EL ORIGEN DEL 1° DE MAYO:La huelga general de 1886
Nosotros, los que laboran en los Estados Unidos, no siempre han tenido un di'a laboral de 8 horas. Esto, como la mayor parte del progreso, fue logrado por medio de una lucha popular. Durante la epoca de los anos mil ochocientos, los trabajadores, incluyendo ninos, podrian sufrir trabajando 16 horas o mas al dfa bajo condiciones peligrosas y sofocantes «sweatshops.» Ellos ganaban sueldos miserables y trabajaban en condiciones muy estrechos. Tal como hoy en dfa, los patrones y el gobierno mantenfan a la clase trabajadora en un estado debil y acentuando las divisiones de raza, genero, el estatus migratorio y otras diferencias artificiales. En 1886 sin embargo, los trabajadores arrasaron con estas divisiones y se unieron en una clase, comenzando la lucha que logro el dfa laboral de 8 horas.
En Chicago, un fuerte movimiento laboral presiono por esto y fue premiado con una legislacion de 8 horas en 1867. Esto se suponfa que deberfa haber sido el 1° de mayo de ese ano pero, cuando vino ese dfa, los patrones ignoraron la ley y el gobierno no se impuso a que esto se cumpliera. Aunque cuando los trabajadores militantes de Chicago se pusieron en huelga, el gobierno envio a la policfa para destruir brutalmente la resistencia del pueblo. Los trabajadores desanimados volvieron a los trabajos. Para ellos, nada habfa cambiado excepto su conflanza en que los cambios pueden ser logrados por medio de las legislatures
En 1886, otro movimiento mas radical de las 8 horas gano popularidad, siendo guiado en Chicago por trabajadores inmigrantes y otros trabajadores en la organization anarquista la Asociacion Internacional de Trabajadores ("IWPA"). Una coalition nacional de uniones llamo a una huelga general para el 1° de Mayo, dicha huelga consiste en la participation de todos los trabajadores, sin importar su profesion, dejan de trabajar. Los trabajadores demuestran su poder al paralizar la economfa puesto que la sociedad no puede continuar funcionando; por otro lado, los jefes y el resto de la clase dominante, son inservibles e incluso son perjudiciales para una sociedad sana.
El 1° de Mayo de 1886, una cantidad de 750,000 trabajadores hicieron una huelga a traves de todo el pais-400,000 en Chicago solamente. 11,000 marcharon en Detroit, 25,000 en la
ciudad de Nueva York y 80,000 marcharon por las calles de Chicago. Esas manifestaciones de unidad aterrorizaron a la clase del poder. Con la determination de no ceder ninguna cosa y con la idea de mantener su riqueza mezquinamente, anteriormente robada del pobre, el rico se prepara para aplastar el movimiento con violencia.
El impetu de los trabajadores continue con las huelgas y manifestaciones. El 3 de Mayo los de la union de «empujadores madereros» en huelga tuvieron una junta de 6,000 cerca de la planta McGormick, La policfa ataco a los asistentes de la junta con el uso de pistolas y bastones matando a un trabajador y hiriendo a otros. Indignados, los anarquistas anunciaron una llamada en su periodico de lengua aleman, el Arbeiter-Zeitung (El Periodico de los Trabajadores), para una protesta el 4° de Mayo en la Plaza Haymarket.
Esa noche, miles se reunieron en Haymarket para denunciar la violencia policial. La multitud escucharon calmamente los discursos por los trabajadores anarquistas migrantes tal como August Spies y Samuel Fielden. Incluso el alcalde de Chicago, quien asistio a la primera mitad de la demostracion dijo: "nada parecfa que iba a suceded como para requerir la intervention de la policfa,» y el le aconsejo al capitan de policfa Bonfleld, que enviara a sus fuerzas a sus casas. Bonfleld no lo hizo. Alrededor de las diez de la noche, despues de que el alcalde y muchos de los asistentes se fueron, mientras Fielden anunciaba que la reunion concluiria, las fuerzas de 200 oflciales de Bonfleld marcharon hacia la concertacion de personas, amenazando violencia y exigiendo su termino. Una bomba exploto en las fllas de policfa, matando a uno de ellos instantaneamente e hiriendo a otros. En el caos, la policfa disparo sin hacer ninguna distincion, matando a 7 de sus propios oflciales y a muchos de los que participaban en la demostracion, aunque ellos nunca contaron a cuantos trabajadores mataron.
Esto fue seguido por un reino de terror durante la noche mientras el fiscal estatal recomendo publicamente a la policfa que se fljaran en los anarquistas: "primero hagan las redadas y despues revisen las leyes." La policfa arresto a todos los anarquistas conocidos y allanaron las salas de reuniones, oflcinas de imprenta y casas. Gomo resultado, 8 anarquistas discursantes prominentes, editores de periodicos y sindicalistas—August Spies, Sam Fielden, Albert Parsons, Adolph Fischer, George Engel, Michael Schwab, Louis Lingg y Oscar Heebe—fueron acusados por el bombardeo de HaymarKet. De los 8 hombres, 7 de ellos eran inmigrantes y solo 3 estaban en HaymarKet esa noche. El fiscal estatal escogio de manera individual a un jurado parcial y no presento ninguna evidencia conectandoles con las bombas.
Tal cual la flscalfa discutid en la corte: «E1 anarquismo esta en juicio. Estos hombres nan sido seleccionados, escogidos por el Gran Tribunal y ban sido arrestados porque eran Ifderes. Ellos no son mas culpables que los miles que los siguen. Senores del jurado, sentencien a estos hombres, hagan de ellos un ejemplo, cuelguenlos y ustedes salvaran nuestras instituciones, nuestra sociedad.» Y asf lo hicieron. Todos recibieron la pena de muerte excepto Neebe, al cual se le dieron 15 anos de carcel. Una campana masiva internacional forzo al estado a acortar las sentencias de Schawab y Fielden a cadena perpetua pero, en Noviembre 11,1887, los Sres. Parsons, Engel, Spies y Fischer fueron ahorcados. El feroz carpintero aleman, Louis Lingg, engano al carcelero al suicidarse antes de que lo ejecutaran. Hubo usa asistencia de 600,000 personas a los funerales.
