1. Collectivization in Spain

I

The military revolt of July 19, 1936 had wide-ranging consequences for the economic life of Spain. Defense against the militarists and the clergy was only possible with the help of the proletariat. Alone, the republican bourgeoisie would have succumbed. It had to align itself with the proletariat. In 1934, when the Catalonian left sought to challenge Madrid without the workers, and against the anarchists and the syndicalists, Madrid was victorious. The advocates of Catalonian autonomy were defeated. After this conquest, Madrid exacted its vengeance. The Catalonian politicians, beginning with Companys, were sentenced to years in prison.

If the petty bourgeoisie did not want to expose itself this time to the same danger, it had to join forces with the anarchists and syndicalists.

This alliance could not be limited to the political terrain. The anarchists and syndicalists had bad experiences with the bourgeois republic. It was not to be assumed that they would be content to serve as a barrier against the clerical-militarist coup. It was assumed that they would embark on a transformation of the economic system. They did not want to allow economic exploitation to persist, which they perceived to be the cause of political oppression.

The clergy, the military camarilla and the big capitalists allied with them, were aware of this. They knew quite well what was at stake. The victory of the military would have meant the establishment of a military dictatorship, an exacerbated version of the dictatorship of Primo de Rivera. Had this taken place, not only would the privileged classes have saved themselves, but they would also have provided themselves with the opportunity to exploit the workers even more intensively in the future. This is why they supported the military conspirators.

The generals were the active agents, while the big capitalists pulled the strings behind the scenes. They did not show their hand. To some extent, they were not even at the site of the events. Juan March, Francisco Cambó and others from their class were not even in Spain at the outbreak of the uprising. They awaited the development of events from other countries. If the military was victorious, these financiers would have returned. In Catalonia, however, as in more than half of Spain, the coup d’état failed. The capitalist financiers did not return to Spain.

Similarly, the captains of industry, the factory directors and the managers of major enterprises preferred to wait outside Spain for the armed struggle to come to an end. On July 19, and during the following days, all the major businesses were abandoned by their managers. The directors of the railroads, of the transportation network in the cities, of the shipping companies, of the major textile mills and forges, the leaders and delegates of the employers associations, had all disappeared. The general strike of the workers, a defensive measure employed against the military coup d’état, completely paralyzed economic life for eight days.

After having annihilated the resistance of the military rebels, the proletarian organizations decided to go back to work. The trade unions of the CNT were soon convinced that work could not resume under the same conditions as before. The general strike was not a wage struggle. There were no negotiations about a shorter working day or better working conditions. There were no employers. The workers not only had to resume work at their lathes, their locomotives, trolleys and offices; they also had to take over control of the factories, the workshops, and the transport networks. In other words, the management of industry and of all economic life passed into the hands of the workers and employes.

But one cannot speak in this connection of planned socialization or collectivization. For nothing had been prepared, everything had to be improvised. As in all revolutions, practice came before theory. Theories were superseded and modified by reality. The advocates of the notion that social progress can be obtained by way of peaceful transformation were just as mistaken as those who thought that a whole new social and economic system can be created all at once by force, if only political power falls into the hands of the workers. Reality has proven that both assumptions were equally false. It has demonstrated the correctness of the postulate that it is necessary to shatter the official military and police power of the capitalist state in order to clear the way for new forms of social life. It has demonstrated the correctness of the view that the creators of these new forms of life must prepare themselves for their mission in theory and practice, with regard to their program and organization. Every social theory contains a good share of utopia. And this is as it should be; otherwise, there would be no creation. There must be ideas, concepts and concrete understanding of the road that must be followed.

The anarchists and syndicalists of Spain possess a well-defined doctrine, while the Marxists, with regard to the question of socialization, advocate the idea that the state must take over the economy, and that industry must be nationalized. The anarchists, on the other hand, believe that socialization must be carried out by the workers, in the workshops, the factories, and in every activity related to economic life. The latter method proceeds from the bottom up, from the periphery towards the center; the Marxist way, however, leads from the top down, from the state to the village.

