In the spring of 1917 a gang of anarchists decided to rob the bank in a small mining town about 5 miles south of downtown Pittsburgh. Five of the six or seven anarchists were killed in the ensuing gunfight with the local citizenry. One or two of the anarchists did get away with cash and it was suspected that they had fled to Russia to join the Russian revolution. Since I grew up in this neighborhood, when I was a kid I knew a few of the old timers who had participated in the gunfight with the anarchists. These men were either union men or pro-union and friends of Phil Murray and John Lewis.
Growing up I also knew fellows of Russian/Polish descent and Italian descent whose grandfathers or great grandfathers had been influenced by anarchists. Some of the scrapes their grandfathers had gotten into weren't very pretty and caused their mainstream union brothers big trouble.
So, all in all the anarchist movement in the past has done nothing, but, play into the hands of the Chicago school's analysis of the American labor movement. The caricature of the foreign born and foreign influenced bomb thrower.
Max and I have been around in the past on this whole question of how you figure these reactionary libertine/libertarian/anarchist types too. Like the Cato and Heritage Institutes.
Tom
Chuck0 wrote:
> Michael Yates wrote:
> >
> > In light of recent discussions of the anarchists in Seattle, the
> > following remarks of Hal Draper from his pamphlet, "The Two Souls of
> > Socialism," might be of interest:
> >
> > "...Anarchism is not concerned with the creation of democratic control
> > from below, but only with the destruction of "authority" over the
> > individual, including the authority of the most extremely democratic
> > regulation of society that it is possible to imagine. This has been
> > made clear by authoritative anarchist expositors time and time again;
> > for example, by George Woodcock: "even were democracy possible, the
> > anarchist would not support it...Anarchists do not advocate political
> > freedom. What they advocate is freedom from politics..." Anarchism is
> > on principle fiercely anti-democratic, since an ideally democratic
> > authority is still authority. But since, rejecting democracy, it has no
> > other way of resolving the inevitable disagreements and differences
> > among the inhabitants of Theleme [reference to Rabelais], its unlimited
> > freedom for each uncontrolled individual is indistinguishable from
> > unlimited despotism by such an individual, both in theory and in
> > practice. The great problem of our age is the achievement of democratic
> > control from below over the vast powers of modern social authority.
> > Anarchism, which is freest of all with verbiage about something from
> > below, rejects this goal. It is the other side of the coin of
> > bureaucratic despotism, with all its values turned inside out, not the
> > cure or the alternative."
>
> Oh, OK, so now it's time to drag out the anti-anarchist Marxist writers.
>
> Do I sense some jealousy here? Am I correct in assuming that the
> authoritarian "international socialists" were caught flat-footed by the
> Battle in Seattle? Maybe if they spent less time selling their crappy
> newspapers and joined some community groups involved in direct action,
> they'd be more in touch with the spirit that led to N30.
>
> I'm already seeing a huge increase in people joining my anarchist
> organizing lists. The events that transpired last week obviously
> inspired lots of people. Activist groups should be prepred to see an
> increase in new faces.
>
> --
> Chuck0
> http://flag.blackened.net/chuck0/home/
>
> Dr. Laura is scared of this sig file
> +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
> Mid-Atlantic Infoshop
> http://www.infoshop.org/
>
> Spunk Library
> http://www.spunk.org/
> "All the anarchy you'll ever need, organized neatly
> and with reassuring authority."
> -- 1998 Rough Guide to the Internet
>
> FREE MUMIA ABU-JAMAL AND LEONARD PELTIER!
> +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=