Monarchy in Malaysia

From Reddit 

 I have no idea where else to go to share this, without being in risk of being thrown in prison.

Just to give a brief description in malaysia there are 9 royal families that take turn ruling as king every 5 years or so. (has been since we got independence)

We cant critique or even point out the flaws that were done by them without risk of imprisonment. There is no law that actually forbade this, however they have abused the Sedation Act to keep the people silent.

Some of them has described themselves as "Eagles" (term is also used by normal folk to describe oligarchs) and the rest of us as mere sparrows. They have sold of much of our land to foreign investors while our people dont have any affordable housing. Given the pandemic most of the common folk are suffering and some of these royals have flaunted their wealth on Instagram (literally made a video like a rapper with super-cars and private jets) amidst the pandemic.

These people who are considered "Eagles" are allowed to hold large gathering without any fines or such. where as a normal folk like us would be fines RM10,000 (1,700 pounds) just for not wearing face mask in public. From single parents, college students to beggars without any mercy.

Recently there was shortage of vaccine in the country even most frontliners couldn't get them. Then news broke some of the royals flew to Saudi and bought vaccines for about 2000 for their family members. In which some common folk decided to question this at which the current queen replied "Are you jealous" on Instagram.

In response to this many people took to social media to express their dissatisfaction. Then a cartoonist / activist decided to make a spotify playlist titled "are you jealous" and decided to share it. (just a week back)

Today 20 cops broke into his house and arrested him before he could even contact his lawyers.

https://www.malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2021/04/23/activist-fahmi-reza-arrested-for-alleged-sedition/1968982

I just dont know what to do, i feel like my country is sinking in all aspects due to the monarchs & the politicians that are in league with them.

p.s i had to make a new account + VPN just to post this.

Ĉu Mentoro de Orwell? - A Mentor of Orwell?

Original article in Esperanto is taken from Mondmilito

Eugene Adam (Lanti) and the disappointment of the leftists.

The literature about George Orwell (1903-1950) the author of the fable Animal Farm and the novel Nineteen Eighty Four is abundant. Firstly thanks to the biography of Bernard Crick (1970) we know that he had contacts with left wing Esperantists. Of particular note is the links between his aunt Nellie Limousin (1870-1950) and Eugene Adam (1879-1947) who under the name Lanti became the founder of the Sennacieca Asocio Tutmonda World Anti National Association (SAT). However, just a little over thirty years after Orwell's death a statement was published (since then often quoted) that suggests Lanti's early influence on Orwell's thinking. According to an interview from 1983 with Lucien Bannier, cofounder of SAT, Lanti and Orwell sharply disputed over how to judge the Soviet Union. There was Aunt Nellie, Lanti's life partner (since 1934), who also worked for SAT for ten years as his assistant.

This source evoked interest in all those who explored the roots of Orwell's anti-totalitarianism, as it had long been thought that primarily because of his experiences in the Spanish War he became an ardent opponent not only of fascism but also of Stalinism. In total, there are few sources about the position of Orwell at the end of the 1920s and the beginning of the 30s. he probably like many British people at the time had illusions about the Soviet Union and tended to defend it already because of the general hostility of the ruling class.

We know a little more about the development of Lanti, at first and anarchist he was an ardent communist when he founded the SAT, the international association of Esperanto workers in 1921. At first he attempted to graft the SAT onto the Communist movement, while Nellie supported him. In August of 1922 he travelled to Petrograd and Moscow to have the SAT join the Comintern. The three week journey affected him deeply, the refusal of the Comintern to support Esperanto had little impact, but the discussions he had with leading Soviet Esperantists (not all of whom were Communists) had a larger impact, but the most important where his impressions of life in the Soviet Union, these three things grew a strong scepticism within him about the implementation of communism. In Sennacieca Revuo (publication of SAT) he openly reported on the heart breaking misery and shameless luxury - the consequences of the New Economic Policy. Lanti however did not want to endanger the SAT and was silent about his impressions and doubts that arose.  This helped him during those years to maintain the multitendency and above party character of SAT as an "Cultural and mutual aid organisation of proletarian Esperantists" whose give role was to use Esperanto for international relations between workers and progressives of every country, mainly through correspondence. A series of articles entitled "A Day in My Life", which had appeared in Sennaciulo since February 1927, reflected the desire to exchange reports on the working and living conditions of ordinary people.

The barriers of Stalinism beginning in 1928 made Lanti's middle road much more difficult to walk. Corresponding with Soviet Esperantists, amongst whom were people of independent minds, he was regularly informed of the contradictions in the Soviet Union, which confirmed his doubts of 1922. His long time standpoint, that for the good of SAT he should remain silent about the negative aspects of the evolution of the Soviet Union, Lanti only modified his views little by little, under the influence of two French communist Esperatists Lucien Laurat and Robert Guiheneuf, who had lived for a long time in the Soviet Union and had returned totally demoralised. Around the same time members in and outside the Soviet Union found that their desires to know about living conditions in the country bothered the leaders of the Soviet Republics Esperanto Union (SEU). In July 1928, they publicly warned against misrepresentations and lies about Soviet life that had penetrated the ranks of Esperantists. Lanti insisted that disagreement needed to be discussed, and in 1928 it seemed that most SAT members agreed on a statement that any dogma was reprehensible. Later, due to Lanti's refusal to close the SAT magazines to criticism against the Soviet Union, relations with SEU deteriorated to such an extent that in 1930 funds  from Soviet Esperantists destined for the SAT were blocked in Moscow

Although Lanti resigned from the French Communist party in 1928 he did not cease campaigning for communist support of SAT. But at the same time he felt his desire to strengthen the independent profile of SAT, further developing the founding anationalist ideas into a particular doctrine he called anationalism. It is a radical form of anti-nationalism. Although not obligatory for the members, anationalism could also be understood as an argument against the Soviet Union being presented as an exemplary model for the coexistence of a wide variety of ethnic groups within one large state.

Now the Soviet Esperantists were instructed to combat the SAT, which was insultingly named "Social fascism". The break was formalised in 1932 with the founding of the International of Proletarian Esperantists (IPE). For Lanti this was a very painful development. In 1933 he retired from the leadership of SAT. In that case, he confessed that he no longer kept his former admonition to the SAT comrades to be revolutionaries and only later Esperantists and that in the ideological conflict it was more important to remain faithful to Esperanto. For the Soviets, the break with SAT was similarly painful, as they lost their most cherished way of using Esperanto in practice: correspondence.

During these events Orwell still maintained faith in the revolutionary potential of the Soviet Union and seems up to the beginning of the 1930s to have considered himself a communist, Lanti, mainly due to the knowledge acquired by Esperantist contacts doubted more and more that Socialism was being built in the Soviet Union. He met Orwell when he announced the SAT's clash with the defenders of the Soviet Union. Later the viewpoints of the two grew closer. According to his own declarations, Orwell by 1937 was convinced that for the revival of the socialist future it was necessary to destroy the "Soviet Myth". Lanti had made similar statements but had come to that conclusion several years before Orwell. In 1933 Lanti characterised the Soviet system as State capitalism with a privileged bureaucracy declared it the most urgent task to destroy in the minds of sincere people the "Mystical faith" in the contribution of Moscow to the emancipation of the proletariat. At the start of 1935 Lanti launched Herezulo, and in the middle of that year a pamphlet appeared written by him together with Guiheneuf which contained the concluding sentence "In the Soviet Union RED FASCISM rules!" an extreme provocation to pro soviet communists. In 1937 Orwell had lived through his Spanish experiences, and come to the conclusion that the Communists where to the right of the more well known counter revolutionaries. This learning process would take Orwell to writing Animal Farm (1945) whose main subject was the "Betrayed Revolution".

