Talk:POUM

What did they achieve?

POUM got in the way of the war effort, which might have avoided World War Two if it had defeated Franco, or even produced a stalemate.

Encyclopaedia Britannica Book Of The Year 1939 Spain, Civil War In: The history of the Spanish Civil War represents a striking triumph of material over moral factors in war. The defence of the Spanish Republican cause has not been conducted without a considerable measure of political disharmony between Communists, Anarchists, and moderate Republicans, nor has it been wholly free from outbreaks of criminal disorder, but it is probably that no offensives of modern time have been initiated with greater enthusiasm... and that no defensive tasks have been faced with grimmer resolution than have those of holding Madrid and Barcelona.

Spain: The trial in Barcelona, for complicity in the May 1937 rising, of nine Unified Marxist leaders (P.O.U.M), five of whom were sentenced to long terms of imprisonment, though all were cleared of the charge of having fascist sympathies; and a series of trials following the discovery of a spy ring in Catalonia.

Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1993 edition Spain: The Civil War: The role of the workers in defeating the [military-fascist] rising made their organisations the power in the Republican zone. The legal government was by-passed or totally supplanted by local committees ad trade unions; the workers militia replaced the dissolved army... The English novelist George Orwell well described Barcelona, where the CNT [the anarcho-syndicalist trade union] was all-powerful... This revolution was distasteful to the Left Republicans and to the Communist Party, which rapidly grew in numbers and in political influence because it controlled the supply of arms from the Soviet Union. In the name of an efficient war effort and the preservation of 'bourgeois' elements of the Popular Front, the Communists pressed for a popular army and central government control...

A small Marxist revolutionary party .. P.O.U.M, which rejected the Popular Front in favour of a workers' government, set off a rebellion in Barcelona in May 1937. The Communists, Republicans and anti-Caballero Socialists used this as an excuse to outs Largo Caballero, who had proved insufficiently pliable to Communist demands, The government led by the Socialist doctor Juan Negrin was a Republican-Socialist-Communist concern. The great unions, the UGT and CNT, were replaced by political parties.

The Communists were correct in arguing that the committee-militia system was militarily ineffective. General Franco's army, ferried over from Morocco, cut through the militia and arrived before Madrid by November 1936. The successful resistance of the city, which was stiffened by the arrival of the International Brigades and Soviet arms, meant that the Civil War would be prolonged for two years...

Most other sources say the same.

--GwydionM 19:38, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

"POUM got in the way of the war effort, which might have avoided World War Two if it had defeated Franco, or even produced a stalemate."

It could equally be argued(Orwell's account supports this)that the decision of the leadership of the International Brigades to spend as much time fighting the POUM as they did fighting the fascists was responsible both for the victoy of Franco and the onset of World War Two. A strong case exists that, had the Brigades focused exclusively on fighting the Falangist forces and had left the POUM and the anarchists alone, the Spanish Revolution would have triumphed and a non-Stalinist model of revolutionary Marxism would have emerged. Ken Burch 1:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Redirect

I have redirected references to the Communist Left of Spain to this article: I hardly think that the party was important on its own, and all mentions of it fit on this page. That is also less confusing. Dahn 23:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks like someone reverted that; if you are going to do that again, I suggest that it ought then to be mentioned in this article. - Jmabel | Talk 02:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I see, they are here as "Left Communists of Spain". - Jmabel | Talk 03:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

This doesn't forward from poum, only from POUM (ie, the capitalised version.) Ironiocally, this Party was founded on the principle of anti-capitalisation :-) Can someone change this please?

clever, clever. But since someone might type that, I've added a hatnote to Poum, which is a placename. - Jmabel | Talk 04:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Popularity

"During the Civil War the party began to grow in popularity and, alongside the anarchist Confederación Nacional del Trabajo (CNT), commanded the support of most of the proletariat in the zone not controlled by Francisco Franco's forces during the war." Is there any evidence for this? --Henrygb 14:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

“The party grew larger than the official Communist Party of Spain (PCE) both nationally and in the communist hotbeds of Catalonia and the Valencian Country, where the Unified Socialist Party of Catalonia (PSUC) represented the PCE.” — is there a source for this? In the 1936 election, the PCE received 2.26m votes to POUM’s .25m (9x more).

