[ingliz]

After the first few weeks of the war the Nationalist Army controlled in the north of Spain the provinces of Galicia, León, Navarre and large parts of Old Castile and Aragón. In the south they held Cádiz, Seville, Córdoba, Granada, Huelva and Cáceres. Overall, the Nationalists controlled about a third of the land in Spain plus the Balearics(not Minorca though), the Canary Islands and Morroco

[Abood]

Okay, but where did they defeat the anarchists in 1936? Can you provide some sort of reading?

[ingliz]

The main strength of the Nationalists lay in the elite 25,000-man Army of Africa, but leftist control of most of the navy and the Moroccan straits, as well as of three-quarters of the air force, at first made it impossible to move these forces across to the peninsula. The first Italian and German aerial assistance, some forty planes, facilitated the beginning of the aerial (and later the naval) convoy of troops to Spain at the close of July. Poor leadership and organization prevented the left from using its naval and air superiority effectively, some of the naval officers having been killed by revolutionary crewmen. Thus a march northward from Seville by the Army of Africa was begun on August 3.

During the next ninety days the Army of Africa, assisted by very small units from other sectors of the rebel army and by right-wing militia, conquered nearly all of southwestern Spain. Militia columns dispatched by the Socialist and Communist organizers of Madrid far outnumbered the forward units of the Nationalists and were in general at least as well equipped, but they were grossly deficient in military leadership, training, and organization. By the first week of November, Franco's small field force of little more than 25,000 combat troops was just outside the capital.

At this crucial moment, when all seemed lost for the left, the defense of Madrid stiffened dramatically. Several factors were responsible: a) the numerical weakness of Franco's units, tired and overextended; b) the greater effectiveness of the Republican militia in fighting from defensive positions, along with the knowledge that there could be no more retreat; c) the arrival of the first sizable shipments of Russian material in October, which gave the left great superiority in armor and continued air control; and d) the appearance of the first two International Brigades of foreign volunteers recruited and organized by the Comintern. After the first attack on Madrid was blunted by mid-November, Franco attempted several flanking attacks to the north in December and January 1937, but these were stopped as well.

During the autumn of 1936 both sides devoted much energy to building up a mass army for what might be a long struggle. On the central front the militia columns began to give way to the first units of a new Republican People's Army, whose organization was extended to nearly all parts of the leftist zone by the close of 1937. However, since the revolutionaries had made it impossible to use most of the thousands of professional army officers within the Republican zone, the People's Army never solved the problem of staffing and leadership, its organizational cohesion remaining distinctly inferior to that of the Nationalist forces.

Meanwhile, increased Russian intervention brought counterescalation from Germany and Italy. Early in November the first units of a new 100-plane German air corps began to arrive, together with more German equipment and military instructors. In December Mussolini began to dispatch regular ground forces to Spain, where 40,000 Italian troops were operating by the spring of 1937. Moreover, the bulk of the equipment of the Nationalist forces was provided by Italy.

Here is a detailed chronology of the war:

http://www.users.dircon.co.uk/~warden/scw/scwevent.htm

Spanish Civil War (1936-39) and Franco Regime (1939-75): 365 000 + 100 000
Hugh Thomas, The Spanish Civil War (1977) (cited at length by both Paul Johnson and JAS Grenville):
Republicans killed in combat: 110,000
Nationalists killed in combat: 90,000
Executed by Nationalists: 75,000
Executed by Republicans: 55,000
Bombs: 10,000
Malnutrition: 25,000
TOTAL: 365,000
Gabriel Jackson, The Spanish Republic and the Civil War 1931-39 (1965, 1972):
Battle deaths: 100,000
Air raids: 10,000
Dis./Malnutrition: 50,000
Executed by Republicans: 20,000
Executed by Nationalists: 200,000
TOTAL: 380,000
Salas Larraza, Ramon, Perdidas de la guerra (1977), cited at length in Stanley Payne, The Franco Regime 1936-1975 (1987)
Battle deaths:
Republicans KIA: 60,500
Nationalists KIA: 59,500
Foreign soldiers, both sides: 25,500
Civilians: 15,000
Executions:
By Republicans: 72,344
By Nationalists: 35,021
Disease: 165,000
TOTAL: 268,500 deaths by violence (adding disease: 433,500)
Singer (1982)
Spain, all sides: 650,000
Ousiders:
Germany: 300
Italy: 6,000
Portugal: 2,000
Eckhardt: 600,000 civ. + 600,000 mil. = 1,200,000
Bombing of Guernica, 1937
Gilbert: 1,645 k.
Foreigners
Clodfelter:
French: 1,000-3,000
German-Austrian: 2,000
American: 900-1,500
Yugoslav: 700
Italian: 600
Britons: 543
Swiss: 76
Abraham Lincoln Brigade
13 February 2001, Associated Press: 750 American volunteers k.
Encyclopedia Americana: 750
23 February 2002, Oakland Tribune: 800
31 May 1997, Washington Post: 900 (citing Hugh Thomas)
28 May 2000, New York Times: 900
19 October 1986, Associated Press: 1,200
31 March 1988, St. Petersburg Times: 1,600

If you look at the death toll estimates executions were a significant proportion of the dead; in one estimate exceeding those who died in battle.

