out of 5]

It's important to remember that in modern societies even what we call "mass movements" are of course minorities of the total adult population of a territory. Most people generally aren't fired by political ideas to the extent that they will take on risks and sacrifices. They understandably are concerned with feeding their families and have no desire to exhaust themselves, put themselves in physical danger or take part in the horrors of modern warfare. A project that can't reliably feed and clothe people, and is moreover steadily losing a war, is of course doomed to defections and ultimate extinction. I'm not sure we need any special explanation or interpretation for the "egoism" of people who put their immediate physical needs above some uncertain future. Seidman argues that it was at least partly the Republic's price controls that led to hoarding, black marketeering, starvation and lack of clothes, so an investigation of the devaluation of currency seems more relevant than allusions to Stirnerism, incipient neoliberalism or supposed rejections of the "Enlightenment religion of labor."