Republic

Rubén Buren has a lot of history behind his feet. This filmmaker and writer is the great-grandson of such an outstanding figure as Melchor Rodríguez, the man who stopped the Paracuellos massacres during the Civil War and who surrendered Madrid to the national army. There it is nothing. Therefore, he has embraced this historical period and replicated it in his work. Novels, plays, documentaries… And now, a choral essay, one of those full of experts: ‘The Second Republic’ (Pinolia). This book analyzes everything from the fall of the monarchy in Spain to the arrival of the fratricidal conflict. And, as it could not be otherwise, the many groups – from politicians to the military – that the system had in front of it.

–We usually associate the republic with the left. Have we forgotten about right-wing parties like CEDA?

Yes, the Second Republic had an initial left-wing government that was followed by another very right-wing one. It was a complicated time for workers and peasants, let’s remember Casas Viejas or Asturias, or the continuous excesses of the police with a hundred deaths annually in police stations or with a shot in the back. They were moments of high social confrontation. Many people take to the streets with the republican flag, but I think they refer more to the period of the Uncivil War than to the republican period itself. We have forgotten the CEDA, but also the Republic itself. Among the cries of social networks, no one really wants to enter into the historical reality which, as Benjamin said, is a set of broken and unconnected rags.

–Do you think that these types of parties were in favor of, or against, the republican regime?

They were not very republican, although many of the people who were active and were elected in those parties also demonstrated that they were faithful republicans. The normal thing is that they were monarchists in some cases, others philo-fascist, others conservatives who did not view favorably the political and social advances proposed by a certain republican sector: abortion, secularism, divorce, women’s freedom, agrarian reform … Complicated issues that required breaking the system as it was conceived. I like to talk about people more than parties, look at Clara Campoamor. There were valid people on all sides, and there was unreason and radicalism as well. What is clear is that the Second Republic could have turned Spain into a modern country, and they did not let it flourish, neither from the inside, nor from the outside… Of course with all its buts, which it also had.

–There is always talk of that alleged communist revolution that was forged in the heat of the Republic. Was it real or fiction?

After the Transition, the story was rewrote on the one hand by the victors and on the other by the PCE, both of them accommodated and whitewashed (or invented) many events. Communism was almost non-existent in Spain thanks to anarchism and anarcho-syndicalism, and socialism. Here libertarian communism flourished, which had little to do with Stalin, as Majno taught Durruti or Fernando de los Ríos or Ángel Pestaña could see with their own eyes in Moscow. When Soviet weapons and the international blockade arrived on the Republic, the conditions of the political commissariat of Orlov and company had to be accepted. Something that kept legal Spain divided throughout the war, and which led to the Casado con Negrín Coup.

They are complicated topics. Socialists and anarchists fought against communism, and suffered its excesses as well. But, who now remembers in Spain what the CNT, Montseny or Nuestros were? The story is what has been lost. The weapon of propaganda was better handled, through international media and distribution, by the rebels and they showed the Republic as a future Russia. A shame, because I doubt that it was like that in ’36, since the war is another discussion, but we must understand the development of events.

–What was the relationship of communism with the Republic?

The book talks about the Republic from 31 to 36, mainly, about the republican concept before the war. When you enter into conflict we already have to talk about other things, other processes. As he mentioned, here the UGT and the CNT were the majority unions, and neither the Falange nor the PCE had hardly any representation. In the book we have tried to tell the details of the agrarian reform, the pedagogical missions, the cultural flourishing, daily life or the role of women, of course we have touched on the war, but very lightly. It is not a book about the Civil War, it is about the Second Republic, which are very different topics.

• Editorial Pinolia

• Precio
  25,95

–Tagüeña was one of the most critical communists…

If you are referring to Manuel Tagüeña, of course, it is normal that many ended up being critical of Stalin’s unhealthy policy. If I remember correctly, he ended up in Mexico working as a doctor, railing against Stalin after advising Tito for a while. Many people thought that the USSR was the light in the darkness, but they soon realized that this was not the case. But again, not everything was terrible, nor was everything wonderful, that now it seems that the Yankee system is immaculate, or that Europe was not philo-fascist. European countries were more afraid of the workers’ revolution than of Hitler, which is why they massacred the republican government.

–Did anarchism support or reject the idea of ​​the Republic?

The anarchists were not republicans, although they had ended up as ministers or mayors in war, or surrendering Madrid in ’39. They had a difficult situation starting in ’36 and they made the decisions they could. The minutes of the CNT explain those decisions very well. They called the Republican government a bourgeois government; in fact, in ’33 they urged their ranks not to vote, which is why the CEDA came out. But fewer were reactionaries, monarchists or fascists. They were in difficult territory for everyone to locate. The Second Republic had many problems and exercised cruel repression against the worker and peasant movements, but some saw a good beginning in that republic. Steps in politics are always slow, we have seen that in any historical period… If not, look at the French Revolution, which ended up desperately embracing a dictator like Napoleon.

–Let’s go to the other side. We have always believed that the Falange went from nothing to dominate the streets. Is this myth real, or have we exaggerated its strength?

José Antonio and Franco did not have a good relationship, a mistake by the Republic was to shoot Primo de Rivera, perhaps they should have played their cards better. Primo was an admirer of Mussolini, and was in favor of Mola’s military coup (let’s remember who his father was). But I don’t think he wanted a Franco government, who had no political ideas and was a rather uneducated and authoritarian guy. The Falange was symbolic, I think it obtained about 40,000 votes in ’36 and, like the PCE, for various reasons it was instrumentalized by the ‘Glorious National Movement’, which lacked a clear political direction. Hedilla, José Antonio’s heir, was put in prison and sentenced to life imprisonment in ’37 and to death (commuted) later. And Serrano Suñer, a Nazi, turned Falange into a chirigota.

–What less recognized right-wing groups also charged against the Republic?

The Catholic Church at all times felt vilified by that new republic. The burning of convents on the 31st did not help this communication. The church, as now, had land and the Republic wanted to buy inactive or little exploited land to make it profitable so that the peasants could improve their precarious situation. The secular reform did not seem good to them either. I think they made a mistake by taking Franco under a canopy, as many priests recognized after the Second Vatican Council. The church should have stayed on the sidelines and supported the people, regardless of their sign, being Christian and being Catholic became two different things. There were many Christians on the republican side, even the masses before going into combat of certain Basque and Navarrese troops who fought for the republic are well known. Then there were people like some well-known bankers, who paid for a good part of the coup d’état. In general, the so-called reaction was made up of monarchists, large landowners, the church and the Africanist military. They also had the money and international support.

–What is the most repeated myth about the Second Republic?

In this new society of ‘fake news’ and barking social networks, anything goes. Anything goes, because we are in a moment where I cancel, insult or censure anyone who doesn’t think like me. For the book I have used authors who do not think like me, that is why I think the book is fun, rigorous and valid. I think we have to calm down, talk to those who don’t think like us with a good wine and stop believing in myths and legends. The republic was a very interesting period and we must give it its own truth, the one we like and the one we don’t.