[Abood]

An army is a hierarchical organisation and as such is not anarchic. It is very difficult to raise an effective army without a cadre of trained officers and NCOs. Your military could probably fight an insurgency but without the logistical support, again necessarily hierarchic organisation requiring central planning

Why wouldn't there be officers? In the CNT militia, there were officers who gave orders and people had to follow those orders. Joining was voluntary, but once people joined, they had to follow orders. Also, they didn't have a high pay. It was similar to that of all the soldiers.

And why does there have to be a centralized decision? The workers' committees can make all decisions, which would be acted upon by the federation. Of course, there would be negotiations between the militant committees and the weapons production committees.

So would the federation directly strike at government to overthrow it(which is what I mean by acting as a vanguard), or are you just trying to inspire the people to rise up and overthrow it by themselves?

Unlike a state, a federation has no power independent of the people. A state would be elected every four or so years and within that time is free to do whatever it wishes. A federation, on the other hand, depends on the decisions made by the people (in workers' committees, etc.) on a day-to-day basis. It cannot act as a vanguard, because it does not have the power to do so.

[ingliz]

The CNT lost! Franco won and yes they were stabbed in the back by the communists

[Abood]

Wow, it was that simple? There were many factors coming into play that cost their loss in the end... They defeated the army in 1936.

[ingliz]

Nothing is that simple but it is undeniable that they lost to the fascists.
You can blame the British, the Germans, the USSR, whatever but they lost.

[Abood]

Even the mightiest of the armies loses. Does that mean that it needs more hierarchy? Is increasing hierarchy the answer to everything?

[ingliz]

No but an army is a special case dumping efficient officers by popular vote because they order attacks, going AWOL when the mood takes you, refusing to obey higher command etc etc lose wars.

[Abood]

Did you read what I said? Joining was voluntary, but once joined, people had to follow orders.

[ingliz]

It didn't always work that way in Spain.

[FallenRaptor]

Unlike a state, a federation has no power independent of the people. A state would be elected every four or so years and within that time is free to do whatever it wishes. A federation, on the other hand, depends on the decisions made by the people (in workers' committees, etc.) on a day-to-day basis. It cannot act as a vanguard, because it does not have the power to do so.

I'm talking about revolutionary strategy, not how different organizations will work. A vanguard is an organized group of revolutionary conspirators that would lead a mass movement & overthrow the bourgeois state. I'm asking if the federation would also do something similar to this.

[Abood]

But what I was saying is that an anarchist militia isn't going to be a bunch of people taking up arms and dropping them whenever they feel like it, without orders or discipline.

A vanguard is an organized group of revolutionary conspirators that would lead a mass movement & overthrow the bourgeois state. I'm asking if the federation would also do something similar to this.

Didn't I already answer your question? A federation cannot do that because it does not have power independent of the people. It does not lead the people; it complies with their decisions. In short, no.

[ingliz]

"Some were efficient some were ridiculously inefficient. The heaping up of disaster upon disaster was blamed on an imaginary "fifth column" amongst the troops themselves. In reality, as Beevor shows, it was due to a total lack of strategy as well as poor weapons and supplies. Detailed accounts of the legendary battles of the Jarama, Guadalajara, Aragon, Brunete, Teruel, the Ebro, and the battle for Madrid show incontrovertibly that even when gains were made, the Republican forces could not take advantage of them, as they had virtually no understanding of the art of war. Nor were they able to learn from their mistakes."

[Abood]

And how does that prove that an increase in hierarchy would've solved the problems?

it was due to a total lack of strategy as well as poor weapons and supplies.

Well, then, they needed a strategy and an increase in production...? Okay, I'll remember that for the next time there's an anarchist revolution.

My point is that anarchists make mistakes, and future anarchists need to learn from them. But really, you have to take everything into account, not just the lack of strategy and weaponry, especially since those things are relative. The Francoists had the Nazis in Germany and the Fascists in Italy backing them, I believe. The Communists also had the USSR backing them. All these need to be taken into consideration. I don't think there was any way the Anarchists could've beaten three of the biggest war-machines at the time, even if they were very efficient and strategic. Perhaps aligning themselves with the Communists until they defeated fascism in Europe could've had better long-term results?

[ingliz]

I don't want to have this turn into a how the anarchists were betrayed by the communists in Spain.
A revolution needs expertise, money, and weaponry.If the political situation had been different in the USSR a genuine alliance with the communists would have been sensible. Unfortunately sectarian politics within the Republican ranks, internal Russian politics and the international situation made this impossible in practice.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/morrow- ... n/ch15.htm

Ideally I believe that for any popular revolution to be sucessful it needs to include as much diverse opinion as possible in its ranks to garner support for its aims.After the fight is won is the time to play politics.

[Abood]

Ingliz, my point is that you cannot just blame the anarchist structure on the loss of the anarchists in the war. There were a lot of variables in play and you need to control them for you to be able to get to that conclusion.

[ingliz]

To fight an industrial war you need 10 support personelle for each fighter. Unless the government collapsed quickly I do think anarchist structures would seriously compromise your efficiency. All this logistical support would need to be coordinated, units have to move, eat, be replaced etc. etc. Having no central command structure would make this almost impossible. It would be chaos as the Red Army discovered before Trotsky reorganised it.

[Abood]

Actually, the CNT militia was militarized into a normal army by the end of 1936, with a hierarchy and all:

Read here.

So yeh, a militia won against the government in July 1936 but lost later after it was militarized.

[ingliz]

A military hierarchy was a sensible move but an army is a lot more than just fighters. They lacked heavy weapons, air power, armour, ammunition, food, medical support government backing and insisted on playing politics stabbing the POUM in the back just as the communists were stabbing them. The left was supporting a republican government that didn't want a revolution.

[Abood]

But how did the militia win in July 1936? Did they not fight against a centralized, coordinated army?

[ingliz]

I may be wrong but after Franco declared a 'state of war' in July '36 the republicans suffered a string of humiliating defeats.

[Abood]

I have never read about that. What I've read is that Franco was able to defeat the Anarchists and Communists when they were busy fighting with each other.