DONATE NOW TO HELP UPGRADE LIBCOM.ORG

"liberating"

9 posts / 0 new
Last post
vicent
Offline
Joined: 21-03-13
Jul 11 2013 07:25
"liberating"

is it ok to attack a community or city with the intention of liberating it? as duretti or makhno famously did?
it seemed to work ok but it seems very violent and opressive

Tyrion's picture
Tyrion
Offline
Joined: 12-04-13
Jul 11 2013 14:53

What precisely do you mean? There's a world of difference between fighting away some armed band occupying a city and sacking a city with all the murder and rape and pillage that entails.

In the case of the former, whether or not it's "ok," it's clearly going to be necessary for any successful revolution that faces at least some armed opposition in cities.

vicent
Offline
Joined: 21-03-13
Jul 12 2013 06:53

for instance invading a city with the intention of changing the city to a society based on the principles doesnt seem like a very bottom up practice, as you are emancipating the people there for them and they are not emancipating themselves.

Auld-bod's picture
Auld-bod
Offline
Joined: 9-07-11
Jul 12 2013 08:00

Vicent #3

You appear to be answering your own question. The idea that communist principles can be turned on their head is Leninism – the vanguard of the working class, ‘the party’, drives the revolution.

The only justification to attack (anyone) would be as acts of self defence, to disarm the opposition or loosen an economic strangle hold. Duretti and Makhno operated in war situations where these conditions applied.

In non-war/revolution conditions an ‘invasion’ takes the form of distributing literature, to politically educate and actively organise the working class to emancipate themselves. This is the opposite of the Leninist, ‘pull ’em up by the hair’ ideology.

vicent
Offline
Joined: 21-03-13
Jul 12 2013 09:30

not exactly i think makhno and duretti liberated these areas to spread their ideology and although it was successful it certainly wasnt self defence , to disarm the opposition or loosen an economic strangle hold.
they turned up and usually shot the priest, mayor and local bourgeois and then said organise yourselves! and left.

Auld-bod's picture
Auld-bod
Offline
Joined: 9-07-11
Jul 12 2013 10:49

Vicent #5

I do not know where you obtain your information, though from my reading you are very wide of the mark.

I am just now finishing off Paul Preston’s book, ‘The Spanish Holocaust’ (2012). He is a liberal historian. Preston makes it plain Franco from the start of the fascist rebellion was waging a war of annihilation against his enemies.

‘In Galicia, Castile, Leon and Navarre, the areas of the north where there had been virtually no resistance to the coup, the elimination of leftists, trade unionists and supposed supporters of the Republic was immediate and thorough. In the meantime, Franco’s African forces and columns organized by army officers and landowners were bloodily purging the southern countryside.’ (Page 428)

Throughout the book he documents in detail the atrocities committed by both sides. However it is quickly made obvious that the pre-planning and scale of the rebel’s actions made armed resistance to them imperative if only to avoid liquidation.

This from a speech by Franco on 1st October 1937, talking about the working class:

‘They are not bad. The really evil ones are their leaders who deceive them with gilded promises. They are the ones that we must attack until we have entirely exterminated them.’ (Page 446)

There are lots more where that came from – if you’ve the stomach for it!

vicent
Offline
Joined: 21-03-13
Jul 12 2013 12:32

im taking my sources from volines unknown revolution volume 3 and antony beevors civil war, both quite mainstream and uncontroversial

the important distinction i found between the anarchists and the francoists is that the aarchists executed their enemies within a couple of days of liberating an area wheras the francoists would spend several months (at least) finding their enemies and killing them, but the anarchists still committed many atrocities , indeed many comparable to the facists
moreover the anarchists, not believing in the institutions of prisons were more forced to kill their their enemies as they had little other choice
whats more i think the anarchists conduct in the civil war was perfectly fine

i also find their conduct in liberating communities to be ok, i just think that it seems like a somewhat un anarchist practice as the people being freed have no agreement or participation in the act,

however they 99.99 % of the time were grateful and established their communities thereafter under anarchist principles

so i think their tactics were justified i was just wondering what other peoples opinions were

boozemonarchy's picture
boozemonarchy
Offline
Joined: 28-12-06
Jul 12 2013 12:43

Well, when the revolutions going and the working-class is on the offence, I hope we don't get all shy about spreading the struggle. I think that being pro-active about spreading and widening struggles is our only hope for victory. They've got us easy if they get us isolated.

ultraviolet's picture
ultraviolet
Offline
Joined: 14-04-11
Jul 16 2013 06:30
vicent wrote:
moreover the anarchists, not believing in the institutions of prisons were more forced to kill their their enemies as they had little other choice

i heard they did have prison camps for captured/surrendering fascists.

discussed on this thread
http://libcom.org/forums/theory/prison-labor-camps-during-spanish-revolution-your-opinions-05102011

many surrendering fascists were absorbed into the revolutionary militias. (these are the ones who voluntarily snuck away from the fascist lines.)