In Spain, and especially in Catalonia, the process of socialization began in accordance with the anarchist understanding of the concept, as collectivization. This collectivization must not be understood as the implementation of a preconceived program. It arose spontaneously. The anarchist influence on this process, however, cannot be ignored. For decades the anarchists and syndicalists of Spain have considered the social transformation of society as their fundamental goal. In the assemblies of their trade unions and groups, in their newspapers, pamphlets and books, the problem of the social revolution has been continuously and systematically discussed. What must be done on the day after the victory of the proletariat? The apparatus of state power must be overthrown. The workers must themselves take over the management of the enterprises and administer them on their own; the trade unions must have control over economic life. The industrial federations must direct production; the local federations must regulate consumption. Such were the ideas of the anarchosyndicalists. These ideas were also accepted by the FAI. In its conferences and its congresses it has always defended the theory that economic life must be under the control of the trade unions.

If one compares the course of events in Barcelona and many other population centers of Catalonia and Spain, one sees that practice has largely proceeded in accordance with these theories. The executive public powers passed into the hands of the anarchosyndicalist trade unions and the political parties of the proletariat and the petty bourgeoisie. The Committee of Antifascist Militias was the superior organ, in which the Esquerra Republicana de Catalunya, the Catalan separatists, the Unió de Rabassaires, the CNT and FAI, the Unified Socialist Party (PSUC) and the Workers Party of Marxist Unification (POUM) were represented. The anarchists and syndicalists were capable, in the first weeks after July 19, of seizing all public power for themselves alone. They did not do so; they refused to do so. The Catalan government only existed on paper. The Parliament did not reconvene. Two and a half months later this government disappeared completely. On September 28 a new Council met, composed of all the antifascist organizations that had suppressed the military coup d’état.

Such were the changes in the political arena. On the economic terrain, the trade unions worked alone. After July 19, 1936, the trade unions of the CNT took over the production and distribution of food. The trade unions devoted special efforts to solve the most urgent problem, which was how to provide for the population’s basic needs. Canteens were opened in all the neighborhoods and at the trade union centers. The supply committees created for this purpose withdrew provisions from the warehouses throughout the city and the countryside. These provisions were paid for with coupons endorsed by the trade unions. All the members of the trade unions, the wives and children of the militiamen as well as the general population received free food. The workers did not receive any pay during the days they were on strike. The Committee of Antifascist Militias agreed to pay the workers and employes for the days they were on strike. The moneyless economy of the antifascists lasted about two weeks. When work was resumed and economic life was once again set in motion, the money economy returned. After a few weeks, even the benzene for automobiles had to be paid for again. The trade unions, however, still controlled the consumption of benzene as before.

The first stage of collectivization began when the workers confiscated the enterprises. In each workshop, in each factory, in the offices, warehouses and stores, trade union delegates were elected who assumed responsibility for the management of these enterprises. Quite often, these directors had no theoretical preparation at all and very little knowledge of the national economy. They did, however, have a profound sense of their own needs and understood the demands of the moment. The problem of wages, prices and products; they had never scientifically examined the relation between all these factors. They were neither Marxists nor Proudhonists. But they understood their trades and professions, they were familiar with the production processes in their industries and they were not slow to learn. If there were no orders, they used their ingenuity. In some textile factories they manufactured red and black silk bandannas emblazoned with antifascist inscriptions and offered them for sale on the market.

“How do they determine the price? How do they establish the profit margins?”, asked a foreign Marxist journalist.

“I don’t know anything about profit margins”, answered the worker. “We look in the books to find out how much the raw materials cost, we calculate the current expenditures, we add a surcharge for reserve purposes, we account for the wages and then add another surcharge of ten percent for the Antifascist Militias, and that was the price.”

The bandannas were offered for sale on the market at a price below what could have been charged before; the wages of the workers were higher; the capitalist profit was devoted to the struggle against fascism.

This is how the managerial transition was carried out in most enterprises. The employer was excluded if he opposed the new course of events. A place was found for him if he accepted the change. In the latter case he continued to work as a technical manager or commercial specialist, and sometimes as a worker, and received a wage commensurate with that of the workers or technicians of his trade or profession. This process and this change were relatively simple. Difficulties only arose later. Supplies of raw materials were rapidly exhausted. In the first days after the revolution they were requisitioned. Later, they had to be paid for or obtained on credit. Few raw materials came from foreign countries. The prices of these raw materials began to rise, and as a result so did those of the finished products. Wages were increased. But this measure was not universally applied. In some industries the increase was considerable. During the first stage of collectivization, the wages of the workers and employes were different even within the same industry. By limiting the collectivization process only to the abolition of the privileges of a handful of employers, or to the elimination of the employer’s profits in a corporation, the workers became the beneficiaries, simply replacing the previous owners. This change was a more just arrangement than the one that had previously prevailed, because now the workers effectively obtained the fruit of their labor. But this system was neither socialist nor communist. Instead of a capitalist, there was a kind of collective capitalism. Whereas previously there was only one owner in a factory or a café, now the workers of the factory or the staff of the café became the collective owners. The waiters in a café that did a lot of business enjoyed higher incomes than those in less fortunate establishments.[2]