 Lanti in 1936 began a world tour, during which he hardly noticed what happened in the Soviet Union in 1937/8, namely the destruction of the Esperanto movement. Orwell could no longer learn from Lanti, but he had other sources that deepened his doubts in the Soviet Union. These also included Esperantists: such as the Westrope couple whose bookshop he had worked and even lived in for a time since 1934. John Atkins, a post-war friend of Orwell's, before the publication of the interview with Lucien Bannier testified that Orwell, thanked the "human and sincere people" such as Lanti and Westrope, who distinguished between the Soviet Union and socialism and warned early on of the danger of totalitarianism. Another notable Esperantist (whom Orwell did not meet) was the aforementioned SAT pioneer Lucien Laurat. Upon his return from Moscow Laurat joined the circle around Boris Souvarine and other leading left-wing anti-communists; through his works he contributed to knowledge of the real situation of the Soviet economy.

After the war, in the beginning of 1947 Lanti committed suicide in Mexico. Three years later Orwell died, half a year after his famous novel was published. The interest in Orwell has constantly grown throughout the decades, with the memory of the Nazi regime and the evolution of the Soviet regime. After its fall, more attention was paid to features of communism that had long been overlooked or misjudged for ideological reasons. In this connection, the initially mentioned interview with Bannier found attention. No other sources have since appeared on Orwell's early development of thought, but in general the influence of Lanti presented there is no longer questioned. The British historian The British historian John Newsinger self-critically admits that he long considered Orwell a right-winger, until he finally accepting that he belonged to the "early anti-Stalinists" or, more precisely, until he, Newsinger, understood that people like Lanti and Orwell pioneered and revealed that Soviet communism had nothing to do with socialism.

Ulrich Lins

Translated into English by Reddebrek

 

Eugène Adam (Lanti) kaj la disreviĝo de maldekstruloj

La literaturo pri George Orwell (1903-1950), la aŭtoro de la rakonto La besto-farmo kaj de la romano Mil naŭcent okdek kvar, estas abunda. Unue dank’ al la biografio de Bernard Crick (1970) ni scias ankaŭ, ke li rilatis kun maldekstraj esperantistoj. Apartan atenton trovis la ligo de Nellie Limouzin (1870-1950), onklino de Orwell, kiun li multe ŝatis kun Eugène Adam (1879-1947), kiu sub la nomo Lanti iĝis konata kiel la fondinto de Sennacieca  Asocio Tutmonda (SAT). Tamen, nur iom pli ol tridek jarojn post la morto de Orwell estis publikigita eldiro (de tiam ofte citita), kiu supozigas pri frua influo de Lanti al la pensado de Orwell. Laŭ intervjuo farita en 1983 kun Lucien Bannier, kunfondinto de SAT,  Lanti kaj Orwell en 1928/29 akre disputis pri kiel juĝi Sovetan Union. Ĉeestis onklino Nellie, vivkunulino (de 1934 edzino) de Lanti, kiu dum deko da jaroj agadis en SAT ankaŭ kiel lia asistanto.

Tiu fonto elvokis interesiĝon ĉe ĉiuj, kiuj esploris la radikojn de la kontraŭtotalismo de Orwell, ĉar oni longe pensis, ke unuavice pro siaj travivaĵoj en la hispana milito li iĝis arda kontraŭulo ne nur de faŝismo, sed ankaŭ de stalinismo. Entute estas malmultaj fontoj pri la pozicio de Orwell fine de la dudekaj kaj komence de la tridekaj jaroj; li verŝajne kiel multaj britoj tiutempe havis iluziojn pri Soveta Unio kaj emis defendi ĝ in jam pro la ĝenerale malamika sinteno de la reganta klaso.

Ni scias iom pli pri la evoluo de Lanti. Unue anarkiisto, li estis arda komunisto, kiam en 1921 li fondis SAT, internacian asocion de laboristaj esperantistoj. Li unue klopodis kroĉi SAT al la komunista movado, en kio Nellie subtenis lin. En aŭgusto 1922 li vojaĝis al Petrogrado kaj Moskvo por havigi al SAT la subtenon de Komintern. La trisemajna vojaĝo profunde influis lin, malpli pro la rifuzo de Komintern subteni Esperanton, ol pro la diskutado kun gvidaj sovetiaj esperantistoj (kiuj ne ĉiuj estis komunistoj) kaj, pli multe, pro la ricevitaj impresoj pri la vivo en Soveta Rusio, kiuj kreis en li fortan skeptikon pri la efektivigeblo de komunismo. En Sennacieca Revuo li senkaŝe raportis pri la apudekzisto de korŝira mizero kaj senhonta lukso – sekvoj de la postrevolucia t.n. Nova Ekonomia Politiko. Lanti tamen ne volis endanĝerigi SAT kaj publike silentis pri siaj impresoj kaj la estiĝintaj duboj. Tio helpis al li dum kelkaj jaroj konservi la multtendencan, superpartian karakteron de SAT kiel „kultura kaj interhelpa organizo de prolet-esperantistoj“. Centran rolon ludis la deziro uzi Esperanton por la rekta interrilatigo de laboristoj kaj progresemuloj ĉiulandaj, precipe per korespondado. Serio da artikoloj kun la titolo „Tago el mia vivo“, kiuj aperis en Sennaciulo ekde februaro 1927, respegulis la deziron interŝanĝi raportojn pri la labor- kaj vivkondiĉoj de ordinaraj homoj.

La fortikiĝo de stalinismo ekde 1928 pli kaj pli malfaciligis la mezan vojon de Lanti. Korespondante  kun sovetiaj esperantistoj, inter kiuj troviĝis homoj sendepende pensantaj, li estis regule informata pri kontraŭdiroj en Soveta Unio, kiuj konfirmis la dubojn de 1922. Sian longtempan starpunkton, ke  por la bono de SAT necesas silenti pri negativaĵoj en la evoluo de la sovetia reĝimo, Lanti nur iom post iom modifis, sub la  influo ankaŭ de du francaj komunistoj-esperantistoj, Lucien Laurat kaj Robert Guiheneuf, kiuj longe vivinte en Soveta Unio revenis de tie plene senreviĝinte. Ĉirkau la sama tempo membroj en kaj ekster Sovetio spertis, ke ilia scivolo pri vivkondiĉoj ĝenis la gvidantojn de Sovetrespublikara Esperantista Unio (SEU). Ili en julio 1928 publike alarmis kontraŭ misprezentoj kaj mensogoj pri la sovetia vivo penetrintaj en la vicojn de esperantistoj. Lanti insistis, ke pri malakordo necesas diskuti, kaj en 1928 ankoraŭ atingis, ke la plej multaj SAT-anoj interkonsentis pri deklaro, laŭ kiu ĉia dogmemo estas malaprobinda. Poste, pro la  rifuzo de Lanti fermi la revuojn de SAT al kritiko kontraŭ Soveta Unio, la rilatoj kun SEU tiagrade malboniĝis, ke en 1930 kotizoj de sovetianoj destinitaj por SAT estis blokitaj en Moskvo.