Mientras el incidente de HaymarKet fue visto inicialmente como un retroceso para el movimiento de las 8 horas, el evento logro a radicalizar mas personas, incluyendo a ciertos anarquistas influyentes como Emma Goldman y Voltairine de Gleyre. La Federacion Americana del Trabajo y los anarquistas de IWPA se lanzaron a las calles nuevamente el 1° de Mayo de 1890 y el movimiento de las 8 horas continue. Teniendo como legado a los Martires de HaymarKet, los sindicatos comenzaron a progresar. El sindicato de mineros, Los Trabajadores Unidos de las Minas, lograron un dfa laboral de 8 horas en su contracto laboral en 1898, como tambien el sindicato El Gonsejo de Gonstructores de San Francisco en 1900, los sindicatos de imprenta a traves de los EE.UU. en 1905 y los trabajadores de la companfa automotriz Ford Motor en 1914. En 1916, con la amenaza nacional de una huelga general, los trabajadores de ferrocarriles forzo al gobierno a pasar el Ley de Adamson, el cual les otorgo el dfa laboral de 8 horas, con pago adicional despues de las 8 horas.
Finalmente, en 1938, un movimiento masivo de trabajadores y de cesantes forzaron al gobierno de Roosevelt a que pasara la Ley Estandar Justa Laboral, estableciendose para muchos el dfa laboral de 8 horas con pago de sobretiempo, como tambien un salario mi'nimo y la abolicion de «la labor infantil opresiva.»
Showing posts with label ANARCHISM. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ANARCHISM. Show all posts
Saturday, April 21, 2012
From The "Common Struggle" Newspaper #7- THE ORIGIN OF MAY DAY:The 1886 General Strike
THE ORIGIN OF MAY DAY:The 1886 General Strike
We workers in the United States have not always had the eight-hour day. This, like most progress, was won through popular struggle. In the late 1800s, workers, including children, could suffer 16 or more hours a day under dangerous, stifling sweatshop conditions. They earned starvation wages and lived in cramped quarters. Like today, the bosses and the government kept the working class weak by sharpening the divisions of race, gender, immigration status, and other artificial differences. In 1886, however, workers obliterated these divisions and stood together as a class, beginning the fight that won the eight-hour day.
In Chicago, a strong labor movement pressed for, and was rewarded with, 8-hour legislation in 1867. This was supposed to be enacted on May 1st. When that day came, however, the bosses ignored the law and the government wouldn't enforce it. But when Chicago's militant workers went on strike to protest, the government did send the police to brutally crush the peoples' resistance. The despondent workers returned to their jobs. Nothing had changed for Chicago's toilers except their confidence that change could be achieved through legislation.
In 1886 another more radical 8-hour movement gained momentum, led in Chicago by migrant and other workers of the anarchist International Working People's Association (IWPA). A national coalition of unions called for a general strike for May 1st. A general strike is when all workers, regardless of profession, stop working. By crippling the economy workers demonstrate their power - without the workers, society could not continue; the bosses and the rest of the ruling class, on the other hand, are completely useless and even detrimental to the health of human society.
On May 1st, 1886 750,000 workers went on strike across the country— 400,000 in Chicago alone. Eleven-thousand marched in Detroit, 25,000 in New York City, and 80,000 marched through Chicago's streets. Their demonstration of unity terrified the ruling class. Determined not to concede anything and to greedily hoard all of the wealth they had robbed from the poor, the rich set out to crush the movement with violence.
The workers' momentum continued with strikes and demonstrations. On May 3rd, the striking "lumber shovers" union held a public meeting of 6,000 near the McGormick plant. The police attacked the meeting with guns and batons, killing one worker and wounding more. Outraged, anarchists posted a call in their daily German-language paper, the Arbeiter-Zeitung ("Workers'
Newspaper") for a May 4th protest meeting at Haymarket Square.
That night, thousands gathered at Haymarket to denounce police violence. The crowd listened calmly to speeches by migrant anarchist workers, such as August Spies and Samuel Fielden. Even the mayor of Chicago, who attended the beginninghalfoftherally,said,"nothinglookedlikely to happen to require police interference," and he advised police captain Bonfield to send his forces home. Bonfield didn't. Around 10PM, after the mayor and many attendees left, and as Fielden was calling the meeting to a close, Bonfield's force of 200 officers marched on the rally, threatening violence and demanding it break up. A bomb exploded in the police ranks, killing one instantly and injuring many. In the chaos, police fired indiscriminately, killing seven of their own officers and numerous demonstrators, though they never counted how many workers they slaughtered.
A reign of terror followed while the state prosecutor publicly advised the police to target anarchists: "make the raids first and look up the law afterwards." Police arrested all known anarchists and raided meeting halls, printing offices, and homes. Eight prominent anarchist speakers, newspaper editors, and unionists-August Spies, Sam Fielden, Albert Parsons, Adolph Fischer, George Engel, Michael Schwab, Louis Lingg, and Oscar Neebe—were charged with the Haymarket bombing. Of the 8 men, 7 were immigrants, and only 3 were at Haymarket that night. The state prosecutor handpicked a biased jury and presented no evidence connecting them to the bomb.
