Anarchism: Idealistic or Realistic?

[challenge_everything]

Fair point, totalitarianism was the wrong word to use there. But as I understand it (correct me if I'm wrong because my Spanish history is pretty hazy) the civil war came about after a period of seesawing left/right wing governments, and before that the monarchy. I don't think the liberal government of which you speak had widepsread popular support, or if it did it dissipated fairly quickly.

So two points follow:

1) a liberal society in its infancy, emerging after a period of political turmoil in a country which had essentially no liberal tradition in the French or English sense, is hardly a model of efficiency by which to compare the efficiency of the anarchical society which followed, and its not surprising these localised workers collectives generated more enthusiasm and thus greater productivity

2) one of the main reasons why Franco came to power was, to my knowledge, the threat of other European powers, primarily USSR and Italy, and obviously WWII was just around the corner, so this seems to indicate that the anarchical societies, when faced with an external threat, required a more rigid structure in order to respond (unfortunately going to the other extreme and installing a military dictatorship).

 

[Death Aflame]

Fair point, totalitarianism was the wrong word to use there. But as I understand it (correct me if I'm wrong because my Spanish history is pretty hazy) the civil war came about after a period of seesawing left/right wing governments, and before that the monarchy. I don't think the liberal government of which you speak had widepsread popular support, or if it did it dissipated fairly quickly.

I am no expert either, but your summary here sounds accurate to the best of my knowledge.

So two points follow:

1) a liberal society in its infancy, emerging after a period of political turmoil in a country which had essentially no liberal tradition in the French or English sense, is hardly a model of efficiency by which to compare the efficiency of the anarchical society which followed, and its not surprising these localised workers collectives generated more enthusiasm and thus greater productivity

Fair point. However for a more detailed look at just how much better off the civilians were I suggest watching the documentary Living Utopia (available on YouTube). It is said there that the productivity and living conditions were so improved that the collectives had made the factories much safer, upgraded the machinery, etc. that when the capitalists retook control they had all the new equipment destroyed since to them they were symbols of a prosperity that was not acceptable unless achieved through capitalism.

2) one of the main reasons why Franco came to power was, to my knowledge, the threat of other European powers, primarily USSR and Italy, and obviously WWII was just around the corner, so this seems to indicate that the anarchical societies, when faced with an external threat, required a more rigid structure in order to respond (unfortunately going to the other extreme and installing a military dictatorship).

The anarchist societies, as I mentioned, had a milita which, before their dissolution from within, were the most effective of the three factions (the communists, the liberals, the anarchists) at fighting against the Fascists, despite not being militarized like the others.

I am not entirely sure how Franco came to power, but I imagine it was after defeating both the communists and liberals in the Spanish Civil War, after the anarchists had already been wiped out (more or less) by the communists and liberals.

I guess I should also say that I don't use this example lightly, of course it must be taken within its historic context, and cannot simply be applied to our contemporary situations as an equivalent counter-example. However, this is not to say that it lacks value--the movement was a mass one, 7 million people that indicates, at least somewhat, the scale possible in industrialized societies that are not simply primitive and dispersed small communities.

 

[cookiecutter]

Fair point, totalitarianism was the wrong word to use there. But as I understand it (correct me if I'm wrong because my Spanish history is pretty hazy) the civil war came about after a period of seesawing left/right wing governments, and before that the monarchy. I don't think the liberal government of which you speak had widepsread popular support, or if it did it dissipated fairly quickly.

So two points follow:

1) a liberal society in its infancy, emerging after a period of political turmoil in a country which had essentially no liberal tradition in the French or English sense, is hardly a model of efficiency by which to compare the efficiency of the anarchical society which followed, and its not surprising these localised workers collectives generated more enthusiasm and thus greater productivity

These are both correct. Spain was a very backwards country and the Spanish Republic had only existed since 1931.

2) one of the main reasons why Franco came to power was, to my knowledge, the threat of other European powers, primarily USSR and Italy, and obviously WWII was just around the corner, so this seems to indicate that the anarchical societies, when faced with an external threat, required a more rigid structure in order to respond (unfortunately going to the other extreme and installing a military dictatorship).

I don't think Franco winning had much to do with weakness on the Anarchists. It was more weakness on the Popular Front's part. Not only did they not receive nearly as much international assistance as Franco did, but the Soviet supported Communists actively undermined their rivals, including the Anarchists. It is my opinion that if not for Franco and the Communists Anarchism could have flourished in Spain or at the very least part of Spain at this time.

 

[Cythraul]

I prefer minarchist libertarianism. Under such a state my money wouldn't be forcibly taken from me to help black people; it would only be taken from me so that guys with guns can protect me from black people. What's not to love about that?