Kvankam Lanti komence de 1928 eksiĝis el la Franca Komunista Partio, li ne ĉesis varbi por la subteno de komunistoj al SAT. Sed samtempe li sentigis sian deziron plifortigi la sendependan profilon de SAT, pluevoluigante la fondiĝan sennaciecan idearon al aparta  doktrino, kiun li nomis sennaciismo. Estis radikala formo de kontraŭnaciismo. Kvankam ne deviga por la membroj, oni povis kompreni ĝin ankaŭ kiel direktitan kontraŭ la varbado por Sovetio kiel imitinda modelo por la kunvivado de plej diversaj etnoj kadre de unu granda ŝtato.

La sovetiaj esperantistoj nun estis devigitaj batali kontraŭ SAT, insulte nomata socialfaŝisma. La rompo definitiviĝis en aŭgusto 1932 per la fondo de Internacio de Proleta Esperantistaro (IPE). Por Lanti tio estis tre dolora evoluo. En 1933 li retiriĝis el la gvido de SAT. Tiuokaze li konfesis, ke sian iaman admonon al la SAT-kamaradoj esti unue revoluciuloj kaj nur poste esperantistoj li ne plu konservas kaj ke en la ideologia konflikto pli gravas resti fidela al Esperanto. Por la sovetianoj la rompo kun SAT estis simile dolora, ĉar ili perdis sian plej karan manieron praktike uzi Esperanton: la korespondadon.

Dum Orwell ankoraŭ kredis pri la revolucia potencialo de Soveta Unio kaj verŝajne ĝis la komenco de la tridekaj jaroj konsideris sin komunisto, Lanti, ĉefe surbaze de la scio akirita per Esperanto-kontaktoj, pli kaj pli dubis, ke en Soveta Unio socialismo estas konstruata. Li renkontis Orwell, kiam anoncis sin la kunpuŝiĝo de SAT kun la defendantoj de Soveta Unio. Poste la vidpunktoj de la du proksimiĝis. Orwell laŭ propra deklaro estis konvinkita ekde 1937, ke por renovigi socialismon necesas detrui la »sovetian miton«. Lanti faris tute similajn eldirojn, sed fakte tiurilate antaŭis Orwell je kelkaj jaroj. En 1933 Lanti karakterizis la sovetian sistemon kiel ŝtatkapitalismon kun privilegiita burokratio kaj nomis plej urĝa tasko detrui en la menso de sinceraj homoj la “mistikan kredon” pri kontribuo de Moskvo al la emancipo de la proletaro. Komence de 1935 Lanti lanĉis la revueton Herezulo, kaj meze de 1935 aperis broŝuro verkita de li kune kun Guiheneuf, laŭ kies konkluda frazo “en Sovetio regas RUĜA FAŜISMO” – karakterizo ekstreme provoka por tiamaj komunistoj. En 1937 Orwell travivis en Hispanio spertojn, kiuj konvinkis lin, ke la komunistoj estas pli dekstraj ol la konataj kontraŭrevoluciuloj. Estis lernprocezo de Orwell, kiu kondukis lin al la verko La besto-farmo (1945), kies ĉefa temo estas la “perfidita revolucio”.

Lanti en 1936 komencis mondvojaĝon, dum kiu li apenaŭ rimarkis, kio vere okazis en Soveta Unio en 1937/38, nome la pereo de la Esperanto-movado. Orwell ne plu povis lerni de Lanti, sed li havis aliajn fontojn por profundigi sian dubon pri Soveta Unio. Al tiuj apartenis ankaŭ esperantistoj: la geedzoj Westrope en Londono, en kies librovendejo Orwell ekde 1934 laboris kaj portempe loĝis. John Atkins, amiko de Orwell, postmilite jam antaŭ la publikigo de la intervjuo kun Lucien Bannier atestis, ke Orwell dank‘ al „homaj kaj sinceraj personoj“ kiel Lanti kaj Westrope diferencigis inter Soveta Unio kaj socialismo kaj frue avertis kontraŭ la danĝero de totalismo. Alia rimarkinda esperantisto (kiun Orwell ne renkontis) estis la menciita SAT-pioniro Lucien Laurat. Post sia reveno el Moskvo Laurat aliĝis al la rondo ĉirkaŭ Boris Souvarine kaj aliaj gvidaj maldekstraj kontraŭkomunistoj; li per siaj verkoj kontribuis al scio pri la reala situacio de la sovetia ekonomio .

Post la milito, komence de 1947, Lanti suicidis en Meksiko. Tri jarojn poste mortis Orwell, duonan  jaron post la apero de lia fama romano. La interesiĝo pri Orwell konstante kreskis tra la jardekoj, kun memoro pri la nazia reĝimo kaj kun aparta rigardo al la evoluo de la sovetia reĝimo. Post ties falo oni donis pli da atento al trajtoj de komunismo longtempe preterviditaj aŭ misjuĝitaj pro ideologiaj motivoj. Ĉi-kunlige atenton trovis la komence menciita intervjuo kun Bannier. Poste ne aperis aliaj fontoj pri la frua penso-evoluo de Orwell, sed ĝenerale oni jam ne plu pridubas la tie prezentitan influon de Lanti. La brita historiisto John Newsinger memkritike konfesas, ke li longe opiniis Orwell dekstrulo, ĝis fine li apartenigis lin al la “antaŭtempaj kontraŭstalinistoj« aŭ, pli precize, ĝis li, Newsinger, komprenis, ke homoj kiel Lanti kaj Orwell pionire eltrovis kaj malkaŝis, ke la sovetia komunismo ne havis ion komunan kun socialismo.

Ulrich Lins

La kompleta artikolo de U. Lins (“Orwells Tutor? Eugène Adam (Lanti) und die Ernüchterung der Linken”, en Cyril Robert Brosch; Sabine Fiedler ed., Jahrbuch der Gesellschaft für Interlinguistik 2020, Leipziger Universitätsverlag, pp.103-124), estas elŝutebla ĉe nia kolekto HAL-Esperanto Historio.

 

Interview with Augusto Masetti from 1964 now translated into English

 

Awhile a go I discovered the late Stuart Christie's massive anarchist film archive and spent many hours digging through it. Unfortunately while its a great resource very few of the entries have explanations as to what they're about so if it isn't immediately clear from the film or you don't speak one of the dozens of languages the content is in some of them can be very strange and obscure.

For me one of those videos was a short 2 minute video called Augusto Masetti, its a short black and white interview with an elderly man in Italian. The only information was the year of recording 1964, searching the name I found multiple sources all in Italian, but my limited experience and machine translators I found out that in 1911 when the Italian army was about to send troops to occupy Libya Augusto Masetti shot and wounded his superior officer and when being detained and investigated it was found that he had an anti-militarist pamphlet on him and was an Anarchist. He became a sort of celebrity with defence committees setup across Italy to protest in support of him and rally opposition to the military adventures of the Italian state. 

