Libertarian film...?
One of the best for sure, what do others think?
shareEasily the best political film I have ever seen. I particularly like how it showcases so many political arguments - the arguments for collectivisation, arguments against "dumbing down" their politics to appeal to capitalist countries, the egalitarian nature of the militia, and especially the difference between socialism and Stalinism.
Brilliant.
Except the anarchist trade unions are all presented in the best possible light. Left out are the attacks on the church, nuns being impaled, the riots, rapes, and burnings, the chaos from the radical left that actually CAUSED Franco to challenge the Leftist government in the first place.
This is not a piece "exploring" politics or trying to show sides of an issue; this is a film decidedly from the Left, sympathetic to the Left, and on all those issues ONLY listening to the Left.
Except the anarchist trade unions are all presented in the best possible light. Left out are the attacks on the church, nuns being impaled, the riots, rapes, and burnings, the chaos from the radical left that actually CAUSED Franco to challenge the Leftist government in the first place.
You must have missed the priest being executed. Priests were lynched and churches destroyed all over the place - because the Catholic Church sided with the fascists. Not hard to see why the people came down hard on them.
This is not a piece "exploring" politics or trying to show sides of an issue; this is a film decidedly from the Left, sympathetic to the Left, and on all those issues ONLY listening to the Left.
Of course it's not trying to show sides of an issue; why should it? Ken Loach obviously is very left-wing. If you watched it expecting it to give equal weight to both sides, the mistake was yours. No one who sympathised with the popular uprising (such as myself) could possibly consider the fascists' "cause" to be worth representing.
The film is an exploration of politics, though, and a very good one. It explores the issues and obstacles that come up during a worker's revolution.
And thats exactly my point, this IS NOT a film exploring issues and obstacles, or an exploration of politics. This is a film by a leftist about how the left is grand and wonderful and idealistic and has taken the post-Kruschev, post-Cold War era stance of most leftists in decrying the Soviet Union and downplaying them as not truly "communist".
That being said, yeah, I liked the film, but don't try to paint it as some balanced, inquisitive look at either the Spanish Civil War or the surrounding political issues.
You have completely missed the point of the film though. It's not supposed to be a "balanced" look at the Spanish Civil War, why should it be? And why would you expect it to be? The director obviously has very left-wing politics, and the film is a way of examining one of the many workers revolutions that have occurred this century, and some of the reasons why it failed.
It is an exploration of the politics involved, as I said. It's an exploration of the issues, questions and obstacles that arise when the workers revolt and take over their lives and their workplaces. The scene with the villagers deciding whether or not to collectivise is an excellent example.
and has taken the post-Kruschev, post-Cold War era stance of most leftists in decrying the Soviet Union and downplaying them as not truly "communist".
The Soviet Union under Stalin was not communist :p It only takes an understanding of communism (by which I mean Marxism) to see that.
Why would you expect any film made about past political events to be neutral? Film directors aren't neutral. Ken Loach has strong political opinions, naturally he's not going to make a film that sympathises with the fascists. I would prefer to watch something made by someone with very clear opinions than something that made the claim to be objective, because that is a myth.
I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by
-Douglas Adams
I guess then either you misspoke earlier, saying that this was an excellent look at all sides of politics and the obstacles and so on and so forth, or I simply misunderstood what your point was. If it was me, then I of course apologize.
As far as the tertiary issue of "communism" under Stalin, I would suggest you take an honest view of what Stalin did in Russia, what his policies and programs were. Most people look at the paranoid dictator and his multiple pogroms and such and simply say "He's nuts, its not a communist country." For just a moment, set the genocide aside and see what Stalin was trying to accomplish, and then match that up with various communist writings of the time. Just as an idea, and a suggestion
Perhaps I wasn't clear. I never suggested that the film was an objective look at all sides - I would have thought it went without saying that it was an exploration of the workers' side, the socialists and anarchists, given the political leanings of the director and the fact that the film is at least partially inspired by Homage to Catalonia by George Orwell. It is made from the point of view of the socialists.