As the prosecution argued in court, "Anarchy is on trial. These men have been selected, picked out by the Grand Jury, and indicted because they were leaders. They are no more guilty than the thousands who follow them. Gentlemen of the jury; convict these men, make examples of them, Jiang them and you saviour institutions, our society/'l3o they" did." All received death sentences except Neebe, who was given 15 years. A massive international campaign forced the state to commute the sentences of Schwab and Fielden to life imprisonment, but on November llth, 1887, Parsons, Engel, Spies, and Fischer were hanged. The fiery young German carpenter, Louis Lingg, cheated the hangman, committing suicide in his cell the day before his execution. Six-hundred thousand attended their funeral.
While the Haymarket incident was initially seen as a set-back for the 8-hour movement, the event radicalized many more, including influential anarchists Emma Goldman and Voltairine de Gleyre. The American Federation of Labor and the anarchist IWPA took the streets again on May Day, 1890, and the movement for the 8-hour day pressed on. Carrying the legacy of the Haymarket Martyrs, organized labor began to make headway. The United Mine Workers achieved the eight-hour day in 1898, as did the Building Trades Council of San Francisco in 1900, printing trades across the US in 1905, and Ford Motor workers in 1914. In 1916, threatening a nationwide general strike, US railroad workers forced the government to pass the Adamson Act, which won them an eight-hour day, with additional pay for overtime.
Finally in 1938, massive militant movements of workers and unemployed forced the Roosevelt government to pass the Fair Labor Standards Act, establishing for many the 8-hour day with extra overtime pay, as well as a national minimum wage and the abolition of "oppressive child labor."
We workers in the United States have not always had the eight-hour day. This, like most progress, was won through popular struggle. In the late 1800s, workers, including children, could suffer 16 or more hours a day under dangerous, stifling sweatshop conditions. They earned starvation wages and lived in cramped quarters. Like today, the bosses and the government kept the working class weak by sharpening the divisions of race, gender, immigration status, and other artificial differences. In 1886, however, workers obliterated these divisions and stood together as a class, beginning the fight that won the eight-hour day.
In Chicago, a strong labor movement pressed for, and was rewarded with, 8-hour legislation in 1867. This was supposed to be enacted on May 1st. When that day came, however, the bosses ignored the law and the government wouldn't enforce it. But when Chicago's militant workers went on strike to protest, the government did send the police to brutally crush the peoples' resistance. The despondent workers returned to their jobs. Nothing had changed for Chicago's toilers except their confidence that change could be achieved through legislation.
In 1886 another more radical 8-hour movement gained momentum, led in Chicago by migrant and other workers of the anarchist International Working People's Association (IWPA). A national coalition of unions called for a general strike for May 1st. A general strike is when all workers, regardless of profession, stop working. By crippling the economy workers demonstrate their power - without the workers, society could not continue; the bosses and the rest of the ruling class, on the other hand, are completely useless and even detrimental to the health of human society.
On May 1st, 1886 750,000 workers went on strike across the country— 400,000 in Chicago alone. Eleven-thousand marched in Detroit, 25,000 in New York City, and 80,000 marched through Chicago's streets. Their demonstration of unity terrified the ruling class. Determined not to concede anything and to greedily hoard all of the wealth they had robbed from the poor, the rich set out to crush the movement with violence.
The workers' momentum continued with strikes and demonstrations. On May 3rd, the striking "lumber shovers" union held a public meeting of 6,000 near the McGormick plant. The police attacked the meeting with guns and batons, killing one worker and wounding more. Outraged, anarchists posted a call in their daily German-language paper, the Arbeiter-Zeitung ("Workers'
Newspaper") for a May 4th protest meeting at Haymarket Square.
That night, thousands gathered at Haymarket to denounce police violence. The crowd listened calmly to speeches by migrant anarchist workers, such as August Spies and Samuel Fielden. Even the mayor of Chicago, who attended the beginninghalfoftherally,said,"nothinglookedlikely to happen to require police interference," and he advised police captain Bonfield to send his forces home. Bonfield didn't. Around 10PM, after the mayor and many attendees left, and as Fielden was calling the meeting to a close, Bonfield's force of 200 officers marched on the rally, threatening violence and demanding it break up. A bomb exploded in the police ranks, killing one instantly and injuring many. In the chaos, police fired indiscriminately, killing seven of their own officers and numerous demonstrators, though they never counted how many workers they slaughtered.
A reign of terror followed while the state prosecutor publicly advised the police to target anarchists: "make the raids first and look up the law afterwards." Police arrested all known anarchists and raided meeting halls, printing offices, and homes. Eight prominent anarchist speakers, newspaper editors, and unionists-August Spies, Sam Fielden, Albert Parsons, Adolph Fischer, George Engel, Michael Schwab, Louis Lingg, and Oscar Neebe—were charged with the Haymarket bombing. Of the 8 men, 7 were immigrants, and only 3 were at Haymarket that night. The state prosecutor handpicked a biased jury and presented no evidence connecting them to the bomb.
As the prosecution argued in court, "Anarchy is on trial. These men have been selected, picked out by the Grand Jury, and indicted because they were leaders. They are no more guilty than the thousands who follow them. Gentlemen of the jury; convict these men, make examples of them, Jiang them and you saviour institutions, our society/'l3o they" did." All received death sentences except Neebe, who was given 15 years. A massive international campaign forced the state to commute the sentences of Schwab and Fielden to life imprisonment, but on November llth, 1887, Parsons, Engel, Spies, and Fischer were hanged. The fiery young German carpenter, Louis Lingg, cheated the hangman, committing suicide in his cell the day before his execution. Six-hundred thousand attended their funeral.