I also found an upload of the video on youtube, and the uploader had some interesting things to say in the comments. 

Intervista del 1964 ad Augusto Masetti, l'anarchico che nel 1910 aveva sparato al suo colonnello inneggiando all'anarchia e contro la guerra di Libia. Durante i giorni della 'Settimana Rossa' del 1914 fu preso come simbolo della lotta antimilitarista. (Questo video - come gli altri sul tema settimana rossa - è stato recuperato da un'unica cassetta vhs (prima Betamax) lasciata da Sergio Zavoli alla biblioteca di Alfonsine, e mai usata dalla RAI. La cassetta era ormai abbandonata in biblioteca da 40 anni e a rischio smagnetizzazione. Su sollecitazione di Luciano Lucci fu riversata da Betamax a VHS, e poi il Lucci stesso ne fece una versione digitalizzata e messa su youtube.) 1964 interview with Augusto Masetti, the anarchist who in 1910 had shot his colonel in praise of anarchy and against the war in Libya. During the days of the 'Red Week' of 1914 it was taken as a symbol of the anti-militarist struggle. (This video - like the others on the red week theme - was recovered from a single vhs cassette (first Betamax) left by Sergio Zavoli at the Alfonsine library, and never used by RAI. The cassette had now been abandoned in the library for 40 years. and at risk of demagnetization. At the request of Luciano Lucci it was transferred from Betamax to VHS, and then Lucci himself made a digitized version of it and put on youtube.)

Which was interesting but didn't help me understand what the video was about. My very weak knowledge of Italian meant I was sure the first question at least was about his time as a soldier and the shooting of thee officer, but that was it apart from a few words about Professors and a song and family.

I turned to the subreddit r/translator for help, and within a few hours user Jordanj got in touch and gave me a transcript in Italian of the conversation and then an English translation.

So mystery solved, and in the interest of preservation I've used both to create subtitle tracks for the video and will reproduce them here as transcripts.

Video Link

Interviewer: Good morning, Mr. Masetti.

Masetti: Good morning.

I: Sorry to bother you.

M: No need.

I: Would you mind coming here a moment, on the balcony?

M: Sure.

I: Here under the light, so we can see you well.

M: But remember I don't want [money].

Me, I'm available for the [king].*

I: What happened at the Salvini barracks in Bologna? Can you tell us?

M: We were 300 soldiers, lined up in three rows, and 8 officers were on the stage, among which was the superior officer, the lieutenant colonel Stroppa, who was making the speech, where he said we all have family, girlfriends, and you know friends, but right this moment we only have our nation to defend... and at that moment, I put my [rifle] on the shoulders of the [second] - I was in the middle, in the middle row - and then I shot once. I was going to recharge, so they jumped on me... officers, and so on.

I: And the lieutenant colonel was only wounded...

M: Wounded, yes, till the shoulder, here. And the bullet deflected, and wounded an unlucky fellow of a soldier right under there.

I: Now, I'd like to ask you, Mr. Masetti. Yours was a an act of folly, but were you indeed crazy, like they were saying?

M:... there's 36 hours I have no recollection of. From the evening of the 29th till the 31 of the morning. Something I've always said and I'll have to always say, because it is so.

I: But, do you feel guilt for that act or not?

M: No, no! How can I feel guilty? Can you feel guilty for something you don't know about (/remember doing)? They were saying that to me In Reggio Emilia too, those professors. "Well, you must feel sorry for [???]." "Me? Why should I feel sorry?" "So you're proud of it?" "No to that too! I can't be proud of something I don't know I did!". And that's how things were, you know.

I: Were you aware that all over Italy, pro Masetti committees were being established?

M: ... Not right away, no, I didn't know right away. I learned it some days after, when the professor... Sacossi and Pedrassani, they were saying "There's a lot of support for you out there". And I said "I know nothing about it, [if there is,???] I know nothing, no one was bringing me anything. They only came the evening, some... middle-class people, you know, outside, to say hello from the window... and then they'd sing a song they made up themselves...

I: How did the song go?

M: Ah, they said "At the cell number 9 the soldier Masetti is being locked up", but then I don't remember anything else of all that stuff.

* I don't fully understand this but Masetti was making a pun the words he uses for King and money sound very similar. "Ma ricordatevi che non voglio [rei]!  Ci sono per [il re] io."

Interviewer: Buongiorno Signor Masetti.

Masetti: Buongiorno.

I: Scusi se la disturbiamo.

M: No.

I: Le dispiacerebbe venire qua un attimo, sul balcone?

M: Si.

I: Venga al sole, si faccia vedere.

M: Ma ricordatevi che non voglio [rei]!

Ci sono per [il re] io.

I: Come andarono le cose alla caserma Salvini di Bologna? Me lo vuole raccontare?

M: Eravamo in 300 soldati, sfilati in tre fila, e 8 ufficiali erano sul palco, il quale l'ufficiale superiore, che era il sergente colonello Stroppa, fece la morale, dove disse che tutti abbiamo la famiglia, abbiamo la fidanzata, abbiamo insomma gli amici, ma in questo momento qua non abbiamo altro che la patria da difendere... e io, in quel momento li', misi il fucile sulle spalle del secondo - ero in mezzo io, nella fila di mezzo - e poi sparai un colpo. Quando ritornai a caricare, allora mi saltarono addosso con... ufficiali, e cosi' via.

I: E il tenente colonnello rimase soltanto ferito...

M: Ferito, si, fino alla spalla qui. E la palla divio', e andette a ferire un disgraziato di un soldato che era li sotto.

I: Ora io vorrei chiederle, signor Masetti. Il suo fu un gesto folle, ma lei era pazzo come si disse, o no?

M: ...io ho 36 ore che non ricordo niente! Dalla sera del 29 fino al 31 della mattina. Cosa che ho sempre detto e che dovro' sempre dire, perche' e' cosi'.

I: Ma lei e' pentito di quel gesto o no?

M: No, no! Posso mica esser pentito? Come fate a esser pentito di una cosa che non sapete? A me lo dicevano anche a Reggio Emilia, i professori la'. "Beh ti dispiacera' pure della [comesono]..." "Io? Cosa vuole che mi dispiace?" "Allora hai piacere?" "Ma neanche! Non posso mica aver piacere di una cosa che non so di aver fatto". E cosi' andavano le cose, insomma.

I: Lei sapeva che in tutta Italia si stavano costituendo dei comitati pro Masetti?

M: ... Subito no, subito non lo seppi. Lo seppi qualche giorno dopo, quando il professore... Sacossi e Pedrassani, mi dicevano "c'e' un gran movimento per te fori". E io dissi "Non so niente", [gh'era la ren se gava] non sapevo niente, nessuno mi portava niente. venivano solo alla sera, dei... borghesi insomma, dal di fori, a salutarmi dalla finestra... E poi cantavano una canzone, che avevano inventato loro...

I: Come faceva questa canzone?

