![cnt-hail-the-heroes[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/Ycy84Ou.jpg "cnt-hail-the-heroes[1].jpg")
As Eddie Conlon states in 'The Spanish Civil War: Anarchism in Action':
> If you didn't want to join the collective you were given some land but only as much as you could work yourself. You were not allowed to employ workers. Not only production was affected, distribution was on the basis of what people needed. In many areas money was abolished. People come to the collective store (often churches which had been turned into warehouses) and got what was available. If there were shortages rationing would be introduced to ensure that everyone got their fair share. But it was usually the case that increased production under the new system eliminated shortages.
> In agricultural terms the revolution occurred at a good time. Harvests that were gathered in and being sold off to make big profits for a few landowners were instead distributed to those in need. Doctors, bakers, barbers, etc. were given what they needed in return for their services. Where money was not abolished a 'family wage' was introduced so that payment was on the basis of need and not the number of hours worked.
> Production greatly increased. Technicians and agronomists helped the peasants to make better use of the land. Modern scientific methods were introduced and in some areas yields increased by as much as 50%. There was enough to feed the collectivists and the militias in their areas. Often there was enough for exchange with other collectives in the cities for machinery. In addition food was handed over to the supply committees who looked after distribution in the urban areas.
How much of these claims are supported by other primary and secondary sources?
If these claims are true, do they damage the notion that non-hierarchical forms of organisation in industry, agriculture etc. are innately inefficient?
I was actually curious about this too, so while I can't answer your question, at least I can help try keeping it on the first page.
By the way, Anarchocommunism is an oxymoron, since only through coercion you can keep people from not engaging in private enterprise.
Anyway, back on point, I'm sceptic about anarchist claims since they might be propaganda.
Bump.
>>869390
> I'm sceptic about anarchist claims since they might be propaganda.
That's why I'm searching for any sources people might have that can refute/support these claims and others like them.
>>869398
Have you read "The Anarcho Statists of Spain"?
>>869405
I haven't, one to put on the reading list though.
>>869423
When I became sceptic about anarchist' claims, I stumbled upon that essay. Here it is.
http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/spain.html
I remember reading something similar, from the memoirs of several foreigners in Spain in anarchist-controlled parts (it might have been Orwell, even), concerning the wonderful things that had occurred.
I remember details of how agricultural output had been greatly increased, such that all could eat three hearty meals a day (and all at no expense); how the children could attend school and become literate, instead of working the fields; of how there Church valuables were melted down in a most orderly and somber manner to purchase machinery and grains and livestock; of how the general atmosphere of those anarchist-controlled places was lively and joyful, where people did their fair - but not excessive - share of work during the days and proceeded to enjoy themselves on the weekends with feasts and "betterment of the self", since the anarchists opened up the libraries of the nobility/bourgeouise and clergy and instituted classes for adults.
I became very curious. And thing is, I've heard much concerning Spain's 'anarchist miracle', which was brutally put down. Good luck, OP: I'll be monitoring the thread.
>>869423
>became
Well, not "became", I was always specital about communist claims, given the countless examples of how it being applied resulted.
>>869367
>do they damage the notion that non-hierarchical forms of organisation in industry, agriculture etc. are innately inefficient
Not exactly.
You see Spain didn't happen out of sudden.
If you'd give modern Americans anarchist organisation the efficiency would drop all the way down.
For several decades, anarchists in Spain created(legally or not) very large body of conscious workforce, conscious as in understanding the responsibility behind actually running the workplaces they wanted to take over.
The hierarchy didn't exactly disappear, it simply became informal which increased feedback between workers, logistics, foremen and so on which increased the efficiency. I have a feeling though, that without that conscious workforce it would simply fall apart quickly.
>>869453
>betterment of the self
>hearty meals
>lively and joyful atmosphere
That sounds quite propagandistic.
Besides attitude toward the Church was unfair.
>>869473
>That sounds quite propagandistic
Probably. But it's something that I hear a lot when reading about the 1930s.
However, I don't think the attitude towards the Church was 'unfair'. For one, nowhere in Europe - excepting the Vatican - was the Church authority more powerful than in Spain. It was stifling. Peasants were forced to attend masses and keep to strict sumptuary laws. Not always de jure, but certainly de facto, since the Church held much land, land on which the peasants worked with.
Not only that, but the memory of the Spanish Inquisition was still fresh. The Spanish peasants became extremely disgruntled at seeing their own situation in which they could barely sustain themselves, but yet the Church forced them to attend masses or processions where the musty old bones (undoubtedly of some random dug-up corpse rather than an actual saint, that's how bad the relic trade was) coated in gold and jewels were paraded around by priests wearing rich vestments encrusted with pearls who would proceed to lecture them about the virtues of being poor. Trust me... the Catholic Church can be very stifling, in a certain sense, and I'm talking about post-Vatican II. Can you imagine how much worse it would have been back then?
Besides, high-ranking ecclesiastics were known for having supplied and endorsed far-right death squads.
When violence broke out against the Church, it was mostly peasants who perpetrated and called for it: none particularly defended it.
>>869451
>http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/spain.html
Link doesn't work for me.
>>869473
>Besides attitude toward the Church was unfair.
http://www.cvltnation.com/no-gods-no-masters-blasphemy-desecration-and-anticlerical-violence-during-the-spanish-civil-war/
>>869451
Kek that entire article is just one gigantic strawman written by a assmad anarcho-capitalist
There's numerous responses to it, including this one
http://www.spunk.org/texts/places/spain/sp001532.html
>>869390
>Anarchocommunism is an oxymoron, since only through coercion you can keep people from not engaging in private enterprise.
I'm pretty sure the idea is that culturally the idea of capitalism or so called "industrial feudalism" would be so despised that anyone attempting to create a capitalist enterprise would be viewed the same way as someone trying to revive slavery. In theory at least, I could be wrong.
