OscailtMichael Seidman and "The Spanish Holocaust"Whatever happened to ’serious’ and authoritative’?2012-10-03T02:24:01+08:00Anarkismoanarkismoeditors@lists.riseup.nethttp://www.anarkismo.net/atomfullposts?story_id=23928http://www.anarkismo.net/graphics/feedlogo.gifIn Defence of Michael Seidmanhttp://www.anarkismo.net/article/23928#comment145082012-10-03T02:24:01+08:00JimStuart Christie raises some important points in this critique of Michael Seidman...Stuart Christie raises some important points in this critique of Michael Seidman. And, in his desire to transcend conventional left-wing accounts of the Spanish Civil War, Seidman can sometimes come across as "pro-Franco". But Seidman clearly isn't "pro-Franco" in any serious sense. Indeed, whatever his present political views, he was originally inspired by the 'refusal of work' ideas of French ultra-leftists in the 1970 and 1980s<br />
<br />
His first, and best, writings on the Spanish Civil War - especially the ground-breaking 'Workers Against Work' (1992) - exposed the productivist tendencies amongst all on the Spanish left, . There his sympathies are clearly with 'ordinary ' workers who saw the revolution as an opportunity to work less. In contrast, many socialist activists, including anarchists, attempted to impose strict work-discipline on their fellow workers. <br />
<br />
Perhaps there was no alternative to this in conditions of a brutal civil war. But Seidman shows that such policies were going more in the direction of the authoritarian "socialism" of the Russian Bolsheviks than in any genuinely anti-authoritarian anarchist/communist direction. This short selection of quotes from Seidman's book shows the depth of the problem: http://libcom/history/workers-against-work-spanish-revolution-michael-seidman (Other thought-provoking Seidman articles can also be found at LIBCOM)<br />
<br />
We cannot be sure what would have happened if the Republic had won the Civil War. But, even if it had somehow kept out of the barbarism of the Second World War, it seems reasonable to suggest that the Republic might well have become a highly unstable Stalinist regime that could only survive by launching wave after wave of repression (probably combined with a centralised state economic system). Such policies led to the deaths of tens of millions in Russia and China, and could well have been equally disastrous in Spain. Indeed, from the point of view of both 'ordinary' workers and genuine revolutionaries, a Republican victory could have been even worse than the horrors following the Francoist victory. <br />
<br />
Is it "pro-Franco" to say this. I think not. Indeed anarchist/communist revolutionaries need to be able to face such questions in order to rethink revolutionary ideas for the 21st century and avoid any repeat of the disasters of the Spanish, Russian and other murderous Civil Wars of the 20th Century. After all, people will have little interest in any future revolution if it is to be about merely replacing capitalist work-discipline with a socialist work-discipline - combined with the military discipline required to win yet another miserable civil war. <br />
<br />
Of course, this raises many questions about the whole nature of any future anti-capitalist revolution that we cannot deal with here. But the difficult issues that Seidman raises are precisely the ones we need to face and we need to read him (no matter how understandably sympathetic we are to the heroic anarchist activists of the Spanish Civil War).Politics-fiction and right-wing cultural offensivehttp://www.anarkismo.net/article/23928#comment145092012-10-03T04:16:25+08:00From SpainMichael Seidman´s work about "workers against work" seemed to me, when I read it...Michael Seidman´s work about "workers against work" seemed to me, when I read it some years ago, an innocent excercise of achademic provocation, but nothing more. Not an interesting piece at all for militants or a book for the public opinion.<br />
<br />
It seemed to me, too, another sub-product of the increasing and non-threatening (for the system) postmodernism in Academia, specially after the fall of the USRR. One son of its time.<br />
<br />
What Jim calls "the productivist tendency" in the republican side during the Spanish Civil War is logic, in a context of fight against the class enemy. Fight not only in the militar ground, but in the economic too. The organised proletariat was conscious of its need. Not only the need of work not the same, but more. Even to risk their lives as voluntaries against the Franco army. <br />
<br />