M: Ah, dicevano, "alla cella del numero 9 sta rinchiuso il soldato Masetti", ma io poi non mi ricordo piu' niente di quella roba li'.

No More Compromise - Pierre Besnard

 No More Compromise 

by Pierre Besnard 

Note: Pierre Besnard (8 October 1886 – 19 February 1947) was a French revolutionary syndicalist. He was the Secretary of the Confédération Générale du Travail-Syndicaliste Révolutionnaire (CGT-SR) from 1929, and the Secretary of the International Workers' Association (IWA). 

During the Spanish Civil War Besnard was a vocal critic of the increasing collaboration of the CNT's national committee with the Spanish Republic and the resulting reversals of revolutionary gains. The CNT's national committee in response mounted a campaign to replace him in the IWA and also launched a sort of rival organisation the Solidaridad Internacional Antifascista (SIA) to handle solidarity and support from abroad.

An article by former IWA secretariat Pierre Besnard about avoiding the mistakes of the CNT during the Spanish Civil War.

Originally appeared in The Vanguard (May 1939)
Provided by the Workers Solidarity Alliance archives in New York

No More Compromise

The following article by Comrade Pierre Besnard, a former secretary of the I.W.M.A. to which the CNT is affiliated, opens up a discussion on the lessons of the Spanish tragedy which we will continue in the Vanguard. While we agree with Comrade Besnard that the fundamental tenets of Anarchosyndicalism were not so strictly adhered to by our revolutionary Spanish comrades, and that these tenets still occupy first place guiding our relations with the capitalist world we find it incumbent upon us to point out that the actions of our comrades in Spain cannot be judged apart from the international situation to which the civil war gave rise. We reaffirm our conviction that collaboration with the bourgeoisie should be shunned, but we must again insist that tribute should be paid to the CNT for the heroic struggle it was capable of maintaining. Our comrades understood their responsibilities and, not being dogmatists, were able to conduct their work as an integral part of the Spanish struggle against the formidable intervention of the fascist powers.

The struggle that is at an end in Spain shows beyond the shadow of a doubt that all collaboration and compromise with the bourgeoise must henceforth be banished from our midst. Between us, one thing exists: The Class Struggle. It is within the power of no one to conceal this fact and only the elimination of classes and the institutions of economic and social equality will result in the disappearance of this struggle. On every occasion that we do not recognise this basic truth, we shall inevitably be defeated in the ensuing struggle.

Each time it finds itself in difficulties, the bourgeoise accepts and even demands collaboration with the proletariat. But when the crisis is over, it resumes its freedom to do as it pleases and, naturally, turns its weapons in full upon the working class. This pattern of events has been followed in all periods of history, not just in revolutionary ones. But, however disastrous might be its practical consequences in the ordinary day to day struggle, it takes on catastrophic proportions when it concerns such elemental societal conflicts as was the case in Spain.

Let bourgeoisie be “left” or use ultra-leftist phrases, invariably they are for a line of action contrary to the interests of the people. Even if they wished to be otherwise, it cannot be so for their interests are forever fundamentally opposed to that of the workers. Let them rally enthusiastically and even aid the revolution in periods when they cannot help doing otherwise, it is only to have their past actions forgotten or overlooked. And when the leading figures and politicians of the dying regime proclaim themselves openly for the new order and support the most radical groups, as they did in Spain, one can be sure that it is only to bore from within and to secure positions of prestige which will permit them in time to strangle the revolution which in a moment of weakness called for and made use of their cooperation.

Too feeble at the outset to speak as masters, they will begin by silently worming themselves into the revolutionary councils where gradually they gain a certain authority and undermine that of true revolutionaries. With an air of innocence they push the sincere into stupid blunders, and one fine day, they show their true colours. When the role these men played will finally be understood, it will be already too late to repair the damage inflicted in the name of some “technical advantage” or other worthless pretext.

The desire to defeat the politicians in the field of politics is the greatest mistake that revolutionaries can commit. The desire to overthrow the bourgeoisie in collaboration with certain of its elements is no less dangerous. These two things are to be avoided at all costs. Nothing must be allowed to effect a reconciliation with our enemies. Not even the most imminent peril! A sudden and certain betrayal is in store for us if we disregard this historic truth, if we place even the slightest faith in those who are destined to be our enemies. Whatever mistakes we make in the course of the revolution, none can be so serious as those which involve us with the opposing class, even if they assume a democratic guise.

The bourgeoisie, since its birth in 1789, has never deviated from its course of deceiving the people and stripping every social upheaval of its accomplishments. So, it was in 1830, 1848 and 1871. The results were identical. The Spanish Revolution of April 14, 1934 followed in the footsteps of its predecessors and the seal has just been placed on the revolution of July 19^th. These facts should prevent anyone from still maintaining that collaboration with the bourgeoisie and its politicians is able in some way to insure the success of the revolution. Cold doctrinaires such as we can derive no advantage from the unhappy conclusion of the struggle, but we have the right, in spite of having ardently wished for another end, to say that we had foreseen it. Beyond some relative merit, much in Spain followed the general line of social history. Our one desire is not to see these errors repeated and we will do all in our power toward that end.

Improvements that can possibly be made in society at the expense of solidly entrenched interests are indeed puny. They will merely affect some derail but leave intact the foundations. So it will be as long as we have the class struggle. This fundamental fact has convinced us of a doctrine which experience has tested and which no one can therefore dare modify, presumptive as he might be. Those who for one reason or another have transgressed, have been convinced much to their regret of the law’s inflexibility.

Let us then remain on our own ground where we are strong. I believe that I have sufficiently covered this in my books[1] where I have treated the ideology, the plan of realisation and the morality of our movement on both national and international scale. We have here and in other works by militants since Bakunin, Kropotkin, Rocker and numerous others, all that is necessary to accomplish our task without having recourse to the advice of the bourgeoisie.

Let us then study our literature, take heed of our international congresses and shun false departures from a doctrine which is and must become the practice of tomorrow. We will thus be on the right road. All other roads are misleading which will either get us nowhere or lead us to defeat.

Let us stress the idea that even under the most favourable circumstances all compromise only guarantees us the perpetuation of the authoritarian state and the triumph of our enemies, the politicians, whose program carries but two articles: One, to take power, and Two, to keep this power by all means even the worst. If we sincerely wish to liberate our class and all of humanity we must work towards our goal: for federalism and liberty, and not for centralised power and dictatorship.

Let us go in this direction and in no other, without compromise of any kind. We have the means. Let us have the will!

 

 

---

[1] “Les Syndicates Ouvries et La Revolution Sociale”
“Le Monde Nouveau”
“L’Ethique du Syndicalism”

Red Romanticism; Response to the Left Communist Group of Vietnam

 

Father Thomas J. Haggerty's Wheel, possibly the first attempt to outline the new society by a member of the Industrial Workers of the World

A response to Our differences with anarcho-syndicalists

This was originally a comment but it grew a lot longer. I've read the following post by the LCGV, and I'm not really convinced of it and really I think the author needs to broaden their studies. I'm not opposed to councils, I like them just fine when they're working in a revolutionary manner, but have no interest in romanticising them nor overlooking their long legacy of compromise and capitulation. I also don't believe the two are really opposed, the differences between the revolutionary union and revolutionary council are shown by history to be circumstantial and not insurmountable. For example the anarchosyndicalists collaborated with the council movement in Germany and Russia, and many of those councils couldn't have existed without the support of union cells and militants. I could stop it here, the framing of the two as oppositional is simply false, in actuality the two have worked together quite a bit, but since the LCGV have decided to privilege one against the other and have done so in a simply terrible way, lets continue. 