Collectivization in Spain could not stop at this stage. This was what everyone felt. The trade unions decided to take over the management of the enterprises themselves. The industrial trade unions were transformed into industrial enterprises. The construction workers trade union in Barcelona took over the management of all the building and construction projects underway in the city. The barbershops were collectivized. In each barbershop there is a trade union delegate, who hands over all the barbershop’s income to the Economic Committee of the trade union every week. The expenses of all the barbershops are paid for by the trade union, including wages.

The workers’ trade unions have replaced the employer-sponsored trade unions. Social justice was obtained within some industries. But some industries are doing better than others. There are poorer and wealthier industries, higher and lower wages. The process of collectivization cannot stop at this stage, either.

In the Local Federation of Trade Unions of Barcelona (CNT) a discussion is currently underway concerning the establishment of a Liaison Committee; the latter would embrace all the economic committees of all the trade unions; all the money would have to be concentrated in one fund, and this one account would be the source of an equitable distribution. In some industries such liaison committees and central accounts have existed from the beginning. The Barcelona Bus Company, managed by the workers, is prosperous and generates a surplus. Part of this surplus is destined for a reserve fund to enable the enterprise to purchase raw materials from foreign countries, and the rest is used to subsidize the Streetcar Company, which does not operate so profitably. Completely unprofitable enterprises, such as the cable car that connects Montjuich with the port of Barcelona, are shut down, for economic reasons, during the winter.

When benzene began to become scarce, four thousand taxi drivers were put out of work; the trade union had to pay their wages. This was a heavy burden on the Transport Trade Union. It was compelled to request aid from the other trade unions and from the Barcelona city administration. The textile industry was running out of raw materials. It cut back on work; some factories only operated three days a week. But the workers had to be paid. Since the manufacturing and textile industries did not have sufficient resources, they had to seek assistance from the Generalitat.

The collectivization process cannot stop at this stage. The syndicalists are calling for socialization. For them, socialization does not mean nationalization, that is, the transfer of the economy to the state. Socialization must be a generalization of the collectivizations: the consolidation of the funds of all the trade unions in a central account, a concentration in the framework of the Local Federation that would be transformed into a kind of collective economic enterprise. This would be socialization from below, or from the workers enterprises to the collectivity as a whole. Without workers organizations there can be no socialization.

II

Not much has been said up to now about expropriation. It is understood that this is a negative concept that expresses the abolition of one form of property, but it says nothing about the form of the new organization. The Marxist formula: expropriate the expropriators, is not very well known in Spain. Collectivism, on the other hand, possesses deeply rooted traditions; it existed in its ancient form long before the modern proletarian movement. It was given new life in the First International. Unlike various other countries with Roman legal traditions, the form of feudal exploitation in Spain consisted less in individual landownership rights than in the right of usufruct exercised over the products of the land. This form survived to some extent right up to the outbreak of the revolution. Under the leasehold system of the rabassa in Catalonia, the peasants had to pay their rent in the form of agricultural products. In 1934, the issue of the amount of rent due to the landowners led to a serious conflict between Catalonia and Madrid. Madrid proclaimed the right to appoint the magistrates responsible for issuing rulings on the demands of the landowners. The small farmers sought to defend their rights by recourse to support for Catalonian autonomy. The struggle for the political independence of Catalonia has an economic dimension. The big landowners supported Madrid.