While the Haymarket incident was initially seen as a set-back for the 8-hour movement, the event radicalized many more, including influential anarchists Emma Goldman and Voltairine de Gleyre. The American Federation of Labor and the anarchist IWPA took the streets again on May Day, 1890, and the movement for the 8-hour day pressed on. Carrying the legacy of the Haymarket Martyrs, organized labor began to make headway. The United Mine Workers achieved the eight-hour day in 1898, as did the Building Trades Council of San Francisco in 1900, printing trades across the US in 1905, and Ford Motor workers in 1914. In 1916, threatening a nationwide general strike, US railroad workers forced the government to pass the Adamson Act, which won them an eight-hour day, with additional pay for overtime.
Finally in 1938, massive militant movements of workers and unemployed forced the Roosevelt government to pass the Fair Labor Standards Act, establishing for many the 8-hour day with extra overtime pay, as well as a national minimum wage and the abolition of "oppressive child labor."
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Click on the headline to link to a Wikipedia entry for the anarchist Emma Goldman
Sometimes in reviewing a political biography of some capitalist hanger-on such as Bill Clinton it is simply a matter of dismissing a known and deadly political opponent and so heaping scorn up that person is part of the territory. For others, allegedly in the socialist tradition, like the old theoretical leader of the pre-World War I German social democracy Karl Kautsky, who provide reformist rather than revolutionary solutions to the pressing issues of the day that also tends to be true. However, with an enigmatic figure like the anarcho-communist "Red" Emma Goldman it is harder to do the political savaging job that is necessary but distasteful.
Why? Ms. Goldman came out of that tradition of pre-World War I life-style anarchism (made fashionable in the New York Greenwich Village milieu of the time) where her politics, to the extent that political carping is politics, placed her somewhere on the side of the angels. However, the total effect of her career as an anarchist propagandist and sometime agitator shows very little as a contribution to radical history.
Obviously anyone associated with the fiery German anarchist Johann Most is by any measure going to have trouble with the government at some point in their lives. Most was Goldman's lover and first teacher of the principles of “propaganda by the deed” anarchism. For those readers not familiar with that tendency the core of the politics is that exemplary actions, not excluding martyrdom, by individual heroic revolutionaries are supposed to act as the catalyst to move the masses. In short, these are the politics of shoot first and ask questions later. As a tactic within a revolutionary period it may make some sense but as a strategy to put masses in motion, no. Empathically no.
Her own life provides the case for the negative aspects of this theory. At the time of the famous bloody Homestead Steel strike in the 1890's here in America Ms. Goldman's lifelong companion and fellow anarchist of the deed, Alexander Berkman, decided that to enhance the fierce class struggle the assassination of one Henry Frick, no innocent in the strike for the company side, would serve as a symbol in order to intensify the struggle of capital against labor. Needless to say, although Mr. Berkman was successful, in part, in his attempt both Mr. Frick and the Homestead plant were back in business forthwith. For his pains Berkman received a long jail sentence.
The most troubling aspect of Ms. Goldman's career is her relationship to the Bolshevik Revolution. Let us be clear, as readers of this space may be painfully aware, there were problems in that revolution from which, given the course of history in the 20th century, the Soviet Union was never able to recover. However, from Ms. Goldman's descriptions of the problems seen in her short stay in the Soviet Union just after the revolutionary takeover in 1917 one would have to assume that, like most aspects of her life, this was just one more issue to walk away from. She thereafter for the remainder of her life became an opponent of that regime. Some pre-World War I anarchists were able to see the important historic situation with the creation of the Soviet state and were drawn to the Communist International. Others used that flawed experiment as a reason to, in essence, reconcile themselves to the bourgeois order. This is patently Ms. Goldman's case. Nowhere is that position, and that tension, more blatantly spelled out that in Spain in 1936.
Spain, 1936 is the political cutting edge, the dividing line, for all kinds of political tendencies, right and left. While we will allow the rightists to stew in their own juices the various positions on the left in the cauldron of revolution graphically illustrate the roadblocks to revolution that allowed fascism, Spanish style, to gain an undeserved military victory and ruin the political perspectives for at least two generations of Spanish militants. The classic anarchist position is to deny the centrality of conquering the state (and the old ruling governmental, social, cultural and economic apparatuses). Somehow it is to be morphed away but who knows what. Yes, that is the theory but on the hard ground of Spain that was not the reality as the main anarchist federation FAI/CNT gave political support to the bourgeois republican government and accepted seats in that government. These same elements went on to play a part in disarming the 1937 Barcelona uprising that could have sparked a new revolutionary outburst on the disheartened workers and peasants. So much for anarchist practice in the clutch. Ms. Goldman spent no little ink defending the actions of her comrades in Spain. Wrong on the Soviet Union and Spain, on the side of the angels on women's issues and the need to fight capitalism. In short, all over the political map when it came to strategy. Yes, Ms. Goldman was, and her defenders today are, political opponents but this writer does not relish the fact.
Sometimes in reviewing a political biography of some capitalist hanger-on such as Bill Clinton it is simply a matter of dismissing a known and deadly political opponent and so heaping scorn up that person is part of the territory. For others, allegedly in the socialist tradition, like the old theoretical leader of the pre-World War I German social democracy Karl Kautsky, who provide reformist rather than revolutionary solutions to the pressing issues of the day that also tends to be true. However, with an enigmatic figure like the anarcho-communist "Red" Emma Goldman it is harder to do the political savaging job that is necessary but distasteful.
Why? Ms. Goldman came out of that tradition of pre-World War I life-style anarchism (made fashionable in the New York Greenwich Village milieu of the time) where her politics, to the extent that political carping is politics, placed her somewhere on the side of the angels. However, the total effect of her career as an anarchist propagandist and sometime agitator shows very little as a contribution to radical history.