Italics are quotations from the LCVG

"The programme of the Communist Workers Party of Germany said it best: “[I]t is necessary to resolutely reject the trade unions, and to be resolutely free from their ideological orientation.”"

The KAPD founded two separate Union organisations, the AAUD and AAUD-E, the U in both names stood for Union, the full name in English is General Workers Union of Germany, with the Germany being Allgemeine Arbeiter-Union Deutschlands, the name was the same for the AAUD-E split with the E standing for Einheitsorganisation so you might be wondering why a group that founded two Union organisations would have a program that contains a clause rejecting unions. Well that's because its rejecting the Trade Unions which in German were called Gewerkschaft and most were tied to the Social Democratic Party. By adopting the name Union they were positioning themselves away from the old Social Democratic union bureaucracy and pushing closer to the Free Workers Union of Germany FAUD (established 1919) a more explicitly anarchosyndicalist union. 

This is not the only confusing example of the idiosyncrasy of the KAPD and its affiliated organisations, the P in KAPD stood for Party, but for much of its existence many of its members (at times it seems like a majority) and some of its main theorists like Otto Rühle had called for the dissolving of the party and rejected it as a viable tool of the working class in the pursuit of its revolutionary gaols. 

Consider this selection from the Revolution is not a Party Affair 1920

The bourgeoisie, parliamentarism, and political parties mutually and reciprocally conditioned one another. Each is necessary for the others. None is conceivable without the others. They mark the political physiognomy of the bourgeois system, of the bourgeois-capitalist system.

...

 

The title of the Communist Workers Party (KAPD) is the last external vestige – soon superfluous – of a tradition that can't be simply wiped away when the living mass ideology of yesterday no longer has any relevance. But this last vestige will also be removed.

... 

 

This is why all proletarians ready for revolutionary combat must be got together at the workplace in revolutionary factory organisations, regardless of their political origins or the basis by which they are recruited. Such groups should be united in the framework of the General Workers' Union (AAU).

And throughout its history the AAUD/ AAUD-E would work with the FAUD and German IWW, 

"Anarcho-Syndicalists, on the other hand, reject this notion. They acknowledge that modern unions are reformist and mere arms of the capitalist state, which is a step in the right direction. But instead of realizing that this is universal to all unions, they advocate for the creation of “revolutionary” and/or “rank-and-file” unions. What phrase-mongering! Even the most “revolutionary” unions can only exist to bargain with the bourgeoisie. It is in their nature."

This is a very poor summary of anarchosyndicalism, for a start there is no one overall structure, many anarchosyndicalist groups and unions have practiced different organisational strategies and structures, while they do emphasis a bottom up system of a sort they do not believe this alone is enough to make a union revolutionary.

So what does make a union revolutionary? Well solidarity and education. To quote the ABCs of Revolutionary Unionism

To Emancipate the Working Class -- The IWW believes that by acting in solidarity, in union, we are building a new world in the shell of the old. Through solidarity we will create a free world with the good things of life available for all. Yes, the IWW is radical. It is as radical as a scientist in her laboratory, as radical as a surgeon planning the removal of a diseased growth, as radical as a teacher must be to tell the truth. It is well to note that from radicalism has flowed all that makes life better today than yesterday. As in the past, radicalism is the only force capable of leading the world out of its night of hunger, hatred and fear. We believe in the abolishment of capitalism, because capitalism has created an unhappy world that poisons our dreams, our families and the world itself, all so the rich can become richer.  

There is also quite a lot of debate between them about which approach works best and the merits of other ideas. For example this debate between the IWW and FORA in the 1920s

The difficulty of the end of the 1920s gave an opportunity for reflection on strategy and vision of the revolutionary movement. This happened mainly within the International Workers Association (IWA-AIT) which at the time likely involved millions of workers across the world, but also within the IWW. The subject is poorly studied with minimal resources in English, most of what is publicly available is about the IWA and that can be reduced to a few articles. The debate was wide ranging covering union structure, future society, revolutionary methods, amongst other subjects. Part of the discussion focussed on whether revolutionary unions should adopt craft or industrial unions as their primary structure.

Dismantling our divisions: craft, industry, and a new society

https://libcom.org/blog/dismantling-our-divisions-craft-industry-new-society-01122015

I've chosen to highlight the second part because it shows a bit of a problem for someone claiming to uphold the revolutionary potential of the council communist current. The councils of the German revolution were founded by members of the Trade Unions, explicitly political groups like the anarchists, the Spartacists and independent social democrats while active were in the minority, the majority of party members on the councils were with the Social Democratic Party, the explicitly council communist groups like the KAPD weren't formed until 1920. There is also the Revolutionary Stewards to consider, this group played an active part in the German revolution and had been very active in the 1917 strike waves against the war in Germany, as the name suggests they were mostly shop stewards affiliated with the established unions in Germany. The councils didn't pop out of thin air, they were built out of the union movements and as already established once a conscious council movement got off the ground it did not ditch unions it established an alternative version of it. 

I don't bring this up to defend the social democrat trade unions, I have my criticisms of them just as I have my criticisms of anarchist, revolutionary and communist unions. I bring it up because we have to reckon with it, its an historical fact and no matter how annoying it may be for our favoured schemes we have to acknowledge that it seems there is in fact some potential to be found (a potential, potential I guess) in even the conservative union movements. 

"Let us take, for example, the C.N.T.-F.A.I. in Revolutionary Catalonia. While they were indeed very radical and revolutionary, ultimately their pseudo-reformism overcame them, and they began to collaborate with the bourgeois Republican government under the banner of “anti-fascism.” “Anti-Fascism” is itself non-communist, as it mobilizes the working class in a defense of the democratic bourgeoisie against the fascist bourgeoisie. This is the subject best saved for another article. "

I knew this was coming. I have no issue with a criticism of the collaboration with the Popular Front, I do however view it as dishonest to use this as a supposed rebuttal of anarchosyndicalism. The CNT was not the only anarchosyndicalist organisation nor where its publications and personalities the mouthpiece of the wider movement. In fact many of its fellow anarchosyndicalist organisations criticised its trajectory in those days from Uruguay 

This unconscionable hypocrisy must cease. Moscow is in the throes of selling to England at a knock-down price whatever is left of the Spanish Revolution of 19 July 1936.

Let us not be accomplices in this betrayal, through the moral support that Soli and the CNT afford to Stalinist politicians. The PSUC is merely carrying out its orders from Moscow. Our stance with regard to Moscow should be the same. They being equally stranglers of the Spanish Revolution, we should publicly condemn them both.

 The USSR and the CNT: an unconscionable stance - Alexander Schapiro December 1937.