But this was true not only of Catalonia; in all the regions of Spain collectivist traditions survive. After crushing the forces of the generals, the desire to collectivize the large estates was felt throughout the rural areas. The syndicalist organizations and the anarchist groups took the lead in these attempts to collectivize the land. They remained faithful to their traditions. At the CNT Congress of Madrid in June 1931 the collectivization of the land was designated as one of the most important goals of the rural workers. The resolution approved at the Congress clearly outlined the road that would be followed by the rural workers in July and August 1936. This resolution demanded:

a) “Expropriation without indemnification of all latifundia, pasturelands, hunting preserves and all fallow arable land, and its designation as social property. Cancellation of the current lease contracts held by the landowners, and their replacement with others that will bring the trade unions into harmony with the needs of each locality.
b) “Confiscation of the surplus livestock, seeds, farming tools and machinery found in the possession of the expropriated landowners.
c) “Free and equitable distribution in usufruct of the lands and appurtenances mentioned above to the peasant trade unions for their direct and collective exploitation and administration.
d) “Abolition of dues, land taxes, debts and mortgage payments that weigh on those properties that constitute the means of life of their owners and are directly cultivated by them without the continuous use or exploitation of other workers.
e) “Suppression of rent in money or in kind which the small leaseholders (rabassaires, colonos, municipal lessees, etc.) are currently forced to pay to the large landowners and their intermediaries who sublet their lands.

“The constructive preparation of the peasants in accordance with our principles is the most important and most difficult mission of syndicalism in the countryside. Most important because, without it, the further development of the social revolution would not be viable. Most difficult, because of the very numerous traditional and subjective obstacles, cultural backwardness, the proprietary instinct and egocentric individualism that hinder the receptivity of the peasant masses to collectivist objectives. The syndicalist peasant movement can and must overcome these obstacles by means of clear, comprehensive and tenacious propaganda regarding its ideological goals as well as educational and trade union activity that will foster habits of collective solidarity among the rural workers and predispose them for and render them capable of collaborating without any hesitations and in their own interests in the establishment of the collectivist or libertarian communist regime.”

“The Congress declares that the socialization of the land and all the means and instruments that make agrarian production possible, as well as its cultivation, use and administration by the agricultural trade unions of federated producers, is the essential precondition for the organization of an economy that would assure to the laboring collectivity the enjoyment of the whole product of its labor.”

The collectivization of the land followed a different course in Spain than in Russia. All the properties of the big landowners were collectivized within each commune. These landowners were supporters of the clerical militarists and fought against the people. The landowners who accepted the economic transformation joined the trade union and worked alongside its other members. These landowners played leading roles in the collectivization movement. Exporters also joined the trade union; in many places even the small landowners joined.

The land is collectively worked by the peasants; all the products are delivered to the trade union. The trade union pays the wages and sells the products. The small landowners who do not want to join the collective remain outside the trade union. They must struggle very hard to survive. They are not forced to do anything, but they cannot benefit from the economic advantages of the trade union, either. In the trade union, on the other hand, labor is organized in a rational manner. In the trade union, the following principle prevails: all for one, one for all. The small landowner, however, remains outside the commune. When the time comes to distribute the agricultural tools, housing, etc., the small landowner is last in line.[3]

The life of the rural workers has improved economically with the collectivization of labor and the new regulation of consumption; politically, it is now free. The peasant has been able to preserve his customs and his individual freedoms have not suffered any diminution. No one has to live in big apartment buildings; no one has to eat in collective kitchens. The spirit of property, however, the “demon of possession”, which precisely in the countryside reached the highest extremes of crass egoism, has been annihilated.[4]

Today, the agricultural trade union is an economic enterprise. It is responsible for washing and packing the fruit destined for shipment. The trade union pays the workers. In some communes almost all economic life is in the hands of the trade union. The trade union elects various committees devoted to the organization of labor, consumption, distribution, and defense against fascism. Cafes and movie theaters, where they exist, are under trade union control. In the small villages there are no distinctions between the various trades and unions. All are united in the local federation. The latter is the real brain of economic life and at the same time the political and cultural center of the village.

III

In Barcelona the victory over fascism assumed the aspect of liberation from a heavy yoke. Everyone enjoyed the recovery of their freedom.

