People, especially in other nations, might have believed that the labouring men and women who fought-off Franco’s initial insurgency (and the rest of the war actually) were doing so in the name of preserving the democratic status quo . But it seems implausible that Anarchists and Socialists (the majority of resisters) would risk their lives in the name of bourgeois liberalism. No, as Orwell states, “it was the kind of effort that could probably only be made by people who were fighting with a revolutionary interior.” They were fighting for the hope of something better. Plus land and factories and transport were being seized by peasants and trade unions for collectivization. It seems the working class did have something else in mind than solely protecting democracy. The pillars of a worker’s state perhaps?
- How and why did the trade unions support the Republic?
As Orwell states, in the first few months of Franco’s insurgency, his real opponent was not the government but the trade unions. The latter supported the Republic by engaging in armed conflict against the Nationalists which might have saved the Republic from an immediate coup d’état. Orwell does not believe that Socialists and Anarchists would risk their lives for the democratic-capitalist system they lived under. And seeing as they profited from the war to seize land and industries and transport and establish local committees to work with the local government, it seems quite evident that the trade unions were attempting to exploit this war and transform it into a revolution.
- What factors made what was happening ‘not merely a civil war, but the beginning of a revolution’?
With what Orwell describes as policies that were undertaken by workers in certain areas during the civil war, it seems quite obvious that at least in those areas workers were planning for a revolution. As I have mentioned before, it seemed implausible for Anarchists and Socialists to protect bourgeois liberalism with their lives. They had something else in mind. They were collectivizing industries and transports by means of local committees which, in some areas, were even working side by side with the local government. Also they were replacing the pro-capitalist police forces with workers’ patrol and establishing workers’ militias through trade unions. Basically, they were starting to set rough bases for a worker’s state, factors that made the conflict take a revolutionary turn. It wasn’t just a civil war.
- Why did foreign press attempt to conceal the revolutionary aspect of the war as much as possible? (also why did they narrow down the issue to ‘Fascism vs. democracy’?)
By narrowing down the Spanish Civil War to a conflict between Right and Left, between Fascism and Democracy, the foreign press could more easily ignore the war’s revolutionary aspect. Orwell argues that besides small leftist groups fighting for the Republic, the entire world was determined to crush the revolution that was taking place in Spain. The Communist did under influence of the USSR (for reasons that we shall see later) and the liberal bourgeoisie evidently thought so too. Apparently there was a high degree of foreign investment in Spain, and if the revolution had prevailed, that would all have been lost.
- How did the press obscure the issue of church pillaging? What was the reality?
The foreign anti-fascist press disguised the issue of church pillaging as being a part of the struggle against fascism which ‘would be even so evil as to disrespect the house of the lord’ while the Republican forces ‘wouldn’t dare to pillage without a strong anti-fascist reason’. But evidently the reality was very different. Churches were pillaged almost everywhere as the “Spanish Church was part of the capitalist racket”: the legacy of the feudalism.
- Describe the course of events that led the Republic to take a swing towards the right.
As the USSR started to supply arms, the government took a swing towards the right. It was conducting anti-revolutionary activities and policies such as expelling the POUM and CNT out of the Catalan government, replacing the more leftist socialist prime-minster Caballero by the more rightist socialist Negrín and ousting the CNT and UGT of the national government. The events that led to that swing are more thoroughly explained in the next question.
- What were Russia’s terms for lending assistance? How did it affect the ‘revolutionary’ aspect of the war?
In October-November of 1936, the USSR started supplying arms to the Republican forces, especially the Communist Party which caused the latter to become more powerful than the Anarchists. It was from that point on that the government, apparently, took a “swing to the right” by adopting anti-revolutionary policies. Orwell suggests that the terms for assistance were “prevent revolution,” and so the government and Communist Party “moved against the revolutionary elements,” characterized at first by the expulsion of the POUM from the Catalan government. Later the Anarchists and Caballero’s socialists were also targeted (Caballero was replaced as prime-minster as mentioned before). Thus evidently the strict revolutionary aspect of the war suffered as they not only struggled with the fascists but with strong internal forces. The worst was such instances where internal quarreling was put above stomping fascists such as the Communists’ will to not distribute arms to the POUM on the Aragón Front.
- What moves were taken to remove power from the trade unions?
The government employed series of small moves to recover power from the trade unions without making an obviously counter-revolutionary move. Primarily, it proponed the argument that “unless you do this [and by this is meant, give up on what you have constructed], that and the other we shall lose the war.” This argument of military and/or political necessity was one that would often work as the revolutionaries’ primordial aim remained to protect Republicanism against the Nationalists for if they failed to, then they can rest assured that none of their “lines” would ever be implemented. Thus “point after point” the trade unions gave back power to the government by putting a stop to collectivization of land and industries (some industries were even nationalized), abolishing revolutionary local committees, abolishing worker’s patrols in favour of the pre-was and pro-capitalist police forces. Most importantly, they disbanded the militias such as the POUM in favour of a new Popular Army. And so, trade unions lost more and more power and people to the government.
- Why were the militias broken up?