Schapiro would collaborate with Joseph Wagner and submit another criticism that was published in the IWW's One Big Union Monthly 

The CNT should not allow—as it has unfortunately done since July 19—the acceptance of the tactics of the "line of least resistance," which cannot but lead to a slow but sure liquidation of the libertarian revolution.

The ministerial collaboration policy has certainly pushed back to the rear the program of revolutionary economy. You are on the wrong track and you can see that yourselves.

Do you not think that you should stop following this road, that leads you to certain downfall ?

And the 1939 book Slippery Slopes which was compiled by another Uruguayan Anarchosyndicalist contains many accounts of criticism of the CNT/FAI's actions during the period mainly from the south american anarchosyndicalist press.  

And there's the sad history of Pierre Besnard who at the time of the Spanish Revolution was the secretary of the International Workers Association, an international for anarchosyndicalist unions and the one that the CNT was affiliated to. His and the IWAs constant criticism of the growing compromises and collaboration of the CNT national committee grew so severe that to their discredit the national committee mounted a campaign to replace him and the secretariat, and also pushed to side line the IWA's solidarity work with the creation of a rival group the Solidaridad Internacional Antifascista. 

Nor was the CNT/FAI a monolith within Spain. Its trajectory was opposed at times violently and in large numbers, the nature of its organisation meant there were many groups with autonomy. The Italian Anarchist Camillo Berneri was a vocal critic of the growing collaboration between the Popular Front and some leading figures in the CNT 

The dilemma: war or revolution no longer has any meaning. The only dilemma is this one: either victory over Franco thanks to the revolutionary war, or defeat.

The problem for you and the other comrades is to chose between the Versailles of Thiers and the Paris of the Commune, before Thiers and Bismarck form the holy alliance. It is up to you to reply, for you are the 'light under the bushel.'

Article which appeared in 'Guerra di Class' No. 12, 14th April 1937.

The anarchists in government in Spain: Open letter to comrade Federica Montseny - Camillo Berneri

And the Council of Aragon and its Collectives had to be suppressed by force. The Friends of Durruti group supported and tried to start an uprising against the Popular Front to found a workers alliance 

We are opposed to collaboration with bourgeois groups. We do not believe that the class approach can be abandoned.

Revolutionary workers must not shoulder official posts, nor establish themselves in the ministries. For as long as the war lasts, collaboration is permissible - on the battlefield, in the trenches, on the parapets and in productive labour in the rearguard.

Our place is in the unions, in the work place, keeping alive that spirit of rebellion which will bloom on the earliest occasion that presents itself.

We must have no part of combinations devised by bourgeois politicians acting in concert with foreign chancellories. That would be tantamount to strengthening our enemies and tightening the noose of capitalism. No more portfolios. No more ministries. Let's get back to the unions and the nitty-gritty of work tools.

********************

Let us campaign for unity among the proletariat. But on the understanding that this unity must be between workers, and not with bureaucrats or sinecurists.

At present, an agreement with the revolutionary wing of the UGT by the CNT is a feasible prospect. But we do not believe that an understanding is possible with the UGT of Catalonia, or with Prieto's followers.

Our Position; the Friends of Durruti

And one of the main reasons the belief that Durruti was murdered by the Communist Party is so popular is because it was well known he was disgusted with the Popular Front and wished to see it replaced with an alliance of the revolutionaries of the CNT and UGT. And Victor Alba who is no friend of the CNT or anarchism credits the survival of most of the POUM members with the actions of the CNT defence groups whom defied the Spanish Republic and enrolled the now outlawed party into its ranks and dared the government to do something about it. 

If not for its strong local base and, above ail, the action of the C.N.T., the P.O.U.M. might have been exterminated. The C.N.-T. unions gave membership books to P.O.U.M. members so they could work, and the C.N.T. militia brigades saved the lives of many, admitting P.O.U.M. militia members into the ranks of both soldiers and officers. P.O.U.M. militants who passed through the militia recruitment offices had to make sure they would be sent to C.N.T. units, for if they found themselves in a communist unit, it was almost certain they would end up being identified and, in no few cases, murdered, with the excuse given that they had deserted or gone over to the enemy. 

 Spanish Marxism Versus Soviet Communism page 196.

And similar to Slippery Slopes mentioned above, the 1940 book Why we lost the War also documents many struggles within the CNT both for and against collaboration, it was written by Diego Abad de Santillán, who for a time was a CNT representative on the Catalunya General government but increasingly found himself opposing this strategy. My favourite example was a plan organised within the CNT and FAI to take the gold reserve that was being given to the Soviet Union out of Madrid and into Barcelona, a plan that mobilised several thousands members and was in direct opposition to the wishes of the CNT's national committee.

Within a very restricted circle of confidants, we discussed the idea of transferring to Catalonia at least some of the gold in the Bank of Spain. We knew that we would have to resort to force, and we had about 3,000 reliable men in Madrid who were fully informed of all the details concerning the plan to transport the gold in special trains. If the plan were to be successfully carried out, it would not take much time, and before the Government could take counter-measures, we would be on our way to Catalonia with a share of the nation’s gold supply, the best guarantee that the war would take a new course. The only problem was that, when it came right down to it, no one wanted to bear the responsibility for an action that would have such major historical repercussions. Our proposals were conveyed to the National Committee of the CNT and to some of the most well known comrades. The plan scared the wits out of our friends; the main argument that was offered against taking the gold, an argument that was repeatedly made, was that if we did this it would only exacerbate the prevailing animosity towards Catalonia. What should we have done?

 I don't bring this up to save the honour of the CNT/FAI, I think the defeat of the Spanish revolution is proof enough that its overall strategy was disastrous, but to pretend this is all the CNT has to show us and teach us is intellectually dishonest and quite insulting to the men and women who took part in it and resisted the collaboration. 

And the council system is not immune to collaboration, contrary to how it is often portrayed by Councilist propaganda. Going back to the Revolutionary Stewards we see from them a warning and criticism of the council system as it existed by 1920 in most of Germany.

All aspects of the council system that the government wants to build on the basis of the shop council law are full of wormholes. For example, district economy councils shall be implemented in which shop council members will discuss socialization with the shrewd representatives of the propertied class. The councils are also allowed to “present ideas” to the authorities, employers’ associations, etc. I believe that it is evident that such a council system does not remove but firmly secure capitalist production. The “council system” label is used to dupe the proletariat into serving the interests of its capitalist class enemy.

 The Council Idea and Its Realization Ernst Däumig

"The I.W.W. is another good example. While not officially anarcho-syndicalist, you’d be hard pressed to find a Wobbly that wasn’t an avid supporter of the ideology. However, the I.W.W. also falls into the pit trap of reformism. It’s struggles are centered around labor actions like the strike. However, once these actions end, so does the struggle. Thus it can only ever play a negotiator with capital, a wolf dressed in red and black clothing."