I wonder about that too - I was always under the impression that the POUM was numerically insignificant compared to the CNT (the POUM had about 60,000 members, IIRC). Also, I don't think CNT members were in the majority throughout the war, especially not after May 1937. My understanding is that they did indeed have the support of most industrial workers in the Republican zone earlier in the war. -Father Inire (talk) 22:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The POUM had about 8,000 members. The CNT was a Trade Union. If theres any evidence put it back with a citation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.154.0 (talk) 19:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The statement said "alongside the" CNT. It is surely true that the combination of the CNT and POUM were supported by the majority of workers in the Republican zones, and especially in Catalunya. I can't find a really good citation though. Here are some sort of OK citations:

• Mieczyslaw Bortenstein (M. Casanova) Spain Betrayed: How the Popular Front Opened the Gates to Franco Revolutionary History, Vol.4 Nos.1-2. First published over the pseudonym of M. Casanova as a pamphlet in the Le Tract collection (no.3) and in Quatrième Internationale, no.17, May 1939: "The marvellous initiative of the masses, the confused but revolutionary and Socialist actions of the left wing of the CNT and the FAI with their mass support, and the POUM’s political leadership pushing to achieve Socialism, were not enough to neutralise the opposing forces of democratic reformism and Stalinism."
• Chris Harman "The Spanish Civil War" International Socialism (1st series), No.64, Mid-November 1973, pp.25-28. "If at this point the POUM had taken the initiative in demanding joint action of anarchists and marxists to disarm the assault guards and other armed groups backing the reconstitution of bourgeois power, it would have gained massive support from the anarchist rank and file who already effectively controlled Barcelonia and the main industrial centres of Catalonia. Trotsky argued, with justice, that ‘if the Catalan proletariat had seized power they would have found support throughout Spain. The bourgeois-Stalinist reaction would not even have found two regiments to crush the Catalan workers.’" Citing The Revolution and the Civil War in Spain by Pierre Broué and Elime Temine Faber and Faber, and The Spanish Revolution 1931-9 by Leon Trotsky Pathfinder.
• "The Friends of Durruti" Red & Black Revolution Issue 4 1998 "After July 19th Prime Minister Companys of Catalonia called them to his office and told them that the CNT had the mass support, they controlled the region, and he would be their faithful servant if they took over."

Clearly, none of these are impartial sources, so I will not re-edit the article for now, but I think it is a fair point. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

File:POUM Obreros.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:POUM Obreros.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 17 November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:30, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 22 March 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Seems to be a consensus that POUM is the common name of the party and that there is not sufficient justification for using the full name. (non-admin closure) Turnagra (talk) 05:59, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

---

POUM → Workers' Party of Marxist Unification – POUM is an acronym like PSOE or any other one. "Workers' Party of Marxist Unification" is a name particularly widespread in the sources (see Google books, Google scholar and its lemma in the Encyclopaedia Britannica). I really see no reason for using the acronym for this party as title of the page: there are cases in which the party is known almost exclusively by the acronym of their name (Syriza, Jobbik, Fidesz etc.), but definitely not in this case. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 17:45, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Scia Della Cometa (talk) 17:45, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• Procedural note: I'm adjusting the timestamp because the clock generally resets on a RM discussion - the list at WP:RM shows this discussion 2 days earlier than it "should" due to the copy/pasted timestamp. Also, it's probably good form for future reference to paste the objection, too, when creating a full RM. SnowFire (talk) 21:36, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Strongly disagree that the translated English title is "particularly widespread in the sources". English-language scholarship routinely and overwhelmingly refers to this group as POUM. I checked Antony Beevor's book "The Battle for Spain" (during when the attempt to do a technical request move) to be sure, and yep, it uses POUM both in the index and in running text constantly. The linked Google Books & Google Scholar links are clear evidence of this despite being a search for the other term; nobody contests that the English translation is spelled out sometimes, sure, but the your search including titles like "POUM (Workers' Party of Marxist Unification)" and "The Formation of POUM" should be a warning sign here. A check of the references and external links also shows overwhelming usage of "POUM". There needs to be evidence that this translation is more predominant than "POUM" rather than merely used sometimes. SnowFire (talk) 21:42, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree with SnowFire. the English term "Workers' Party of Marxist Unification " is rarely used (the text "Workers' Party of Marxist Unification" SPAIN gets 389 hits in Google Scholar while the "POUM" Spain gets 2900.) The reliable sources use the Spanish term POUM far more often and that is the main criterion for Wikipedia. Rjensen (talk) 21:48, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

 Comment:@SnowFire and Rjensen: Exactly, could you explain to me what is the difference between PSOE and POUM? I can't find any difference. The fact that there are more references for an acronym is an obviousness, but using the acronym as a page title should be the exception, not the rule. It seems to me that PSOE is used in exactly the same way as POUM in the sources, but only in the first case (rightly so) the title of the page is the name of the party.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 22:21, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