Many people, however, believed that an era of laissez faire had been inaugurated for them, an era in which they could do whatever would bring them profit; the factories, the workshops and the warehouses whose owners were fascists were abandoned. The unemployed rushed into the streets and set up as street vendors and hawkers. This trend spread like an epidemic. All the major streets of the capital were flooded with all sorts of goods, which were sold on the sidewalks and even in the middle of the street. The entire city took on a new look. For the owners of retail stores, the street commerce meant major competition. Soon, however, they discovered the remedy. They hired salesmen to sell their commodities in the streets. The trade union of street vendors grew to gigantic proportions. It grew from a few hundred members to many thousands. In order to sell goods in the street, one had to have the membership card of one’s trade union. The trade union of the CNT assumed responsibility for rectifying the situation. It agreed not to admit any more members. Then the street vendors formed a trade union affiliated with the UGT. Those who were not admitted into the CNT trade union could join the UGT-affiliated trade union. Now, in addition to the superabundance of street commerce, Barcelona was also afflicted by the competition between the two organizations. The matter was brought to the attention of the local federation of the CNT. The latter resolved to put an end to the constant increase in the number of street vendors. It only admitted a limited number of street vendors in its trade union, assigning them certain places in the city to ply their trade. This trade union resolution had the effect of a decree. Thousands of street vendors disappeared overnight from the streets of Barcelona.

This was a transitional stage, which was quite important for the status of the capital of Catalonia. The intervention of the trade unions played a decisive role. They established the course and the pace of the process, they regulated the economic life of the city; they exercised control not only over the workers in the factories, but even over the street vendors.

IV

There was no collectivization in one industry: banking. For reasons that are easy to understand. Collectivization is not carried out by decree from above, but by the intervention of the workers and employes in each enterprise.

Why were the banks not collectivized? The bank staff and employes were largely unorganized. There were two trade unions in the banking sector, one affiliated with the CNT and the other with the UGT; the latter, which controlled the majority of the trade unions in this sector, was against collectivization and advocated nationalization.

Socialization must be implemented, according to the doctrine of the UGT, by governmental decree. The government did not decree the collectivization of the banks. Thus, most of the employes of the banks did not know what they should do. Collectivization was not undertaken.

The CNT minority was unable to convince the majority of the bank employes to accept its ideas about the economic and financial transformation of society.

The collectivization or socialization of the banks would have undoubtedly conferred a different course on the development of events. The wealth of the banks does not consist in machinery and tools, but in means of circulation, nominal values, money. The confiscation of bank accounts would have made it possible to centralize and coordinate the distribution of existing financial means, and thus a planned economy. A controlling center would have intervened in the process. With the collaboration of the representatives of the industrial trade unions, the employes of the banks would have been able to elaborate a program of financial assistance to the enterprises of vital importance. It would therefore have been possible to place the financial institutions at the service of collectivization. In that case, nothing could stand in the way of collectivization; it would embrace all economic life. The process of collectivization is comparable to a construction project; stones are brought from far and wide, and small buildings are built one by one. Had the banks been integrated into the collectivization program, the realization of the latter would have been accomplished in a systematic fashion, like a construction project. This did not take place, and time was lost.

But time lost in one respect was time gained on another. No limits were placed on individual initiative. Within the span of six months of experiences, the trade unions learned that it was necessary to coordinate the efforts of the collectivized enterprises in the various industries. They based their deliberations on practical experience. The leading committees that were now being created no longer needed to appoint subordinate institutions; the latter already existed. The superstructure of collectivization was based on solid foundations, powerfully rooted in the industrial trade unions, in the professional sections, in the enterprises and in the workshops themselves. It is on this basis that the power of collectivization in Spain rests.

V

In the development of collectivization we encounter the same characteristic as we see in the development of the political situation: a rejection of all totalitarian methods. While the trade unions asserted their influence over the distribution and supply of provisions, they did not want to monopolize them. The trade union of the food industry took over the bakeries (there were no large bread factories in Barcelona). There were also many small commercial ovens. These continued to operate on their own account, as before. The shipment of milk from the countryside to the cities is in the hands of the trade unions. The latter supply most of the dairies. The trade unions of the food industry control the rural farms and collaborate with the collective farms and the agricultural trade unions. Restrictions on imports of condensed milk led to a scarcity of milk. The trade union of the food industry bought condensed milk on foreign markets and solved this problem in Barcelona. In Russia, the stores remained closed during the entire first stage of the revolution. This did not take place in Spain. Wholesale trade passed into the hands of the trade unions. Retail stores obtained their commodities from the trade union. Maximum prices were established for retail goods. Domestic commerce was unified and regulated. At the head of this “monopoly” was the Supply Council. Its purpose was to organize in a uniform manner the entire supply of provisions for Catalonia, in order to provide for the basic needs of all the towns and neighborhoods. Standard prices were stipulated for the collectivized communes, the trade unions of fishermen and other food industries in agreement with the institutions responsible for distribution. The goal pursued by this measure of political economy was to prevent the prices of provisions from rising. It was intended to put an end to speculation and usury.

