Ho 1

Replay: How Sparked a Resurrection of Old Hatreds

Socialist Periodicals Defend Ken Loach’s Film from Communist Attacks

“In this era of triumphalist market economics, it is wonderful to see a film dealing with a revolution 60 years ago greeted with such emotion, even fervor. 1”

– Martine Vidal

Socialists and Communists have a long history of strained relations. Their various alliances proved extremely tenuous, and the inevitable disintegration of these marriages always ended in vitriolic abuses of the other. Sixty seven years after George Orwell published Homage to , a book both Communists and Socialists name as inspiration for Land and Freedom ,

the enmity still runs strong. A juxtaposition of reviews from each camp reads like a dialogue

from 1939. Socialists celebrate Loach’s film as revelatory: “The great value of Loach and

Allen’s film lies in its critique of Stalinism from the left .” 2 Communists condemn it as “add[ing] to the difficulties in today’s struggle against resurgent fascism and racism. 3” Both sides of this interminable debate turn to history for proof, but each accepts a different history. The resultant

“debate” consists principally of renewed name-calling. While the dispute may prove unending and the differences irreconcilable, “the lessons from that struggle … are as true and relevant today as they were in 1936. 4”

The release of Land and Freedom provoked “a fierce debate … between Stalinists and survivors of Stalinist repression. 5” Already, the label “Stalinist” colors the debate, defining the

1 Martine Vidal, “Land and Freedom,” New Politics , Vol. 6, no. 1, Summer 1996. 2 World Socialist Web Site, “Ken Loach’s Land and Freedom : The Spanish Revolution Betrayed,” October 23, 1995, http://www.wsws.org/arts/1998/aug1998/land-96.shtml. 3 Bill Alexander, “Loach’s Film Distorts History,” Morning Star, October 7, 1995. 4 Alexander. 5 Peter Boyle, “Telling the Truth About the ,” Green Left , Issue 215, December 12, 1995. Ho 2

sides with a distinctly negative tint. Let us define the debaters, then. Party-line Communists,

particularly in Britain, voiced the loudest criticism of the film while Socialists leapt to its

defense. One flurry of responses took the character of a direct debate, employing sardonic,

bitterly barbed language on both ends. Jeff Sawtell’s article in the Communist Review expressed

“the weight of my bitter disappointment, frustration and anger after seeing Ken Loach's film

Land and Freedom , which purports to be about or, at least set, in the years of the Spanish Civil

War of 1936-39. 6” The Socialist journal What Next? struck back with unbridled insult to both

Sawtell’s sources and intelligence:

Whatever expertise [Sawtell] may possess in the field of cinematography certainly

doesn’t extend to the historiography of the Spanish Civil War…. Indeed, despite

the arrogant, know-it-all tone he adopts in the article and his inclusion of some

obscure-looking footnotes to give the impression of erudition, it would seem that

he has read precisely one publication on the subject – the 30-page pamphlet

Against Fascism…. 7

Their differences reanimate the spectre of the failure of the Spanish Civil War, the disbelieving

why both leftists feel. In effect, both writers attempt to grapple with Franco’s victory through

scapegoating, explaining away the defeat of the Popular Front with references to infighting –

blaming Stalin – or imperialism – blaming the noninterventionist powers.

Sawtell avows that the did everything in its power to help the Republican

government, quoting La Pasionaria, Dolores Ibarruri’s tribute to that state. He charges the defeat

as a result of “an unholy alliance, that of the capitalist states, the fascist states, the treacherous

6 Jeff Sawtell, “Land and Freedom: Ken Loach’s Distortion of the Spanish Civil War,” Communist Review , Summer 1996. 7 Robert Pitt, “ Land and Freedom: A Reply to Jeff Sawtell,” What Next? Marxist Discussion Journal, 1996, http://www.whatnextjournal.co.uk/Pages/History/Loach.html. Ho 3

Spanish military and the splitting activities of the 57 varieties of ultra-leftism. 8” Casting the

blame even further afield, he then cites the Nazi ambassador to Franco as saying “the street

fighting had been started by his (Franco's) agents.9” In What Next?, Bob Pitt disagrees entirely.