Obviously anyone associated with the fiery German anarchist Johann Most is by any measure going to have trouble with the government at some point in their lives. Most was Goldman's lover and first teacher of the principles of “propaganda by the deed” anarchism. For those readers not familiar with that tendency the core of the politics is that exemplary actions, not excluding martyrdom, by individual heroic revolutionaries are supposed to act as the catalyst to move the masses. In short, these are the politics of shoot first and ask questions later. As a tactic within a revolutionary period it may make some sense but as a strategy to put masses in motion, no. Empathically no.
Her own life provides the case for the negative aspects of this theory. At the time of the famous bloody Homestead Steel strike in the 1890's here in America Ms. Goldman's lifelong companion and fellow anarchist of the deed, Alexander Berkman, decided that to enhance the fierce class struggle the assassination of one Henry Frick, no innocent in the strike for the company side, would serve as a symbol in order to intensify the struggle of capital against labor. Needless to say, although Mr. Berkman was successful, in part, in his attempt both Mr. Frick and the Homestead plant were back in business forthwith. For his pains Berkman received a long jail sentence.
The most troubling aspect of Ms. Goldman's career is her relationship to the Bolshevik Revolution. Let us be clear, as readers of this space may be painfully aware, there were problems in that revolution from which, given the course of history in the 20th century, the Soviet Union was never able to recover. However, from Ms. Goldman's descriptions of the problems seen in her short stay in the Soviet Union just after the revolutionary takeover in 1917 one would have to assume that, like most aspects of her life, this was just one more issue to walk away from. She thereafter for the remainder of her life became an opponent of that regime. Some pre-World War I anarchists were able to see the important historic situation with the creation of the Soviet state and were drawn to the Communist International. Others used that flawed experiment as a reason to, in essence, reconcile themselves to the bourgeois order. This is patently Ms. Goldman's case. Nowhere is that position, and that tension, more blatantly spelled out that in Spain in 1936.
Spain, 1936 is the political cutting edge, the dividing line, for all kinds of political tendencies, right and left. While we will allow the rightists to stew in their own juices the various positions on the left in the cauldron of revolution graphically illustrate the roadblocks to revolution that allowed fascism, Spanish style, to gain an undeserved military victory and ruin the political perspectives for at least two generations of Spanish militants. The classic anarchist position is to deny the centrality of conquering the state (and the old ruling governmental, social, cultural and economic apparatuses). Somehow it is to be morphed away but who knows what. Yes, that is the theory but on the hard ground of Spain that was not the reality as the main anarchist federation FAI/CNT gave political support to the bourgeois republican government and accepted seats in that government. These same elements went on to play a part in disarming the 1937 Barcelona uprising that could have sparked a new revolutionary outburst on the disheartened workers and peasants. So much for anarchist practice in the clutch. Ms. Goldman spent no little ink defending the actions of her comrades in Spain. Wrong on the Soviet Union and Spain, on the side of the angels on women's issues and the need to fight capitalism. In short, all over the political map when it came to strategy. Yes, Ms. Goldman was, and her defenders today are, political opponents but this writer does not relish the fact.
Something about “Red” Emma- The Anarchist Emma Goldman-In Lieu Of A Biography-Maybe
Click on the headline to link to a Wikipedia entry for the anarchist Emma Goldman
Sometimes in reviewing a political biography of some capitalist hanger-on such as Bill Clinton it is simply a matter of dismissing a known and deadly political opponent and so heaping scorn up that person is part of the territory. For others, allegedly in the socialist tradition, like the old theoretical leader of the pre-World War I German social democracy Karl Kautsky, who provide reformist rather than revolutionary solutions to the pressing issues of the day that also tends to be true. However, with an enigmatic figure like the anarcho-communist "Red" Emma Goldman it is harder to do the political savaging job that is necessary but distasteful.
Why? Ms. Goldman came out of that tradition of pre-World War I life-style anarchism (made fashionable in the New York Greenwich Village milieu of the time) where her politics, to the extent that political carping is politics, placed her somewhere on the side of the angels. However, the total effect of her career as an anarchist propagandist and sometime agitator shows very little as a contribution to radical history.
Obviously anyone associated with the fiery German anarchist Johann Most is by any measure going to have trouble with the government at some point in their lives. Most was Goldman's lover and first teacher of the principles of “propaganda by the deed” anarchism. For those readers not familiar with that tendency the core of the politics is that exemplary actions, not excluding martyrdom, by individual heroic revolutionaries are supposed to act as the catalyst to move the masses. In short, these are the politics of shoot first and ask questions later. As a tactic within a revolutionary period it may make some sense but as a strategy to put masses in motion, no. Empathically no.
Her own life provides the case for the negative aspects of this theory. At the time of the famous bloody Homestead Steel strike in the 1890's here in America Ms. Goldman's lifelong companion and fellow anarchist of the deed, Alexander Berkman, decided that to enhance the fierce class struggle the assassination of one Henry Frick, no innocent in the strike for the company side, would serve as a symbol in order to intensify the struggle of capital against labor. Needless to say, although Mr. Berkman was successful, in part, in his attempt both Mr. Frick and the Homestead plant were back in business forthwith. For his pains Berkman received a long jail sentence.
The most troubling aspect of Ms. Goldman's career is her relationship to the Bolshevik Revolution. Let us be clear, as readers of this space may be painfully aware, there were problems in that revolution from which, given the course of history in the 20th century, the Soviet Union was never able to recover. However, from Ms. Goldman's descriptions of the problems seen in her short stay in the Soviet Union just after the revolutionary takeover in 1917 one would have to assume that, like most aspects of her life, this was just one more issue to walk away from. She thereafter for the remainder of her life became an opponent of that regime. Some pre-World War I anarchists were able to see the important historic situation with the creation of the Soviet state and were drawn to the Communist International. Others used that flawed experiment as a reason to, in essence, reconcile themselves to the bourgeois order. This is patently Ms. Goldman's case. Nowhere is that position, and that tension, more blatantly spelled out that in Spain in 1936.
