anarchists from all over Spain were deported as a result. Among them were the
solidarios,
Durruti and Francisco Ascaso. The latter wrote from his prison ship: ‘Poor bourgeoisie which has to have recourse to such action to survive. But of course they are at war with us, and it is natural that they defend themselves by martyrizing, murdering, and exiling us.’ 1 This punishment did not prevent the FAI, worried at the growth of numbers in the socialist agricultural workers’ union, from virtually declaring war on the republic and the rural bourgeoisie for the rest of 1932. It was a terrifying time for the landlords’ agents and their friends.
The frequency of these explosions encouraged the government to broach a discussion of those fundamental social problems which lay at the heart of Spanish working-class unrest, particularly the problem of agriculture.
Spain was a dry land with bad soil. Its natural aridity had been increased by deforestation and the grazing of the famous flocks of sheep which, for centuries, had roamed central Spain. Forests had been destroyed by donkeys, goats, the demands of building (houses and ships) and peasant prejudice against trees. A lack of fodder prevented animals from being used as much as elsewhere in Europe; while agricultural machinery scarcely existed in 1930. Rainfall was low except in the north-west, and the unpredictability of such rain as there was made farming even more hazardous. The ‘golden fringe’ of the Mediterranean, and a few favoured valleys and irrigated plains, produced much of the available food. The social contrast between these prosperous regions and the poor, windy deserts of the centre was striking. Many farmers slaved all their lives on sterile soil. Water and fuel preoccupied farmers far more of the time than they did in northern Europe. Yield was lower too: for example, the acreage in vineyards was the same as in France but it produced only about two-thirds of what France did. 2 Long distances between villages and fields, bad transport, bad roads, shortage of manure and ignorance of modern possibilities all kept low the incomes of those who worked on the land. Though distribution of food had been improved because of the railway androad programmes of Primo de Rivera, it still took too long to take perishable goods from the rich Valencian irrigated land or the Guadalquivir valley to mountain villages or to Madrid: hence the limited food available.
Spanish agriculture had been, for several generations, the object of debate, as was understandable since it was still the main source of wealth in the country. It accounted for about two-fifths of the Spanish national income in the 1930s though most labourers’ wages did not bring them enough to buy their food. Still, well over half the population lived from the land. Agrarian reform had been discussed since the eighteenth century but, along with many other good ideas suggested by the enlightened ministers of King Charles III, little had come of it. The economist Joaquín Costa, a member of the famous Generation of ’98, had argued that irrigation, internal colonization and a collective approach might work wonders. With much unrest on the land, those things seemed to be desirable, but, apart from the setting up of a few technical schools, little was done. Yet the subject was extensively discussed and several laws for, at least, the improvement of agriculture were introduced, and usually cut to pieces in the Cortes. 1
In the 1930s, the land was characterized by three main problems: first, the problems of the tiny farms, or
minifundia,
which could not give their owners an adequate living, and which were often much split up. These farms existed specially in rainy Galicia, but were also to be found elsewhere in northern Spain: while Soria, in Castile, had some of the most extreme examples. Second, there were also many large estates,
latifundia,
often owned by absentees, farmed negligently, and sometimes giving the
solidarios,
Durruti and Francisco Ascaso. The latter wrote from his prison ship: ‘Poor bourgeoisie which has to have recourse to such action to survive. But of course they are at war with us, and it is natural that they defend themselves by martyrizing, murdering, and exiling us.’ 1 This punishment did not prevent the FAI, worried at the growth of numbers in the socialist agricultural workers’ union, from virtually declaring war on the republic and the rural bourgeoisie for the rest of 1932. It was a terrifying time for the landlords’ agents and their friends.
The frequency of these explosions encouraged the government to broach a discussion of those fundamental social problems which lay at the heart of Spanish working-class unrest, particularly the problem of agriculture.
Spain was a dry land with bad soil. Its natural aridity had been increased by deforestation and the grazing of the famous flocks of sheep which, for centuries, had roamed central Spain. Forests had been destroyed by donkeys, goats, the demands of building (houses and ships) and peasant prejudice against trees. A lack of fodder prevented animals from being used as much as elsewhere in Europe; while agricultural machinery scarcely existed in 1930. Rainfall was low except in the north-west, and the unpredictability of such rain as there was made farming even more hazardous. The ‘golden fringe’ of the Mediterranean, and a few favoured valleys and irrigated plains, produced much of the available food. The social contrast between these prosperous regions and the poor, windy deserts of the centre was striking. Many farmers slaved all their lives on sterile soil. Water and fuel preoccupied farmers far more of the time than they did in northern Europe. Yield was lower too: for example, the acreage in vineyards was the same as in France but it produced only about two-thirds of what France did. 2 Long distances between villages and fields, bad transport, bad roads, shortage of manure and ignorance of modern possibilities all kept low the incomes of those who worked on the land. Though distribution of food had been improved because of the railway androad programmes of Primo de Rivera, it still took too long to take perishable goods from the rich Valencian irrigated land or the Guadalquivir valley to mountain villages or to Madrid: hence the limited food available.
Spanish agriculture had been, for several generations, the object of debate, as was understandable since it was still the main source of wealth in the country. It accounted for about two-fifths of the Spanish national income in the 1930s though most labourers’ wages did not bring them enough to buy their food. Still, well over half the population lived from the land. Agrarian reform had been discussed since the eighteenth century but, along with many other good ideas suggested by the enlightened ministers of King Charles III, little had come of it. The economist Joaquín Costa, a member of the famous Generation of ’98, had argued that irrigation, internal colonization and a collective approach might work wonders. With much unrest on the land, those things seemed to be desirable, but, apart from the setting up of a few technical schools, little was done. Yet the subject was extensively discussed and several laws for, at least, the improvement of agriculture were introduced, and usually cut to pieces in the Cortes. 1
In the 1930s, the land was characterized by three main problems: first, the problems of the tiny farms, or
minifundia,
which could not give their owners an adequate living, and which were often much split up. These farms existed specially in rainy Galicia, but were also to be found elsewhere in northern Spain: while Soria, in Castile, had some of the most extreme examples. Second, there were also many large estates,
latifundia,
often owned by absentees, farmed negligently, and sometimes giving the
Similar Books