[Abood]

Those are good points you bring up, ingliz.

I'm wondering, would anarchists be willing to accept some sort of army where the officers and trainers, etc. are democratically elected and kept under account? Or is there a way to coordinate a large militia without it being somewhat centralized?

[ingliz]

Well I don't think that is a question for me as I am not on an anarchist, except as practiced in a small community or factory. I will say this, I think it would be foolish to have a large standing army separate from society and society without the political means to control it. If you have a professional military you will need a central government of some sort.

[Abood]

That's a good point, but I don't think a standing army is necessary or "healthy" at all.

[ingliz]

On a local level I think anarchy is the best solution for democratic rule and gives you the most control of your life but I don't think it is a practical way to run a nation. The complexity of a modern industrial society needs regulation, the global economy requires cooperation between States. Infrastructure needs maintenance and planning etc. A State needs to be governed.overall. This doesn't have to be oppressive and the bureaucracy needn't be the State. I am not suggesting Stalinist rule or a Minarchy but a socialist democracy based upon the Soviet and the Kolkhoz

[Abood]

There'd very much be regulation and planning in an anarchist society, but it'd be decentralized into local councils. Participatory economics, also known as 'parecon', is the best solution proposed for an anarchist economy, in my opinion. The members of each council would have contact with each other through the federal system. It could actually prove to be more effective than a centralized decision-making body, because members of each council or community would know what they need and what they have and there'd therefore be more perfect information than in a centralized system.

As for the global economy, well, I don't see how an anarchist society wouldn't be able to trade with states. When planning, the councils would note what they have excess of and what they lack, and that information would be used to import and export goods through the federation. There can also be trade between communities.

[ingliz]

I was not talking about policy but regulation, enviromental health, public health , highways etc. I have had the same argument with the libertarians. Economically micro- economics in the peoples hands; macro- economics in the democratic socialist government's hands

[Abood]

Even environmental and infrastructure concerns can be planned in anarchist councils. In fact, an excerpt about environmental health is provided in the Wikipedia article I linked to under the sub-title 'The decision making principle'.

Libertarians are against planning as a principle, but anarchists aren't.

[ingliz]

Would you let me join your commune? or do you have to be an anarchist 100%. I am very much in favour of anarchic communities but don't understand how you could make it work on a macro scale. A week is a long time in politics and recalled delegates seem to be a clumsy way to organise a government, oops sorry a federation of anarchic collectives.

[Abood]

You don't have to be an anarchist to join an anarchist commune. As long as you're fine with the principles of participatory democracy and individual freedom, you'd be welcome.

Also, I remember watching a documentary called 'A Place Called Chiapas' and part of it was about negotiations between the Zapatistas and the Mexican government. Both had to go their separate ways to talk to their own side, and the Zapatistas came up with a decision around three weeks later, while it took the Mexican government something like three months. Democratic decentralization is efficient and quick compared to bureaucratic centralization.

[ingliz]

How would you build large infrastructure such as the Hoover Dam or deal with disease control, mass vaccination programs, quarantine etc or organised crime?

[Abood]

I think that needs a new thread and a bright new day.. I haven't had any sleep.

[FallenRaptor]

Well since you see vanguards as authoritarian(which imo it isn't unless the vanguard decides take all the power of the state), how would the anarchists overthrow the old bourgeois state?

[Abood]

I don't see how that would need a vanguard. Like workers taking over individual factories, they can take over societies. The only difference is that they need to be more organized to do it.

[FallenRaptor]

Much like how ingliz argued that you need a centralized military to fight off counter-revolutionaries, you're going to need a a centralized revolutionary group to overthrow the old state. It's just physically impossible for the people to spontaneously overthrow the an organized & heavily armed state by themselves.

[Abood]

I can't even make an argument because you do not provide enough details for your argument. What is this "centralized revolutionary group" you speak of? What would they do? How would they come into being? How would they take power? etc.

[FallenRaptor]

I don't know how much clearer I can make myself. In order to fight the state without the revolution getting crushed you'll need a disciplined insurgent rebel group that has the support of the people to fight & ultimately defeat the state. How the group will do this all this depends on the situation & conditions at hand. If you want examples, just look at almost every successful(and some unsuccessful) coup d'etat in the past century.

The EZLN is an example of this, even though they focus more on gaining support & putting pressure on the Mexican government than directly attacking it.

[Abood]

That's different from a vanguard. A vanguard is a group of people taking control of the state institutions "in the name of the proletariat". It's the cornerstone of Leninism. The EZLN did not, in any way, take control of the institutions. They exist simply to protect the people who have taken control of their own lives against the Mexican army. They are essentially a militia.