Chomsky claims in On Anarchism that the communists (backed by the USSR) gained control of the Republican government and forced the syndicalists to disarm and dismantle workers' committees, under the pretext (whether or not they believed it - Chomsky doesn't go into much detail about the pro-communist perspective) that it was necessary to placate England, France, and the US, who were vehemently against the revolution, in order to construct an anti-fascist alliance. Is this accurate?
The Communist Party, POUM, CNT and other parties joined the liberal-led coalition that forced the workers to disarm themselves and dissolve their committees. The 3rd International's justification was the same geopolitical one you mention from the Chomsky source, and it's difficult not to consider that a complete betrayal of the fledgling Spanish revolution on the part of Stalin and his co-thinkers. They might have beaten fascism in Germany and eastern Europe later, but they failed in Spain.
POUM, meanwhile, was the result a weird merger between the left-opposition to Stalin's camp (including former proto-Trots) and right-opposition, including elements responsible for the disastrous opportunist Kuomintang entryist approach in China in the 1920s, but POUM's left-opposition elements were the ones closest to having a correct position, one where they could say "this is bullshit, under no pretext", then immediately leave the popular front coalition in August/September 1936 and continue building and supporting dual power while it was in danger of being destroyed the same way the Bolsheviks did in 1917 between February and October. Instead POUM, CNT, and the succdems followed the same path the capital-C Communists did and stayed in the popular front, allowing the libs to abort the embryonic workers' state and restore the bourgeois state only to later lose the war to Franco.
Correct. Some of the the syndies, including official CNT leadership, joined the popular front and were ironically seduced by liberal anti-fascist arguments, partly because they chose not to distinguish between a workers' state and the capitalist state. (Hence my earlier comparison to the even greater farce of "anarcho-Bidenism".) Like POUM, the capital-C Communists, and the succdems, the CNT fell in line behind the decrees to disarm the workers and dismantle the workers' committees without any pushback.
Chomsky claims in On Anarchism that the communists (backed by the USSR) gained control of the Republican government and forced the syndicalists to disarm and dismantle workers' committees, under the pretext (whether or not they believed it - Chomsky doesn't go into much detail about the pro-communist perspective) that it was necessary to placate England, France, and the US, who were vehemently against the revolution, in order to construct an anti-fascist alliance. Is this accurate?
The Communist Party, POUM, CNT and other parties joined the liberal-led coalition that forced the workers to disarm themselves and dissolve their committees. The 3rd International's justification was the same geopolitical one you mention from the Chomsky source, and it's difficult not to consider that a complete betrayal of the fledgling Spanish revolution on the part of Stalin and his co-thinkers. They might have beaten fascism in Germany and eastern Europe later, but they failed in Spain.
POUM, meanwhile, was the result a weird merger between the left-opposition to Stalin's camp (including former proto-Trots) and right-opposition, including elements responsible for the disastrous opportunist Kuomintang entryist approach in China in the 1920s, but POUM's left-opposition elements were the ones closest to having a correct position, one where they could say "this is bullshit, under no pretext", then immediately leave the popular front coalition in August/September 1936 and continue building and supporting dual power while it was in danger of being destroyed the same way the Bolsheviks did in 1917 between February and October. Instead POUM, CNT, and the succdems followed the same path the capital-C Communists did and stayed in the popular front, allowing the libs to abort the embryonic workers' state and restore the bourgeois state only to later lose the war to Franco.
So some anarchists - specifically the CNT - were also (at least partly) responsible for disarming and dismantling committees?
Correct. Some of the the syndies, including official CNT leadership, joined the popular front and were ironically seduced by liberal anti-fascist arguments, partly because they chose not to distinguish between a workers' state and the capitalist state. (Hence my earlier comparison to the even greater farce of "anarcho-Bidenism".) Like POUM, the capital-C Communists, and the succdems, the CNT fell in line behind the decrees to disarm the workers and dismantle the workers' committees without any pushback.