Spain, 1936 is the political cutting edge, the dividing line, for all kinds of political tendencies, right and left. While we will allow the rightists to stew in their own juices the various positions on the left in the cauldron of revolution graphically illustrate the roadblocks to revolution that allowed fascism, Spanish style, to gain an undeserved military victory and ruin the political perspectives for at least two generations of Spanish militants. The classic anarchist position is to deny the centrality of conquering the state (and the old ruling governmental, social, cultural and economic apparatuses). Somehow it is to be morphed away but who knows what. Yes, that is the theory but on the hard ground of Spain that was not the reality as the main anarchist federation FAI/CNT gave political support to the bourgeois republican government and accepted seats in that government. These same elements went on to play a part in disarming the 1937 Barcelona uprising that could have sparked a new revolutionary outburst on the disheartened workers and peasants. So much for anarchist practice in the clutch. Ms. Goldman spent no little ink defending the actions of her comrades in Spain. Wrong on the Soviet Union and Spain, on the side of the angels on women's issues and the need to fight capitalism. In short, all over the political map when it came to strategy. Yes, Ms. Goldman was, and her defenders today are, political opponents but this writer does not relish the fact.
Sometimes in reviewing a political biography of some capitalist hanger-on such as Bill Clinton it is simply a matter of dismissing a known and deadly political opponent and so heaping scorn up that person is part of the territory. For others, allegedly in the socialist tradition, like the old theoretical leader of the pre-World War I German social democracy Karl Kautsky, who provide reformist rather than revolutionary solutions to the pressing issues of the day that also tends to be true. However, with an enigmatic figure like the anarcho-communist "Red" Emma Goldman it is harder to do the political savaging job that is necessary but distasteful.
Why? Ms. Goldman came out of that tradition of pre-World War I life-style anarchism (made fashionable in the New York Greenwich Village milieu of the time) where her politics, to the extent that political carping is politics, placed her somewhere on the side of the angels. However, the total effect of her career as an anarchist propagandist and sometime agitator shows very little as a contribution to radical history.
Obviously anyone associated with the fiery German anarchist Johann Most is by any measure going to have trouble with the government at some point in their lives. Most was Goldman's lover and first teacher of the principles of “propaganda by the deed” anarchism. For those readers not familiar with that tendency the core of the politics is that exemplary actions, not excluding martyrdom, by individual heroic revolutionaries are supposed to act as the catalyst to move the masses. In short, these are the politics of shoot first and ask questions later. As a tactic within a revolutionary period it may make some sense but as a strategy to put masses in motion, no. Empathically no.
Her own life provides the case for the negative aspects of this theory. At the time of the famous bloody Homestead Steel strike in the 1890's here in America Ms. Goldman's lifelong companion and fellow anarchist of the deed, Alexander Berkman, decided that to enhance the fierce class struggle the assassination of one Henry Frick, no innocent in the strike for the company side, would serve as a symbol in order to intensify the struggle of capital against labor. Needless to say, although Mr. Berkman was successful, in part, in his attempt both Mr. Frick and the Homestead plant were back in business forthwith. For his pains Berkman received a long jail sentence.
The most troubling aspect of Ms. Goldman's career is her relationship to the Bolshevik Revolution. Let us be clear, as readers of this space may be painfully aware, there were problems in that revolution from which, given the course of history in the 20th century, the Soviet Union was never able to recover. However, from Ms. Goldman's descriptions of the problems seen in her short stay in the Soviet Union just after the revolutionary takeover in 1917 one would have to assume that, like most aspects of her life, this was just one more issue to walk away from. She thereafter for the remainder of her life became an opponent of that regime. Some pre-World War I anarchists were able to see the important historic situation with the creation of the Soviet state and were drawn to the Communist International. Others used that flawed experiment as a reason to, in essence, reconcile themselves to the bourgeois order. This is patently Ms. Goldman's case. Nowhere is that position, and that tension, more blatantly spelled out that in Spain in 1936.
Spain, 1936 is the political cutting edge, the dividing line, for all kinds of political tendencies, right and left. While we will allow the rightists to stew in their own juices the various positions on the left in the cauldron of revolution graphically illustrate the roadblocks to revolution that allowed fascism, Spanish style, to gain an undeserved military victory and ruin the political perspectives for at least two generations of Spanish militants. The classic anarchist position is to deny the centrality of conquering the state (and the old ruling governmental, social, cultural and economic apparatuses). Somehow it is to be morphed away but who knows what. Yes, that is the theory but on the hard ground of Spain that was not the reality as the main anarchist federation FAI/CNT gave political support to the bourgeois republican government and accepted seats in that government. These same elements went on to play a part in disarming the 1937 Barcelona uprising that could have sparked a new revolutionary outburst on the disheartened workers and peasants. So much for anarchist practice in the clutch. Ms. Goldman spent no little ink defending the actions of her comrades in Spain. Wrong on the Soviet Union and Spain, on the side of the angels on women's issues and the need to fight capitalism. In short, all over the political map when it came to strategy. Yes, Ms. Goldman was, and her defenders today are, political opponents but this writer does not relish the fact.
Monday, January 16, 2012
On The 100th Anniversary Of The Great IWW-led Lawrence (Ma) Textile Strike Of 1912-Labor's Untold Story- "The Rebel Girl"- Elizabeth Gurley Flynn
Click on to link to Wikipedia's entry for Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, Joe Hill's "The Rebel Girl", who wound up her career as an abject Stalinist apologist, no question about that. We honor her for her work in the Lawrence strike of 1912 and here work with the International Labor Defense, especially on the Sacco and Vanzetti case. As for the rest, read (and read more than the Wikipedia entry on this one)and decide for yourself. Not everyone who starts out as a young rebel winds up on the side of the "angels"
Every Month Is Labor History Month
This Commentary is part of a series under the following general title: Labor’s Untold Story- Reclaiming Our Labor History In Order To Fight Another Day-And Win!