The Spanish government desired, as explained above, to recover power from the trade unions which possessed their own militias. And as Orwell points out: “the only guarantee the workers could have of retaining their winnings was to keep some of the armed forces under their own control.” But evidently, as the government did not wish for the trade unions to hold power, the militias were disbanded into the new government-controlled Popular Army. To explain themselves they again proponed the military efficiency argument. Furthermore, the militias relied on equalitarian and democratic rule, taking votes on matters that concerned the group instead of a military hierarchy, and respecting the principle of equal pay for all ranks. In the eyes of the Communists, these were “breeding-grounds” for revolution and had to be stopped.
- How and why, according to Orwell, were the Communists standing on the extreme Right of the political spectrum of the Popular Front?
According to Orwell, of the Popular Front parties, the Communists were not on the left side as we would assume, but on the right. Once more the reason for this concerns the party’s affiliation to the USSR whose policy was, as explained before, to prevent a revolution. This is strange as Communism (as an ideology) advocates for the ‘international revolution’ to overthrow the bourgeoisie and create a worker’s state. But the USSR deemed it to be more in its interest if Spain would turn into another capitalist republic. This is due to the USSR’s need for military alliances to protect itself from such threats as Hitler’s Germany. One of these was its alliance with France, a “capitalist-imperialist country”, who “would strongly object to a revolutionary neighbour”. And so the USSR, in order to preserve its alliance with France, ensured that Spain would not turn ‘red’ because if communism and such far-left ideologies like Anarcho-syndicalism became extensively wide-spread, the capitalist republics, like Britain and France, would feel increasing hostility towards the far-left including the USSR. And the Spanish Communist Party followed, as Orwell suggests, USSR policies, making the party an anti-revolutionary one thus liable to be defined as rightist.
- Do you agree with Orwell that fascism is just another name for capitalism?
Well it is evidently not as fascism is both a political and an economic system while capitalism is merely economic. Fascism and capitalism are most certainly not two words for the same meaning but in the context of Orwell’s writing, his comparison does make sense. If we look at the fascist states in his time in Europe: Germany and Italy, both were capitalist states. Under a fascist political system it is very much likely that comes an economic system of capitalism and so it does under a liberal republic (which is why he referred to all three terms). Therefore it is understandable that he calls them similar but we must not generalize fascism as it much more extensive than capitalism.
- Why did Orwell for a time prefer the Communist viewpoint to that of the POUM?
Before this question can be answered, we must remind ourselves of the parties’ respective viewpoints. For the POUM, it stressed the need for a different cause (the oh so feared revolution) than liberal bourgeoisie as the republic’s economic system would be capitalism while the POUM were Marxists. Then the Communists, they stressed the need to focus on defeating the fascists before thinking ahead (thereby trying to undermine the revolution).
Orwell, for a time, preferred the communist viewpoints for a series of reasons. Primarily because he, having come from England to the fight between “democracy and fascism” (as this was his conception upon arrival) thought that all that mattered was winning the war. But it seemed that the POUM and the Anarchists, who did not have USSR armament, were not getting on with the war while the Communists seemed like the only ones who had a chance to win. Furthermore he expressed how the POUM propaganda and day-to-day policy dissatisfied him.
- What were the different tactics used by the party newspapers? How did newspapers like the Daily Worker malign POUM?
As Orwell was a militiaman in the POUM, the newspapers he saw most often were affiliated to that party. He realized that, besides glorifying the idea of immediate revolution and extensively quoting Lenin, they did slightly criticize the Communist Party’s anti-revolutionary policy. He found this tiresome but as he looked into the Communist newspaper, he realized that they have much more critique on the POUM than the other way. At first it started with criticism about an immediate revolution in the midst of war, then that POUM propaganda weakened and divided forces of the Left, and ultimately that the POUM was actually conspiring with the fascists. This was possible for the communists on a national level, the Communists were the ones controlling press censorship (they could basically say whatever they wanted). This also made it difficult for the POUM to defend itself as it could not express anti-Communist Party articles/propaganda. And on an international level, the POUM did not have newspapers while the Communists did all around the globe. International newspapers like the Daily Worker in Britain could be in contact with the Spanish party and publish whatever evils the Spanish accuse them of this time. Readers of the Daily Worker would encounter no arguments against (as again, the POUM had no internationally affiliated newspapers). And such things were published in Communist newspapers all over the world.
- What were the main differences between the POUM and the Communists – what was above and below the surface of their quarrel?
the surface was the fact that the POUM wished for an immediate revolution while the Communists, under commands of the USSR, did not. Below the surface was attempts to undermine one another, especially the Communists against the POUM as they even settled to assert that the POUM was actually working for Hitler and Franco while publishing that all over the globe.
- What is a fifth column?
According to the American Heritage Dictionary, a fifth column is “a clandestine subversive organization working within a country to further an invading enemy's military and political aims.” The term actually originates from the Spanish Civil War, more precisely from Nationalist General Emilio Mola who, at the siege of Madrid, said that his four columns outside of the city would be supported by a fifth one that was already inside the city. Therefore the term can be association to treason and infiltration, as if the POUM was a group of fascists that had infiltrated the Left to betray it.