“As the film so movingly demonstrates, this struggle was betrayed by counter-revolutionary forces within the Republican camp itself, the most consistent and ruthless of whom were the

Communists. 10 ” Stalin, not Hitler, he asserts, “destroy[ed] the democratic gains of July-August

1936. 11 ”

Pitt was not unique in conjuring up the evils of Stalin and employing a perverse

resurrection of red-baiting in Stalinist-baiting. Peter Boyle similarly branded those offended by

the film as “Stalinists [who] insisted that the revolution had to keep the support of Spanish

capitalists. 12 ” The World Socialist Web Site continues along this line, applauding the film’s

“determination to expose decades of lies by the Stalinists and to respond to the post-Soviet

falsifiers…. 13 ” One of those who would be labeled a brain-washed “Stalinist” by this tactic is

Bill Alexander. In his opinion, “the Soviet Union did all that was humanly possible to do in the conditions prevailing at that time. 14 ” His blame does not align directly with Sawtell’s, but with

“those who enforced the policy of 'non-intervention',” expanding on this assertion with the somewhat incredible claim: “If help had been given to the Spanish Republic by the government of [Great Britain] … then World War II would not have happened. 15 ” Wilebaldo Solano, former

General Secretary of POUM, counters “anti-Franco unity was broken by the policy which Stalin

8 Sawtell. 9 Sawtell. 10 Pitt. 11 Pitt. 12 Boyle. 13 World Socialist Web Site. 14 Lalkar, “International Brigader condemns Land and Freedom ,” March/April 1998. 15 Lalkar . Ho 4

imposed on the PCE and PSUC…. 16 ” As is quite plain, the debate hinges on purely conjectured events.

The Worker’s Party of Marxist Unification (P.O.U.M.: Partido Obrero de Unificación

Marxista) and the death of its leader Andreu Nin occupies a central role in the discussion.

Sawtell brushes aside the claims of Nin’s assassination by Soviet intervention as

“unsubstantiated, 17 ” and Pitt is quick to provide proof otherwise 18 . Santiago Carrillo, the former

General Secretary of the Communist Party of Spain (PCE), found fault with Land and Freedom for demeaning one of the “greatest epics of the fight for freedom in this century” to the bickering between the POUM and the PCE 19 . Loach shot back immediately during a screening of his film in the following day, “I am glad that Carrillo has written an article against my film, because this demonstrates that the communists [by way of the PCE] haven’t learned anything in

60 years. 20 ” A mere week later, Wilebaldo Solano replied to Carrillo with his own article in El

Pais , whose title: “Stalinism Forgotten?” purposefully mocked Carrillo’s original article:

“Fascism, Forgotten.” Solano defends Loach, who “has done nothing more than remove the veil from an epoch [of history]. 21 ” Serious discussion about the film derails once again into petty name-calling and reliance on highly subjective histories. Even Pitt, who states at the beginning of his article “that it is wrong to refer to comrades from the official Communist movement… as

‘Stalinists’” gets in on the fun, employing the label “Stalinist-bourgeois counter- revolutionaries 22 ”

16 Wilebaldo Solano, “El Estalinismo Olvidado?: Polémica sobre Tierra y Libertad ,” trans. Terrence Ho, El Pais , April 14, 1995. 17 Sawtell. 18 Pitt. 19 Santiago Carrillo, “El Fascismo, olvidado,” trans. Terrence Ho, El Pais , April 6, 1995. 20 El Pais, “Ken Loach recuerda que Carrillo llamó fascistas a sus compañeros trotskistas,” trans. Terrence Ho, April 7, 1995. 21 Solano. 22 Pitt. Ho 5