In the English Wikipedia the main rule is to follow the reliable sources (ie POUM). It is what the Spanish called it at the time and the English and Spanish scholars as well. As an abbreviation POUM does not require a Spanish pronunciation. Rjensen (talk) 22:26, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

You're assuming that language is consistent for how entities of a type are referred to. It's not. Some political organizations are known by their full name, some by shortened versions of the name, some by a nickname, some by an acronym. For foreign-language parties, throw in sometimes the raw term in the other language anglicized, sometimes a literal translation, sometimes a free translation. Forcing consistency would mean breaking WP:COMMONNAME. There isn't any difference other than just how sources & scholars usually refer to them. SnowFire (talk) 22:32, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

In Wikipedia the main rules are to follow the common name and follow reliable sources (ie POUM). It is what the Spanish called it at the time and the English and Spanish scholars as well. As an abbreviation POUM does not require a Spanish pronunciation. As for using an abbreviation as title see NKVD and Gulag for Soviet examples and Gestapo for Nazi Germany. Rjensen (talk) 22:37, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support. Foreign party names tend to be translated into English in Wikipedia, even the foreign acronyms are commonly used in RS and their longhand translated names rarely so, e.g. "PSOE" is rendered "Spanish Socialist Workers' Party", "SPD" is rendered as "Social Democratic Party of Germany" and "SFIO" as the "French Section of the Workers' International". I don't really see a reason to make an exception here. "POUM" can certainly be redirected here. But I don't see why this party in particular deserves to be an exception and preserve its foreign acronym as title, whereas other parties don't. Walrasiad (talk) 08:03, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support, enthusiastically, per nominator. --Checco (talk) 18:54, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. POUM is overwhelmingly the common name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:05, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Following this reasoning, the articles on the main German parties should be named SPD, CDU, FDP, etc. Quite nonsensical, in my view. --Checco (talk) 13:15, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
    • The "maintain title" camp is explicitly NOT saying that all parties must be moved to acronyms. It's not even a case where 51% of the usages are "POUM" and 49% a raw English translation; it's more like 90%+ POUM and an equal split between "Party of..." and "Partido Obrero...". If you look at the links provided by the nominator that explicitly searched for the translation, you can see that it's generally a single mention of the English translation before using POUM absolutely everywhere else, including the title of the works. There are many other sources that simply never bother with a raw English translation and use the Spanish term instead if they want to (rarely) spell out the acronym. This is the exact case where MOS:ACROTITLE applies: "Acronyms should be used in a page name if the subject is known primarily by its abbreviation and that abbreviation is primarily associated with the subject (e.g. NASA)." POUM is indeed primarily known by the abbreviation, and spelling out an English translation is rare. SnowFire (talk) 03:31, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per above, but particularly SnowFire's excellent analysis of sources. I think the "consistency" argument for moving is pretty weak. If it's true that, for example, usage of "PSOE" in reliable sources exceeds that of "Spanish Socialist Workers' Party" to the same degree that usage of "POUM" exceeds the proposed title, that sounds to me like a good argument for moving Spanish Socialist Workers' Party, all else being equal. We should be careful not to use consistency as a reason to let a bad precedent multiply. Colin M (talk) 17:46, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Franco isn't mentioned in the article at all, & Fascism only once: to describe accusations of Trotskyists

Maybe I should have made that 2 topics? Anyway.. I'm not sure how to proceed with this. It seems a bit off. The article is almost exclusively about the fractures within Franco's opposing groups to the point that Franco himself isn't even mentioned.

There seems to me also to be an inconsistency of celebrity mention in articles like this- with the development of Orwell's anti-Stalinist highlighted at the top when he was a soldier just like any other during the war. Compare with the article on the German Democratic Party, for instance, which Albert Einstein co-founded. You would need to read 1164 words to learn that, though. Don't get me wrong: I'm not against mentioning Orwell- I wouldn't even mind if we quoted 'Homage' somewhere, just not in the summary/lead. (If I could only fix one thing, though, it would be the lack of Franco's mention.)

Also- the phrase "with whom the former broke" is pretty much only used in this article. When I googled for the phrase I got this article and lots of various types of mirrors of it. I think it is technically correct English, but is a fairly old fashioned way of describing a social schism. Modern speakers may get confused, thinking broke means something like "destroyed". Google can only find 1200 instances of the phrase on the internet at large. Maybe I can replace it with "with whom the former split"? And for the Franco bit - maybe the addition of a section called "official enemies" or some such? Anyways- let me know what you folks think. Know Einstein (talk) 04:58, 25 September 2022 (UTC)