THE SITUATION IN SPAIN

Press, Volume LXXII, Issue 21865, 19 August 1936, Page 7

THE SITUATION IN SPAIN

TO THE EDITOB OW THE PEE9S. Sir, —The allusion made by “A Catholic Priest” to the situation in Spain being “dominated” by what he terms the “extreme reds” is the first point which calls for analysis. Primarily there , are no “degrees ’■• of “Reds.” If the -inference is that all of the masses of the popular front hold varying thp. infliction of fascism 'rjijpn, them, theh it is obvious no froht exists, a paradox which is divorced from authentic facts. Fascism is not being met “halfway”; there is no “pale pink” impetiis against the organised, clerically inspired forces of reactidnery fascism. Communism and fascism are as diametrically opposed as the poles and recognise no point for compromise. Your- correspondent complains that the Protestant churches are weak and infers that his organisations are the reverse, and wish to co-ordinate all denominations into a unified front against the ever growing masses of people striving for physical and mental freedom. This attitude is quite consistent with the historical role played by the hierarchy of this church. The humour cannot be pofeibly lost upon students of economic philosophy at the correspondent’s allusion ’ to Marx and Lenin “hastily concluding” that religion and capitalism are, if not 'logically, at least psychologically connected. The wealth, property, and land owned and manipulated by the Church in Spain definitely confirms and reinforces the Marxian truism, and incidentally the opinion of most people with anjt sense of observation on the matter.

The Spanish people overthrew their old regime, because it could no longer feed and clothe them. The social amenities, and necessary requirements, the cultural improvements, resultant on the advance of research and scientific discoveries are. by the defective mechanism a political order withheld from them. To expect to fill and satisfy this unspeakable void, by indefinitely. centring the people’s imagination on the desirability of disregarding their physical needs and attending, with all humility to their spiritual hunger, far ’ exceeds the bounds of logical reasoning. Regarding the statement made by “Catholic” that communists had burnt churches, he quotes as his authority, Gil Robles, who is, incidentally, head of the Spanish Catholic party. The assessable value of this evidence is apparent in view of the reports of the acts of agents-provocateur under his supervision. The correspondent’s assertion that Catholics have “turned against” the communists is made more easy of analysis when the situation discloses the fact that Spain is practically all Catholic. The masses composing the People’s Front under the leadership of a constitutionally appointed government, are opposed, by that section, a minor section, of fascist reactionaries of the Church, who never required to “turn,” as their gedgraphical position was always reactionary and fascistically bent. No, the major bulk of Spanish people are anti-fascist, and opposed to the Church hierarchy. Regarding the assertion that Portugal is “enjoying peace and happiness and moderate prosperity,” I see or know of no endorsement of this statement, Portugal is subjected to the same direful results of the capitalistic crises as elsewhere, and is generally recognised as the most backward, economically and culturally, of European countries; and no improvement can be looked for under the present dictatorial regime. Cable news informs us that “great hoards of money” have been found secreted in various churches in Spain. This factor seems to be in contradistinction to the parlous plight of the thousands of semi-starved, whose welfare the Church professes to have so near to its heart. ' The letter by a “Clear-sighted Catholic” is symptomatic of the class differentiation, which is taking place within the Church. I commend a little similar intellectual exercise to the rank and file of all the churches. “Another Catholic Priest” seriously suggests that the problem _ can be solved by “an equitable , distribution of property in the bands of the many.” He disregards the fact that the whole process and chain of crises must recur, and a fresh start be made on the vicious circle of economic contradictions—“the great , divide” such as old time socialists were often accused of adyocating. This would mean the instituting of small factories m lieu of the present big ones, handicrafts instead: of machines—in fact, the re-

installation of all former obsolete modes of production and distribution —a purely reactionary concept. I presume the correspondent is not serious by suggesting the restarting of capitalism. There cannot be. by all reports, much support for his economic panacea in the churches of Spam, it will Jbe interesting to know when the theory of “distributism” will be put into operation in high ecclesiastical circles in Spain with the enormous properties which they hold. The correspondent proclaims that communism is “State ownership or every form of wealth and property. It 'would be interesting to know where this gross distortion of truth would find acceptance. The advent of communism would find the total extinction of State apparatus. The State is an instrument of class domination and with the abolition of classes, the State ceases to exist. It is significant that an avowed fascist, Nino Di Somma., is called upon by your correspondent to help him out in combating the communist analysis of the position. In stating the various political parties which the Church hierarchy allows its followers to join, he forgets the Catholic parties, which have been established in almost every European country. Ih Austria and Spain these parties have been in power under the leadership of Dollfuss and Gil Robles, and have revealed a distinctly fascist character; therefore Catholic fascism is no contradiction in terms. The objection is raised against the terming of any system outside of Italy as “fascist.” “Democracy” was founded and first spoken of in ancient Greece. By the same process of reasoning, the world outside of Greece has had no right to talk of democracy for more than 2000 years. The puerility of such reasoning cannot be lost on the thinking.— Yours, etc., D.H.C. August 13, 1936. [This correspondence is now closed. — Ed., “The Press.”]