George Orwell generates marked division between Communists and Socialists. Nearly

every article cited in this paper mentions his name, his experience in Spain, and his Homage to

Catalonia . Socialists turn to it for proof – the irrefutable proof of experience. Peter Boyle quotes

it to describe the heroism of Spanish workers. 23 Bob Pitt offers Chapter 11 of the book as evidence of the weapons situation in Barcelona. 24 Martine Vidal draws a direct comparison

between Orwell and David, the film’s protagonist, noting further that “booksellers have been

doing a brisk business… especially [on] George Orwell’s Homage to Catalonia 25 ” due to the interest generated by the film. Even the Communist Sawtell uses Orwell’s text as a source of veracity to comment on the inaction of the Aragón front. The International Brigader Bill

Alexander, however, treats Orwell differently. “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. 26 ”

Alexander switches to the defensive on the issue of the International Brigade, which he

accuses Land and Freedom of slandering, citing the heroic defense of he thinks the film pointedly ignored 27 . Sawtell joins Alexander’s indignation that Loach, “to add insult to his

injury… dismisses the heroic International Brigade as nothing but jack-booted stooges of

Stalin. 28 ” Pitt’s rejoinder weakly defends Loach and Allen’s depiction. Unwilling to insult the

Brigade outright, he quotes Trotskyist Manuel Casanova: “‘They knew not what they were

doing. 29 ’”

23 Boyle. 24 Pitt. 25 Vidal. 26 Lalkar . 27 Lalkar . 28 Sawtell. 29 Pitt. Ho 6

Finally, the film’s funding drew both sympathy and criticism from the opposing

reviewers. The Socialists compare the scant £2.5 million used to make the film to Hollywood’s

standard $30-40 million 30 . In their eyes it is a travesty that such a great revelatory film received so little . Sawtell, on the other hand, calls into question “[Loach’s] financial backers, the BBC and the European Co-production Fund (UK), are prepared to lay out so much [added italics] money to ensure that history is rewritten to reflect the interests of the establishment. 31 ” No matter

Loach’s or Allen’s original intent, or even the influence of the BBC, the debate reinvigorated by

Land and Freedom carries on. Though Communists and Socialists may never agree on the details of the Spanish Civil War, they certainly agree on the necessity of its discussion. Indeed, the

“existence of the film and the reception it is receiving help to refute the lie that and revolution are dead issues. 32 ”

30 World Socialist Web Site. 31 Sawtell. 32 World Socialist Web Site . Ho 7

Works Cited

Alexander, Bill. “Loach’s Film Distorts History.” Morning Star , October 7, 1995.

Boyle, Peter. “Telling the Truth About the Spanish Civil War.” Green Left , Issue 215, December

12, 1995.

Carrillo, Santiago. “El Fascismo, olvidado.” Translated by Terrence Ho. El Pais , April 6, 1995.

El Pais. “Ken Loach recuerda que Carrillo llamó fascistas a sus compañeros trotskistas.”

Translated by Terrence Ho. April 7, 1995.

Lalkar . “International Brigader condemns Land and Freedom .” March/April 1998.

Pitt, Robert. “ Land and Freedom: A Reply to Jeff Sawtell.” What Next? Marxist Discussion

Journal, 1996. http://www.whatnextjournal.co.uk/Pages/History/Loach.html.

Sawtell, Jeff. “Land and Freedom: Ken Loach’s Distortion of the Spanish Civil War.”

Communist Review , Summer 1996.

Solano, Wilebaldo. “El Estalinismo Olvidado?: Polémica sobre Tierra y Libertad .” Translated by

Terrence Ho. El Pais , April 14, 1995.

Vidal, Martine. “Land and Freedom.” New Politics , Vol. 6, no. 1, Summer 1996.

World Socialist Web Site. “Ken Loach’s Land and Freedom : The Spanish Revolution Betrayed.”

October 23, 1995. http://www.wsws.org/arts/1998/aug1998/land-96.shtml.