And I can't see how Stalin's Russia could possibly be considered communist - the very fact that it was ruled by a dictator, rather than the workers being in charge, would seem to be proof against it.
Geez, that Ribena's looking a bit hot...
Stalin never claimed to be in charge of the Soviet Union, nor did Lenin or Kruschev or Brezhnev or Koseigen or Gorbachev or any member of the Politburo throughout the 70 some odd years of communism. They all worked "for the people." They were the vanguard elite, the revolutionaries that spurred the workers onwards towards a proleteriat paradise. They were never "dictators" in either policy or propoganda.
Once again, I ask you to take an honest look at the Soviet Union and other communist regimes that modern-day communists decry. 104 nations in world history have claimed to be either communist, socialist, or Marxist republics, and all, in one way or another, can be classified as military dictatorships, and all in the name of Marxism and communism and the "vanguard elite".
Exactly... "in the name of Marxism". I can claim to be a tap-dancing Swedish midget, doesn't make it true. None of these regimes bore any resemblance to the type of society envisioned by Marx, Lenin, Trotsky etc. Therefore, they were not communist, they merely used the language of Marxism to give their actions a veneer of legitimacy.
Geez, that Ribena's looking a bit hot...
Actually, Lenin and Trotsky formed much of the philosophy behind most of those regimes. Communism is one of the most heavily philosophical ideologies in world history; the communism invisaged by Marx and Engels has little if anything to do with Communist theory and doctrine in the 20th century.
Once again, all I encourage you to do is go back and take a look.
Actually, Lenin and Trotsky formed much of the philosophy behind most of those regimes.
How did Lenin and Trotsky form the philosophy behind Stalinism??
Communism is one of the most heavily philosophical ideologies in world history;
Not sure what you mean by this. To paraphrase Marx, the point of communism is to change the world. It is far more than a philosophy, it is a strategy for change. If by "heavily philosophical" you mean impossible in the real world, I'd like to see some evidence of this.
the communism invisaged by Marx and Engels has little if anything to do with Communist theory and doctrine in the 20th century.
The self-proclaimed "Communist" countries were not communist, if that's what you mean - that is the point I've been trying to make. If you mean Communist theory more generally, I can assure you that's not the case. Marxist socialism has been furthered and refined throughout the 20th century as new struggles are fought and new lessons are drawn, but at its core it is still very much based upon the works of Marx and Engels.
Geez, that Ribena's looking a bit hot...
Just as a quick note, you focus too much on just Marx. Marx crafted the foundation of communist philosophy and political theory, but there is much, much more to communism than simply Marx.
shareYeah I realise that, but being a socialist in the Marxist/Trotskyist tradition, the ideas of Marx are fairly central to my politics. I'm aware there are different theories of socialism/communism that have nothing to do with Marxism. But Stalinism wasn't even that, that's my point.
Geez, that Ribena's looking a bit hot...
[deleted]
I think Loach couldnt be critical of the libertarians in Spain, because they achieved a great deal, but since its obvious the Communist Left acted with such treason hes critical of them, therefore he finds quite an obscure Marxist group, who were betrayed by the Stalinists and uses them for the projection of his ideals.
But that aside, it does include some of the most undogmatic lefty political discussions Ive ever come across, that combined with the directing style make it a real pleasure to watch.
Thanks meddlecore, I will track down Libertarias....
Well POUM is not obscure for anyone who have seriously studied the spanish revolution. You can start by reading George Orwell's "Homage To Catalonia"
shareI immensly enjoyed this movie...