In Hamburg, a direct line of descent connected the IWW to the unions. Wolffheim had spent several years with the IWW in California. With Laufenberg, he urged the workers to join the AAU when it was created in August of 1919, and they considered it to be the German section of the IWW*

From the AAUD/AAUD-E reader page 8  

Whoever wrote this doesn't have much experience of the IWW, I've been a member for several years and the number of "avid supporters" I've met are few indeed, I don't even count myself in that description. The second part "It’s struggles are centered around labor actions like the strike. However, once these actions end, so does the struggle. Thus it can only ever play a negotiator with capital, a wolf dressed in red and black clothing."" is to borrow from the LCVG What phrase-mongering! I suggest the LCVG read the history of the IWW, not only did it take an active part in the German and Mexican revolutions but in the United States much of its folk history comes from the Free Speech fights, where the IWW dedicated most of its resources to fighting and defeating attempts by City and county governments to abolish the right to protest, often at great personal risk. They also were a major opposition to American entry into World War One, with demonstrations and strikes in key industries. The response was a further crackdown on the Union.

In Australia the IWW was also highly active in opposing the war and part of the successful anti-conscription campaign

By November 1916, Labor Prime Minister Hughes, a long-time opponent of IWW influence within the labour movement, was complaining that the IWW was ``largely responsible for the present attitude of organised labor, industrially and politically, towards the war’’. The threat of conscription in 1916 and 1917 gave the IWW an even greater opportunity to have its voice heard. It expanded rapidly in this period. Great crowds used to come to IWW anti-conscription meetings, up to a sixth of the population of Sydney gathering around and trying to hear the speakers, as Tom Barker recalls in his memoirs.

When three-quarters of the Labor politicians in federal parliament indicated they would refuse to pass a Conscription Act, Prime Minister Hughes blamed the IWW and announced it needed to be attacked ``with the ferocity of a Bengal tiger’’

The Industrial Workers of the World in Australia: achievements and limitations

http://links.org.au/node/1104

This is just one area, I could go on for many subjects including the IWW's legacy on organising across racial, gender and national lines which by no means perfect show the union is more than the caricature alleged by the LCVG.

And if I may go back to Spain, in the regions with strong CNT presence like the countryside of Aragon collectives were established that in many villages collectivised and co-ordinated everything from land, education, defence, contributions to the war effort, trade with other collectives, trade with the cities, irrigation and electrification. 

The collective was the free community of labour of the villagers. It was created with the influence of anarchist ideas. The CNT and the FAI (National Confederation of Labour and Iberian Anarchist Federation) held general assemblies in all the villages. Peasants, small farmers and tenant farmers attended. That was how the collectives were born. They took possession of the land and the tools and machinery of the expropriated landholders. The small farmers and tenant farmers who joined the collective brought their tools and equipment. An inventory of all property and equipment was made. Whoever did not wish to join the collective could keep the land that he could cultivate without hired labour. Each collective proceeded along the following lines of development:

The distribution of land, labour, tools and fruit of their toil was taken care of first. The collective has to be concerned in the first place with the material survival of its members. The product of the fields was brought to a common warehouse; the most important foods were distributed equally among all. Surplus crops were used for trade with other communes or with collectives in the cities. Produce was distributed to the members free of charge. Depending on the wealth of the commune there would be bread and wine. Sometimes bread, meat and other foods were issued without limit and free of charge. Whatever had to be acquired outside of the commune, through barter or purchase from other communes or the cities, or commodities that were in low supply in the commune, were rationed. Everyone, whether able to work or not, received the necessities of life as far as the collective could provide them. The underlying idea was no longer "a good day's pay for a good day's work," but "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs."

Herein lay one difference between the peasant collectives in Aragon and the industrial and commercial collectives in Catalonia and other parts of Spain. In industry, labour or production was collectivised. Consumption remained individual. In the peasant collectives consumption as well as production was collectivised. The new system was simple in its basic characteristics, varied in forms of application. The customary compensation was quotas and rationing for things that were scarce, unlimited distribution of goods that were in abundance. These are the economic forms of libertarian communism.

 With the peasants of Aragon - Augustin Souchy

"Although we completely denounce unions, this does not mean we denounce organizing in the workplace. In fact it is the opposite, we advocate for it! But workplace organizing cannot be done with union reps (who may be in collusion with management) and  membership cards. It can only be done by forming factory committees and workers councils, which are the real organs of the power of the proletariat. "

Councils in every case that they have existed have in the end collaborated with the force that destroyed them. In Germany the SPD was the dominant political force on the councils, in Russia the Bolsheviks, in China they capitulated to the nationalists and in Iran the Islamists subverted them.

If the CNT's actions in 1936 are enough to discredit it and its revolutionary strategies than I think its only fair we do the same with the council system.

"The workers councils will not demand reforms and concessions, ending the struggle when they are met. They will further the struggle until the goal of the proletariat is the abolition of capitalism. They will take political and economic power, thus transforming the working class into the ruling class, and transforming the state into the dictatorship of the proletariat. They will not be reformist, they will be revolutionary! And they will rise on the ashes of the unions!"

Replace the term workers councils with General Strike and you have the stereotypical argument of a revolutionary syndicalist. This is just more phrase-mongering with no material analysis. The LCVG has chosen to associate itself with councils and considers itself revolutionary, therefore councils are revolutionary. And note the contradiction at play here, it is the councils that are the real organs of power of the proletariat, and yet it is still vital to conquer the state and establish some nebulous dictatorship.

Both positions can't be true, if the councils are where the true power of the proletariat lie than to move away from them, is a retreat from proletarian power and move towards bourgeois power. Its worth noting that the main event that doomed the German council system was the Executive of Great Berlin establishing a six man provisional government, which soon became the centre of SPD intrigue and counter revolutionary manoeuvring. The Soviets of Russia also lost their administrative roles in production and policy as soon as the Bolshevik Sovnarkom (Commissar ministries). Much like how the CNT/FAI's move away from the collectives toward the Popular Front representation proved, or the Russian Revolutions move away from the Soviets to the Commissars etc. If this dictatorship is truly necessary than the councils are largely superfluous, what matters is the conquest of the state and its rule.

*Wolffheim and Laufenberg have left something of a stain on the reputation of council communism a German socialism more generally. Both were instrumental in establishing a current of what was called national bolshevism within the AAUD and the faction that would go on to become the KAPD. This current was isolated mostly to Hamburg and would be driven out of the movement. However the driving force for expulsion came from the anti-council pro party group around Karl Radek. Which is incredibly strange since just a few years later Radek would himself push the KPD into a similar strategy complete with attempts to ally the party with elements of the "revolutionary" far right.

While I don't think the evolution of the Hamburg group poisons the entire council movement in Germany at the end of the war, much like I disagree with using the marginal marxist syndicalist Sorel's turn to nationalistic fancies as ammunition to discredit syndicalism or just the early CGT. Its not great that during the revolutionary fervour and the peak and decline of the council movement some of its most committed advocates produced in one of its strongholds such a tendency, and that it required the intervention of both Radek and Lenin to kick it out.

Recommendations for further reading

The ABCs of Revolutionary Unionism

The AAUD/AAUD-E reader

The Revolution is not a Party Affair by Otto Rühle

Marx and Bakunin by Anton Pannekoek

Slippery Slopes by Manuel Azaretto

Towards a Fresh Revolution - The Friends of Durruti

With the Peasants of Aragon - Augustin Souchy

Why We Lost the War - Diego Abad de Santillán

After the Revolution: Economic Reconstruction in Spain - Diego Abad de Santillán