As a first run through, and in some cases until I can get enough other sources in order to make a decent presentation, I will start with short entries on each topic that I will eventually go into greater detail about. Or, better yet, take my suggested topic and run with it yourself.
Every Month Is Labor History Month
This Commentary is part of a series under the following general title: Labor’s Untold Story- Reclaiming Our Labor History In Order To Fight Another Day-And Win!
As a first run through, and in some cases until I can get enough other sources in order to make a decent presentation, I will start with short entries on each topic that I will eventually go into greater detail about. Or, better yet, take my suggested topic and run with it yourself.
Sunday, October 23, 2011
On Being "Red" Emma- A Book Review On The Life And Times Of Emma Goldman-"EMMA GOLDMAN: Revolution as a Way of Life" By Vivian Gornick
Click on the headline to link to a Boston Sunday Globe, dated October 16, 2011, book review on the early 20th century anarchist, Emma
Goldman.
************
Markin comment:
Below is the re-post of a review that I did earlier in this space on a documentary on Emma Goldman.
******
Thursday, March 20, 2008
"Red" Emma Goldman-The Fate of An Anarchist Woman
DVD REVIEW
MARCH IS WOMEN'S HISTORY MONTH
EMMA GOLDMAN: AN EXCEEDINGLY DANGEROUS WOMAN, PBS, 2004
Fair portions of the comments made in the following review were also made in a review of Emma Goldman's autobiography Living My Life for Women’s History Month in March 2007. This PBS documentary tracks a great deal of the chronology of events and Ms. Goldman’s reflections on her life made in that book. Needless to say, as is almost always the case with PBS documentaries the filming and editing are top notch even if the politics are fuzzy and reek of do-goodism. As always, as well, with theses types of documentaries you get a plethora of 'talking heads' giving their take on the life of this exceedingly interesting and controversial woman, some expressed quite passionately by comparison with other documentary efforts. Read on.
Sometimes in reviewing a political biography or autobiography of some capitalist hanger-on such as George Bush, Tony Blair or Jacques Chirac it is simply a matter of dismissing a known and deadly political opponent and so heaping scorn up that person is part of the territory of being a leftist militant. For others who allegedly stand in the socialist tradition, like the old theoretical leader of the pre-World War I German social democracy Karl Kautsky, who provide reformist rather than revolutionary solutions to the pressing issues of the day that also tends to be true, as well.
However, with an enigmatic figure like the anarcho-communist and modern day feminist heroine "Red" Emma Goldman it is harder to do the political savaging job that is necessary. Why? Ms. Goldman came out of that tradition of pre-World War I life-style anarchism (made fashionable in the Greenwich Village of the time) where her politics, to the extent that political carping is politics, placed her somewhere on this side of the angels. However, the total effect of her career as an anarchist propagandist, sometime agitator and proponent of women’s rights shows very little as a present day contribution to radical history. The Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) experiences (recently reviewed here), by comparison, are filled with lessons for today’s militants.
Obviously someone associated with the fiery German immigrant anarchist Johann Most is by any measure going to have trouble with some government at some point in their lives. Most was Goldman's lover and first teacher of the principles of ' propaganda by the deed' anarchism. For those readers not familiar with that tendency the core of the politics is that exemplary actions, not excluding martyrdom, by individual heroic revolutionaries are supposed to act as the catalyst to move the masses. In short, these are the politics of ‘shoot first and ask questions later’. As a tactic within a revolutionary period it may prove necessary and make some sense but as a strategy to put masses in motion, no empathically, no.
Emma's own life provides the case study for the negative aspects of this theory. At the time of the famous bloody Homestead Steel strike in the 1890's here in America Ms. Goldman's lifelong companion and fellow anarchist of the deed, Alexander Berkman, decided that the assassination of one Henry Frick, bloody symbol of capitalist greed in the strike, would serve in order to intensify the struggle of capital against labor. Needless to say, although Mr. Berkman was successful, in part, in his attempt both Mr. Frick and the Homestead plant were back in business forthwith. For his pains Berkman received a long jail sentence.
The most troubling aspect of Ms. Goldman's career for this writer is her relationship to the Bolshevik Revolution. Let us be clear, as readers of this space know, I have not tried to hide the problems generated by that revolution from which, given the course of history in the 20th century, the Soviet Union was never able to recover. However, from Ms. Goldman's descriptions of the problems seen in her short, very short stay in the Soviet Union just after the revolutionary takeover one would have to assume that, like most aspects of her life, this was just one more issue to walk away from because she personally did not like it. She, moreover, became a life-long opponent of that revolution.
In contrast, some pre-World War I anarchists, particularly from the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW, Wobblies) were able to see the historic importance of the creation of the Soviet state and were drawn to the Communist International. Others, like Emma, used that flawed experiment as a reason to, in essence, reconcile themselves to the bourgeois order. Nowhere is that position, and that tension, more blatantly spelled out that in Spain in 1936.
Spain, 1936 was the political dividing point for all kinds of political tendencies, right and left. While we will allow the rightists to stew in their own juices the various positions on the left in the cauldron of revolution graphically illustrate the roadblocks to revolution that allowed fascism, Spanish style, to gain an undeserved military victory and ruin the political perspectives of at least two generations of Spanish militants. The classic anarchist position, adhered to by Ms. Goldman, is to deny the centrality of conquering and transformation of the capitalist state power (and the old ruling governmental, social, cultural and economic apparatuses). To the anarchist this necessity is somehow to be morphed away by who knows what.
