Following on from the discussions on Spain, one interesting area that i don't know much about is workers' councils in Spain in 36-37. I think it deserves a separate thread. I know some claim workers councils were set up there, but i'm not really sure at all. I've read a fair bit about Spain, but it was many moons ago, and my impression that workers' councils weren't established by the Spanish workers and peasants, instead collectives were. I know some talked of councils, but they i think were different in my view from classical soviets (if anyone can point me to some writing about workers councils in spain, i would be very interested -- i havent come across any at all).
were the collectives soviets by another name? or more reminscient of the Paris commune (in that the rural collectives were based around self-governing a locality or neighbourhood, not just workplaces)? or something new and unique that developed in accord with the unique conditions in Spain?
(i'm more interested in discussing what the Spanish workers and peasants constructively achieved, rather than blaming any one sect or organisation or leadership as so often seems to happen with discussions on Spain)
Well, there was the Council of Aragon, whose 'President' was Ascasco's youger brother. I believe they stayed out of the Stalinist pale as long as they could and were then of course repressed into oblivion. I think that when the agrarian collectives took shape, you might say that the CNT organisms basically became a kind of council, as the syndicates became the collectives they had been pushing for, if you read Gaston Leval's book on the collectives, you get to see this happening. I know little about Aragon, as I've asked about on another thread.Peirat's book on the CNT (only Vol. I in English) also refers to these structural matters.
Google council of aragon for the marxist's internet archive, can't seem to get it to link from here. the Council was dissolved by decree and Ascasco 'dissappeared' apparently. Some rough shit, and slander as well.
One thing I think I remember is Stuart Christie saying in the FAI book that the CNT's delegates were not revocable in the sense that the Pannekoek-type model would have councils be, which is a limit on the 'directness' of the democracy of the organism. And as the CNT became more sullied with statecraft, the delegates became higher paid proffessionals/deskocrats, breeding complacency and corruption.
The Councilist model, for me, implies a more thorough-going cross section of civic life than a 'purely' syndicalist model- atleast in an urban context- can provide.
It could be argued that the Friends of Durruti advocated a kind of tri-partate councilst model:
-all economic power to the federated syndicates
-free municipalites tending to concerns falling outside the syndicates
-the Revolutionary Councils for Defence, or Juntas.