Mark are you going to indulge this arsehole?
>>> "Julien Pierrehumbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 08/15 6:23
PM >>>
[Mark, I know this is off-topic but either this list is
declared an non-reformist non-
anarchist non-many-things list, I think it is needed to
refute throughly those who
argue that this or that way is impossible. That's how that
discussion on Spain
started. Anyway, this is my final post on this issue. Again,
if you feel I should go
away, I'll do so swiftly and without anger.]
>Julien, both sides in the Spanish conflict had some
>assistance from outside
Tahir, you're the king of euphemisms. Do you pretend that
the "some
assistance" was kind of identical in importance?
>The
>point is that the ruling class were threatened by the
>instability under the 2nd republic ...
In fact, the uprisings of 34 had been brutally crushed and
eventhough the
government of 36 freed the prisoners, the regime wasn't lax
or weak. What's
that instability you're talking about?
>It is well known that many on the
>Nationalist side were in fact quite staunch republicans,
>such as Queipo de Llano, but they were not prepared to put
>up with anarchy and so gravitated towards the nationalist
>camp without being at all monarchists or fascists.
Yeah? They were not prepared to put up with the outcomes of
democracy,
rather. Staunch republicans? That's a joke! (BTW, there were
many other
reasons for beign in the fascist camp, like beign an
obedient catholic, wanting
to save one's career or even life, etc.)
As to anarchy, the CNT in its congress of may rejected
collaboration with the
regime, so it seems the republic wasn't pushing anarchy much
(as anyone
would have expected). What's the point of fighting against a
regime which is
not friendly to the establishment of anarchy if you're
afraid of anarchy? All the
"nationalists" achieved was sparking revolutionary and
aggressive (to the
point of massacring unarmed people) behaviour.
>In Spain the "we" were badly organised and extremely
divided
>about how the country should be modernised (or indeed
>whether that was even the main question), while "they" were
>determined and well organised. Yes the coup turned into a
>protracted war, but this does not detract from the fact
that
>in many ways the "better side" eventually won.
Actually the "we" were quite well organized as demonstrated
by their victory in
the streets during the coups despite the advantages of
surprise and better
weapons on the other side. And the "they" were not that weel
organized as the
failure of the crucial naval mutiny showed. As to unity, the
"we" could hardly be
united as this is the condition of collaborating with a
bourgeois government
(these governments aren't very fond of arming the people).
But the real
problems only began when the russians started doing their
dirty work AFAIK.
It was the foreign policies which determined the outcome of
the civil war. The
main reason for the failure of the Republic to win the war
was a lack of
weapons. The "better side" was the one with the most support
from abroad.
>Those who defend the status quo are clear
>about what it is they want to hang on to and the means that
>they have at their disposal to do that.
I'd love to see this clarity. Care to show it to me?
_______________________________________________
Crashlist resources:
http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
_______________________________________________
Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