Yes, that is the theory but on the hard ground of Spain that was not the reality as the main anarchist federation FAI/CNT gave political support to the bourgeois republican government and accepted seats in that government. These same elements went on to play a part in disarming the 1937 Barcelona uprising that could have sparked a new revolutionary outburst by the disheartened workers and peasants. So much for anarchist practice in the clutch. Ms. Goldman spent no little ink defending the actions of her comrades in Spain. Wrong on Russia and Spain, on the side of the angels on women's issues and the need to fight capitalism. In short, all over the political map on strategic issues. Still, although Emma was, and her defenders today are, political opponents this writer does not relish that fact. Damn it.
Goldman.
************
Markin comment:
Below is the re-post of a review that I did earlier in this space on a documentary on Emma Goldman.
******
Thursday, March 20, 2008
"Red" Emma Goldman-The Fate of An Anarchist Woman
DVD REVIEW
MARCH IS WOMEN'S HISTORY MONTH
EMMA GOLDMAN: AN EXCEEDINGLY DANGEROUS WOMAN, PBS, 2004
Fair portions of the comments made in the following review were also made in a review of Emma Goldman's autobiography Living My Life for Women’s History Month in March 2007. This PBS documentary tracks a great deal of the chronology of events and Ms. Goldman’s reflections on her life made in that book. Needless to say, as is almost always the case with PBS documentaries the filming and editing are top notch even if the politics are fuzzy and reek of do-goodism. As always, as well, with theses types of documentaries you get a plethora of 'talking heads' giving their take on the life of this exceedingly interesting and controversial woman, some expressed quite passionately by comparison with other documentary efforts. Read on.
Sometimes in reviewing a political biography or autobiography of some capitalist hanger-on such as George Bush, Tony Blair or Jacques Chirac it is simply a matter of dismissing a known and deadly political opponent and so heaping scorn up that person is part of the territory of being a leftist militant. For others who allegedly stand in the socialist tradition, like the old theoretical leader of the pre-World War I German social democracy Karl Kautsky, who provide reformist rather than revolutionary solutions to the pressing issues of the day that also tends to be true, as well.
However, with an enigmatic figure like the anarcho-communist and modern day feminist heroine "Red" Emma Goldman it is harder to do the political savaging job that is necessary. Why? Ms. Goldman came out of that tradition of pre-World War I life-style anarchism (made fashionable in the Greenwich Village of the time) where her politics, to the extent that political carping is politics, placed her somewhere on this side of the angels. However, the total effect of her career as an anarchist propagandist, sometime agitator and proponent of women’s rights shows very little as a present day contribution to radical history. The Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) experiences (recently reviewed here), by comparison, are filled with lessons for today’s militants.
Obviously someone associated with the fiery German immigrant anarchist Johann Most is by any measure going to have trouble with some government at some point in their lives. Most was Goldman's lover and first teacher of the principles of ' propaganda by the deed' anarchism. For those readers not familiar with that tendency the core of the politics is that exemplary actions, not excluding martyrdom, by individual heroic revolutionaries are supposed to act as the catalyst to move the masses. In short, these are the politics of ‘shoot first and ask questions later’. As a tactic within a revolutionary period it may prove necessary and make some sense but as a strategy to put masses in motion, no empathically, no.
Emma's own life provides the case study for the negative aspects of this theory. At the time of the famous bloody Homestead Steel strike in the 1890's here in America Ms. Goldman's lifelong companion and fellow anarchist of the deed, Alexander Berkman, decided that the assassination of one Henry Frick, bloody symbol of capitalist greed in the strike, would serve in order to intensify the struggle of capital against labor. Needless to say, although Mr. Berkman was successful, in part, in his attempt both Mr. Frick and the Homestead plant were back in business forthwith. For his pains Berkman received a long jail sentence.
The most troubling aspect of Ms. Goldman's career for this writer is her relationship to the Bolshevik Revolution. Let us be clear, as readers of this space know, I have not tried to hide the problems generated by that revolution from which, given the course of history in the 20th century, the Soviet Union was never able to recover. However, from Ms. Goldman's descriptions of the problems seen in her short, very short stay in the Soviet Union just after the revolutionary takeover one would have to assume that, like most aspects of her life, this was just one more issue to walk away from because she personally did not like it. She, moreover, became a life-long opponent of that revolution.
In contrast, some pre-World War I anarchists, particularly from the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW, Wobblies) were able to see the historic importance of the creation of the Soviet state and were drawn to the Communist International. Others, like Emma, used that flawed experiment as a reason to, in essence, reconcile themselves to the bourgeois order. Nowhere is that position, and that tension, more blatantly spelled out that in Spain in 1936.
Spain, 1936 was the political dividing point for all kinds of political tendencies, right and left. While we will allow the rightists to stew in their own juices the various positions on the left in the cauldron of revolution graphically illustrate the roadblocks to revolution that allowed fascism, Spanish style, to gain an undeserved military victory and ruin the political perspectives of at least two generations of Spanish militants. The classic anarchist position, adhered to by Ms. Goldman, is to deny the centrality of conquering and transformation of the capitalist state power (and the old ruling governmental, social, cultural and economic apparatuses). To the anarchist this necessity is somehow to be morphed away by who knows what.
Yes, that is the theory but on the hard ground of Spain that was not the reality as the main anarchist federation FAI/CNT gave political support to the bourgeois republican government and accepted seats in that government. These same elements went on to play a part in disarming the 1937 Barcelona uprising that could have sparked a new revolutionary outburst by the disheartened workers and peasants. So much for anarchist practice in the clutch. Ms. Goldman spent no little ink defending the actions of her comrades in Spain. Wrong on Russia and Spain, on the side of the angels on women's issues and the need to fight capitalism. In short, all over the political map on strategic issues. Still, although Emma was, and her defenders today are, political opponents this writer does not relish that fact. Damn it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)