Homage to Catalonia is excellent. if you want further reading about the left in the Spanish Revolution (Civil War if you prefer), Felix Morrow's book: "Spain, Revolution and CounterRevolution" is the best on that topic. it describes the failures of POUM, the CNT, in their revolutionary aspirations (and why the leadership of these groups failed and how the rank'n'file were prevented from forcing through revolution) and the success of the Stalinists to crush any revolutionary movement in order to save the USSR by allying it to England and France in the years when the question was when and not if the next world war would start.
the film is quite condemning to the communists
One of the things I love about this film is that it make clear the betrayal of the Communists and the failure of the Revolution. As Stalin had taken control in Russia, by this time Communists Parties around the world, who naturally looked to Russia for leadership, had become nothing more than instruments of Russian foreign policy in Stalin's attempt to catch up with the more advanced countries of the capitalist West. Hence their reluctance to allow the workers to actually take charge, and their eventual betrayal of the Revolution. It's summed up by Blanca: "It's called 'Stalinism'".
Geez, that Ribena's looking a bit hot... share
(A reply of Fynn13 first post)
Despite my mild interest in anarchy and politics in general I've never heard this dark side of the spanish anarchists.
Thanks for pointing that out.
In Spain the church as a different meaning, than in say Anglo-Saxon countries. It was responsible for propping up the state, it held large reserves of land and was responsible for mistreating the poor and needy, so of course come the oppurtunity some people took zeal in attacking religious buildings/property and personnel. In the heat of the moment what else are you expecting?
shareI know of no ideology, implemented (that is, more than "on paper") that has not committed its share of sins and exhibited crass hypocrisy.
Accordingly, I do not think that any film dealing with ideology, which is either (a) the political expression of one's philosophy or (b) the philosophical expression of one's politics, can ever be truly balanced.
I mean, this is just my opinion based on everything I've seen and heard, listening to people all over the spectrum talk about history when I was in University, and so on.
What I like about Loach is he has always been very sort of naked about his sympathies. And that's fair, and I can look at his films and say, okay, I see his point. The world is full of people purporting to express some kind of objective version of history - objective people contradicting one another and calling the other biased or brainwashed or a lackey of/sympathizer of, whatever ideology they are against.
I can listen to capitalists and objectivists - honest people, talk about capitalism, and then an hour later sit down with a decent socialist or anarchist and hear them talk about the same system in a completely different light. Each has a litany of examples to prove their point. Films like Loach's are fantastic in their exploration of the worldview of the Left, and I think he actually can be more fair than he absolutely needs to be (As someone pointed out, he did go out of his way to show the brutal execution of the priest, when - let's face it - he really didn't need to if his purpose was merely to whitewash things in favor of a "pure" political message).
I am reminded of the long monologue in "For Whom the Bell Tolls" where Pilar recounts a series of brutal, ugly executions in the name of the Republican cause as well, even though we are supposed to sympathize with them (I take it).
Anyway, I'd rather someone makes the film they want to make and is open with their own passions, rather than someone encrypting their views subtly into a film portrayed as objective and balanced.
I love Loach and as I said in my review, I'm not an anarchist or even a socialist but when I watch his films, I want to be. And I'm completely comfortable with that. I liked Atlas Shrugged too.
Exactly, good post (abclaret). I read somewhere that Spain before 1936 was ruled by the state-army-church (those three). The burning of religious things was entirely justifiable in my opinion, especially as many religious people during the civil war believed that all the 'reds' should be killed. Good on the militias I say.
Force is the midwife of every old society pregnant with a new one
Yeah, the church sucked real bad. Burn it along with the fascists and the stalinists too.
share
In England in the English Civil War , churches where attacked by Parlimentry (the more left wing force , not that that totally applies). Arch Bishop Lawd was seen has been very matey with the King, so fare game.
Vicars where shot down by both sides , religion was very politalised in those days. Its probably due to all europes greif ans strife that try to keep our goverments secular today!
Does that justify the mass slaughter of thousands and thousands of priests, nuns and bishops? Because that is what happened, it was the biggest blood-letting of clery since the time of the Roman Emporer Diocletian, and the vast majority of the murders took place *before* the army mutinied; the events prompted this.