This policy was suddenly interrupted in the middle of December, however. On December 16, there was a change of personnel in the Council of the Generalitat. The Communists were successful in their attempt to evict the POUM (Partido de Unificación Marxista) representative from the Council. In the newly constituted Council, Comorera was in charge of Provisions. He is a member of the Unified Socialist Party (a tool of Moscow). Doménach, the representative of the CNT, was assigned to a different ministry. Comorera put an end to the monopoly of the Supply Council. He reintroduced free trade. With this, the way was cleared for price increases. The process of collectivization was interrupted on this terrain. It was a kind of NEP in miniature.

In Catalonia, events progressed more rapidly than they did in Russia. What took years to accomplish in Russia, was done here in a matter of months. The new turn towards a Catalonian NEP, however, did not put an end to the process of collectivization. The working class population did not want to stop or retreat. Collectivism could not be exterminated in Spain. The further development of society proceeds along this road. Not even the war can stop this process.

VI

In this book we have systematically described the course of collectivization in each of its stages and industries. We have depicted, with supporting documentation, how the workers took over the enterprises and operated them on their own. We have also tried to evaluate the results of collectivization. Does collectivization have a favorable or unfavorable impact on production? With regard to this question we no longer have to settle for a merely theoretical answer. We have the results from many enterprises right before our eyes. We may also consult the subjective opinion of numerous workers. If they are happy, they work harder. If they feel that they are responsible collaborators, they have a greater interest in production.

In the transport sector, the advantages of collectivization are striking. Despite the general increase in prices, the fares charged by the transport system have not risen in Barcelona. The wages of the workers in the transport sector have not declined, however. Nor have the workers been uninterested in the cleanliness and appearance of the vehicles: freshly-painted streetcars and new busses are seen in the streets. All the taxis have been refurbished.

The textile industry is not doing so well. The shortage of raw materials has caused many factories to operate only three days a week; but they pay their workers wages for four days. The longer this state of affairs lasts the worse it is for the enterprises. Four days wages are not enough. This is not a consequence of the collectivizations, but of the war. The Catalonian textile industry has lost its principle markets. Part of Andalusia, Extremadura, and Old Castile, and all of the northern part of Spain, with its densely populated industrial districts, and Asturias, all are cut off or in the hands of the fascists. No new markets have been found to replace them. This has led to a crisis in the textile industry.[5]

The collectivization of agriculture and industry opens up a new stage in the proletarian movement: it leads us to the structural transformation of society. It is still too soon to pronounce a final judgment on this development, which constitutes one of the most interesting phenomena of our time.

Collectivization teaches new perspectives; it leads us down new paths. In Russia the revolution took the road of nationalization. In Italy and Germany fascism placed its hopes in the idea of the corporate state. In the democratic countries, too, there is a widespread belief that the solution to the current economic crisis is to be found in a new restructuring of the political and economic bases of society. In America, Roosevelt proceeds along new paths; in Belgium, De Man is proposing a kind of semi-socialism. In France there are democratic theoreticians who base their proposals on the corporative idea. They are recommending the adoption of a collective electoral system, which must supplement the individual electoral system; thus, they propose the establishment of an economic Parliament alongside the political one. The citizen must not only be represented in his capacity as a consumer: the worker must also have his representation as a producer, the representation of his trade in the state and in the national organization of his country.

In these innovations they perceive the solution for the political, economic and spiritual crisis, the cleansing of social life. In Spain no new theories have been elaborated; the people themselves, the peasants, and the workers in the cities, have taken the land and the means of production into their hands. With great efforts, sometimes tentative and error-ridden, but also moving forward, they are striving to construct a more just system of society, one in which the fruits of their labor will be enjoyed by the workers themselves.

This is the meaning of collectivization in Spain. This is what you must keep in mind as you read this book.

A. Souchy