The exercise of imagining a "Stalinist Spain" falls well under the non-innocent category of "Politics-Fiction", a land where some historians try to project their philias and phobias. And Seidman is not an exception, showing in this case the strong right-wing influence in many lefties of yesterday. Others "critics of work" during the Spanish revolution walked the same way, for example Carlos Semprún-Maura, an ultra-leftist during the 70s and an ultra-liberal in the 2000s. A logic development of its ideas, in any case. <br />
<br />
The "danger of Spain falling in the arms of Stalinism" and thus the omision of help or the direct support of Franco, was a common point of the "liberal" regimes of Europe and the US during the Spanish Civil War, and of the Francoist justification still today. So, Christie´s point is not offside.<br />
<br />
Another thing, Jim: if you think that is posible building socialism without the pressure of the international capitalism, I think you are pretty innocent. That has never passed and in these days is not passing. You can take as examples the coups d´Etat (or attempts of coup) during theses years in Haiti, Honduras, Paraguay, Venezuela... if you doubt it.<br />
<br />
And, why do you think that the masses are not ready to fight for their rights in the 21 Century as they were in the 20th Century? <br />
<br />
The masses have been fighting and dying for a better tomorrow during this twelve years of 21 Century. You only should see Latin America or Middle East to prove it. If war is the price to pay for releasing themselves from oppresion or defending their conquests and achieving a better world, people is ready to pay the price. In Russia 1917, in Spain 1936, in Algeria in the Sixties... or in Venezuela 2012 if the right-wing tryes to destroy the process.<br />
<br />
Cheers from Spain.Seidman seems pro-Franco because he is!http://www.anarkismo.net/article/23928#comment145192012-10-06T05:42:12+08:00Anarcho'Seidman can sometimes come across as "pro-Franco". '
I would say that would be...'Seidman can sometimes come across as "pro-Franco". '<br />
<br />
I would say that would be because he is.<br />
<br />
'There his sympathies are clearly with 'ordinary ' workers who saw the revolution as an opportunity to work less. '<br />
<br />
I remember reading the last chapter, i think, in which he suggests that the "ordinary" worker would be better off under Franco. Indeed, that the dream of no-work would be achieved by allowing capital to accumulate and automate -- so the best possible thing would simply be NOT to resist, be quiet...<br />
<br />
And I'm sure that David Cameron sympathies are clearly with "ordinary" workers who just want to work hard and don't want nasty unions getting in the way...<br />
<br />
'In contrast, many socialist activists, including anarchists, attempted to impose strict work-discipline on their fellow workers. '<br />
<br />
Unlike the Franco-regime? As it stands, the "ordinary" workers were facing economic blockade and massive problems. Much of the resources of the country were directed towards the war. In such circumstances, "working less" meant that workers, both at the front and in the rear, would not have arms, food, etc. Glib comments on "no work" really gets you nowhere...<br />
<br />
'Indeed, from the point of view of both 'ordinary' workers and genuine revolutionaries, a Republican victory could have been even worse than the horrors following the Francoist victory. '<br />
<br />
Ah, right, that explains why so the "genuine revolutionaries" left for other countries -- those that remained were usually shot out of hand by the Francoists, or imprisoned and used as slave labour (so much for "no work"). For the "ordinary" apolitical worker, who did what they were told, I guess that it would not matter too much (although I wonder what you have happened to them if they "resisted work" under Franco?). I'm not sure, though, that the apolitical worker is the basis of what counts as determining working class interests,<br />
<br />
All in all, Seidman's book and argument always appeared to me to be reactionary -- his activities here have brought it out clearly. What gets me is how some "genuine revolutionaries" do not seem to see it. <br />
Michael Seidman Discussion on Libcomhttp://www.anarkismo.net/article/23928#comment145212012-10-07T00:46:16+08:00grafYou may be interested to know that a similar discussion is occurring on Libcom a...You may be interested to know that a similar discussion is occurring on Libcom at 'Michael Seidman versus Stuart Christie on Paul Preston's "Spanish Holocaust"': <a href="http://libcom.org/forums/history/michael-seidman-versus-stuart-christie-paul-prestons-spanish-holocaust-02102012" title="http://libcom.org/forums/history/michael-seidman-versus-stuart-christie-paul-prestons-spanish-holocaust-02102012">http://libcom.org/forums/history/michael-seidman-versus...02012</a>