I am a very active trade unionist, and a social democrat through and through, but there can be no justification for the murder of unarmed and innocent civilians like this, the ends do not justify the means in these cases; even if the film is meant to be one-sided, ignoring and not presenting this fact presents a very deceptive history of the war. I enjoyed this film as I do Ken Loach's other films, but it is flawed at a fundamental level.
Aim, are you talking about the Fascist massacreing or the Anarchists? The Anarchists did not kill civilians and peasants, they killed church leaders, business owners sympathetic to the Fascists and Fascist guards.
share>Aim, are you talking about the Fascist massacreing or the Anarchists? The Anarchists did not kill civilians and peasants, they killed church leaders, business owners sympathetic to the Fascists and Fascist guards.
As much as I have sympathy with the POUM and the socialists in Civil War Spain, I think this is naïve. Church leaders are technically civilians, even if they are supporters of the fascists. Moreover, I think it is naïve to assume that any war can be prosecuted without both sides committing atrocities. Such is the nature of war. Your reaction is also typical of an inhumanity that happens in war. One’s own side cannot be regarded as the having done stuff like this.
Land and Freedom, though, is really a discussion of the various left wing movements. It closely follows Homage to Catalonia, which charts Orwell’s disillusionment with the Communist Party. For the want a better turn of phrase it “assumes” that the socialists are fighting the good fight against the Falangists, but laments that they spend as much time fighting amongst themselves.
[deleted]
Just something to add that no one has mentioned about the movie. The Socialist were elected by the people of Spain that is what sparked the war. The fascists were not to happy about the people having the control. And what is really sad is that fascism began to spread after that even America is now a fascist country it's just disguised as a Democracy. That's all I have for now I have enjoyed reading everyone's post reminds of the scene in the movie when everyone speaking their views.
shareThe most important front at the time the events in his film supposedly take place was the Madrid front. Why did he not make a film about that? Why did Loach not portray the exceptional heroism of the people of Madrid as German shells fell all around them? That would have been a film worth making.
Instead he went to a remote village in Aragon, miles away from the decisive front. The events in that part of Spain revolved round Barcelona. In Barcelona, at the time that the fascist generals rose against the republic, the people stormed the barracks and took over the city. Having thus secured their position, they should then have gone out from Barcelona to give support to those fighting the advancing Franco troops. But this they did not do because of the anarchistic and POUM leadership. They did not fight at all. Loach decided to make his film at what was, in effect, a dormant front. During the events which occurred in Barcelona and which were depicted in the film, Franco was marching North to try to take Madrid, and the Nazis were preparing World War II. They were bombing Guernica so that they could assess the effect of mass bombing on a civilian population. You would never have known that from seeing this film.
Yet it is important to see the events depicted in the film within that context. In Barcelona, while the grim struggle was going on elsewhere, they had decided to stop fighting and to initiate collectivisation. They did not want to organise a disciplined army. They did not understand the need for one. Frankly, the scene where the arguments are taking place about collectivisation is quite pathetic when you remember the fate of the collectivised peasants of the South of Spain who had been wiped out by Franco in the early days of his advance. It is obvious that the order of the day was to stop Franco, and unless and until that had been done all talk of collectivisation was futile.
Where did Ken Loach get his ideas from?
Not from the 2,400 or so people who went to Spain from Britain to fight in the international brigades. It was illegal at that time to go to Spain to fight, because of the Non-Intervention treaty. What one had to do was to go to Paris on a non-passport trip, and then make one's way to Spain from there. Because of this illegality, it was impossible to know exactly how many British people went to fight in Spain, but the approximate number is 2400. 526 of these were killed. Who were these people? In the early days they were mainly writers and artists who realised that fascism was a threat to culture, because they knew that Hitler had been burning books. These people also had the know-how to get out of Britain and get to Spain. It was only later on that miners, dockers, and generally the cream of British industrial workers went out. They were joined by people who were fighting against British imperialism -27 from Cyprus, of whom nearly half were killed in Spain, and 120 from the Republic of Ireland. Nurses and doctors went because fascism had to be defeated first before the Spanish people could make up their minds as to what kind of government they wanted. A socialist revolution was not at that moment on their agenda. Ken Loach has, therefore, confused the issue, and his film has no relation to reality. This is why the true picture must be shown.
