Re: [sixties-l] Nader Fiasco

From: William M. Mandel (
Date: 12/02/00

  • Next message: William M. Mandel: "Re: [sixties-l] Re: Nader Fiasco"

    The ONLY countries that provided arms to Spain were the Soviet Union and Mexico.
    Bill Bailey, the wonderful and famous Lincoln Vet you've probably seen in
    documentaries about the San Francisco General Strike he was in as a longshoreman,
    and the deadly Lend-Lease run to Murmansk he was in as a seaman, had his Soviet
    rifle until he died just a few years back.
        The ONLY country that provided trained military leaders was the Soviet Union.
    France's Socialist premier, Leon Blum, refused to permit Soviet aid to pass across
    his country, so it had to go by ship via the Mediterranean, where Mussolini's
    submarines were waiting. Roosevelt invoked the Neutrality Act, which prevented Spain
    from purchasing arms or whatever here under the normal conditions of international
    law, in which a country whose government one's government recognizes has that right.
    The Republic of Spain was recognized by the United States.
        The Trotskyists and anarchists were precisely those not concerned with
    preserving the republic, but with carrying out, in the former case, a proletarian
    revolution and, in the latter case, whatever it is that anarchists want, inasmuch as
    they are in total disagreement with themselves on that.
        The army of the republic, organized as the Quinto Regimento by the Communist
    Party of Spain, and which grew enormously as Spanish volunteers poured in, fought as
    an army must, obeying the central command. The anarchist forces, unquestionably
    equally brave, stopped to hold meetings to decide what to do, and were cut to pieces
    by Franco's disciplined armies.
                                                                Bill Mandel
    Jeffrey Blankfort wrote:
    > On the battlefield, the kind of political struggle that needs to be
    > waged in a healthy democracy, is simply not possible nor desirable. In
    > Spain, the actions of those connected to the Communist International
    > were issued by Stalin whose main interest was the Soviet Union, as he
    > saw it, and not the preservation of the Spanish Republic, even though
    > that was probably  not the goal of most of the Communists who
    > volunteered to fight there. Preserving the Spanish Republic was the goal
    > of the other volunteers, anarchists, Trotskyists, etc., who became,
    > under orders from Stalin, a force to be delegitimized, if not
    > liquidated. The noxious Leninist oxymoron of "democratic centralism"
    > held sway and Spain perished.
    > Do the bad folks triumph because the good folks can't get their act
    > together? I would say that this is frequently the case.  However, in the
    > present 2000 election, by no stretch of the imagination can Gore,
    > Lieberman and the Democratic, corporate-funded inner circle be
    > classified as "good guys." That Nader and the Greens did not get their
    > 5% is because too many "good folks" didn't understand that.
    > Jeff Blankfort
    >    Robert Houriet wrote:
    > >
    >    after I wrote:
    > > >I appreciate Richard Scheneirov's efforts to take us through several
    > > >interesting presidential battles and the issues that were contested in
    > > >each, but in blaming Nader for Gore's loss, he fails to mention the
    > > >critical issues that distinguish this year's Democrat from this year's
    > > Republican.
    > > >
    > > >Does he or others seriously think that Hitler and the economic forces
    > > >behind him would have withdrawn from the scene if the Communists and
    > > >Socialists had cooperated in that instance? The conventional wisdom on
    > > >this issue rarely contemplates how unlikely that would have been.
    > >
    > > Jeff,
    > >         Do you see some of the same argument that Scheneirov makes in Orwell's
    > > diagnosis of the Spanish Civil War? Or as he put it more metaphyiscally in
    > > 1984 that the bad guys triumph not by virtue of their own power, but by
    > > dividing the "good guys" by playing divisively upon their fears; in short,
    > > that good does not prevail, not due to superior evil, but because the good
    > > aren't good enough?
    > >
    > > Robert Houriet
    > >

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/02/00 EST