Why did the Spanish people lose?
The main reason was those who enforced the policy of 'non-intervention'. Our slogan Save Spain & Save Peace was correct. If help had been given to the Spanish Republic by the government of this country, if the movement had been strong enough to defeat the fascists, then World War II would not have happened.
Another of Loach's slanders is as to the role of the Soviet Union The Soviet Union wanted peace. For a short time, therefore, they went along with non-intervention until they saw the reality of this 'non-intervention' whereupon they decided they had a responsibility towards the democratic, peace-loving people of Spain. They sent help in the form of arms and food, and they gave every possible help to the Spanish people.
What was the role of the Soviet people who went to Spain? Ken Loach says they were murderers acting under Stalin's instructions. Well, I got given a Soviet anti-tank gun. A Soviet instructor showed us what to do with it. We were given Soviet rifles and he instructed us how to use them. While the German planes which were involved in supporting Franco were piloted by German pilots, Soviet instructors taught Spanish lads as airmen. Others were taught to drive tanks.
In addition the Soviet Union suffered great losses in under to help Spain. Its ships were bombed by Italian planes and sunk by German submarines. Some people think that the Soviet Union should have done more, not realising how much the Soviet Union actually did. Much of what it sent never arrived at its destination because of the activities not only of the German and Italian fascists, but also because of the activities of the 'non-interventionists', such as France, who prevented supplies destined for Spain from crossing French territory. In my opinion the Soviet Union did all that was humanly possible to do in the conditions prevailing at that time.
Why has Loach been given so much money to make such a film? Why is Orwell being taught in the schools as if he were a great author? It can only be that the ruling circles in imperialist countries want to lower people's vigilance against fascism.
If you are going to fight fascism you have to realise that it is fascism you fight at that time. You do not fight several other battles simultaneously if that can be avoided.
The second lesson of the Spanish Civil War is that you do have to fight, even if there is a possibility of losing. You may lose, but if you do not fight at the very first signs of fascism you will definitely lose
This is a really interesting post, Faustus.
I think Loach does address some of the things you mention. For instance, you say, "Frankly, the scene where the arguments are taking place about collectivisation is quite pathetic when you remember the fate of the collectivised peasants of the South of Spain who had been wiped out by Franco in the early days of his advance."
But in this scene they argue specifically over this: if we collectivise, one person says, Franco will come and crush us all. If they crush us they crush us, someone says, we have to collectivise or starve. And so on.
Thank you. Your words are essential reading for anyone who has seen Loach's film, or read Homage to Catalonia.
shareYes it does justify the killing if priests, nuns and bishops. The role they play in society is to spread their religion of oppression. In the case of Spain they not only spread their authoritarian religion but they also supported the fascists. So they are naturally the enemy. Their murders were justified. They were not innocent and they were working directly against the workers.
shareInteresting that you use the word "murder." Which means "wrongful killing." But that's neither here nor there, as I said before, I don't give a rat's @$$ about the killing of priests and nuns. It's just that the FAI would rather burn down convents than fight Franco.
shareThe Spanish Civil War was the first news propaganda war. The Catholic Church I was raised in has, since JPII was running the show, re-shaped the narrative in the history books into an angle that they were at best caught in a mess they didn't understand and at worst they were justified because of the Church burnings.
The stuff about raped nuns is false. The desecrated graves are real, as are the dead clergy, but the Church was a center political which was ACTIVE as a world power player, bartering treaties and all other good stuff for the enemies of the government. In the USA we never have had this drastic an interaction with an international religion until this past decade and the clash with Islamic culture.