Fantastic Anarchist's Journal
Member since: Wed Aug 3, 2011, 02:43 PM
Number of posts: 6,987
Number of posts: 6,987
I consider myself a mutualist, but also identify as a collectivist. Proudhon and Bakunin\'s ideas are not that far apart in terms of setting up a workers\' democracy. Mutualism appeals to me because it still retains a free-market (read: free-market socialism where the producers own the means of production and via free association can market their products based on Labor Theory of Value). I\'m also appealed by the syndicalism and collectivism because everyone shares in the responsibility for society in which everyone is free from want. As a matter of fact, I\'m also attracted to anarchist-communism, because I\'m very impressed with Prince Kropotkin, too, because regardless of the various currents, the end result would be a classless, stateless society. I read his Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution (available free online), and his conclusions were that societies that foster cooperation tend to produce cooperative individuals (individuals and society are nothing without each other). Those societies that foster competition tend to produce competitive individuals (where competition is stressed as important). His final conclusions were that societies (animals and humans) that were more cooperative (either interspecies or intraspecies) tended to be more successful than societies that were more competitive (his theories building upon Darwin). You could call me a hodge-podge really, or like Voltairine de Cleyre, an anarchist without adjectives. But then again, I also admire the individualists (who still considered themselves as socialists) like Benjamin Tucker and Josiah Warren. The above is a copy/paste of my OWN words.
If you do not question authority, then you are not free, even if you are free to question authority.
Just a thought I had while watching a documentary on North Korea.
I doubt this will get many views, so mainly made to put in my journal, which I continue to forget to do.
Posted by Fantastic Anarchist | Sat Mar 18, 2017, 10:59 PM (0 replies)
The theoretical idea of communism is a beautiful thing. I understand your rejection to calling Putin a communist, because he most certainly is not (except his fondness for Bolshevik-style authoritarianism). In the USSR's case, neither was Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, or anyone that followed. The October Revolution was almost dead on arrival when the Bolsheviks gerry-mannered the Soviets, and suppressed those Soviets that couldn't be co-opted by the party. Lenin, in his reactionary zeal, proclaimed, "All power to the Soviets!" ...while he was undermining or outright destroying them. He put down workers' rebellions, trade unionists, syndicalists, anarchists, socialists (even the equally reactionary Left SRs (Socialist Revolutionaries), the Right SRs, the Left Opposition, Council Communists - anyone that got in the way of Bolshevik power. Lenin, the Marxist, wasn't even following Marx, who had his flaws about the theory of revolution (proving the anarchist, Bakunin, correct some fifty years earlier during the First International)! Even Marx amended his views somewhat on the use of the State and Vanguard Party to foment a revolution, when he saw the events that transpired with the Paris and Lyon Communes - an organic workers uprising that took over the factories and proved an anarchist revolution and society was possible without having used the machinations of the State, or some elite Vanguard to take the lead. It was a successful revolutionary communist society governed by and for the workers/people.
Sadly, even though the beginning stages showed great promise with workers overthrowing their bosses, establishing communes, socialists, communists overthrowing the government and the bourgeoisie, the nascent revolution was destroyed by the Bolsheviks and their allies. Bolshevism did more to destroy communism than the White Armies, and eventually the West ever could have.
I do get your point, nonetheless.
*I use the term Bolshevism because until then the term communism was an umbrella term that captured most of the left-wing labor movement; the Marxists, anarchists, trade unionists, etc. Marx, having borrowed heavily from the scientific-socialism work by the anarchist, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (System of Economic Contradictions), formulated his own scientific socialism with his work, The Communist Manifesto. The term was not his, however. The Bolsheviks, seizing a propaganda victory, employed the use to their "Revolution" and Party, which now is forever tied with the abomination that was the Soviet Union, no matter how potentially historically positive for the international labor movement (and its associated liberty movements) the initial Revolution was. Oh, what could have been.
We, at least, have an important historical lesson to learn from.
**My post may seem irrelevant and overly polemical in favor of anarchist philosophy, but the opening thread asks why we can't have a more cooperative society, and I believe that one day, a society built on anarchist principles would be a just and cooperative type of society.
Posted by Fantastic Anarchist | Sat Mar 18, 2017, 07:47 PM (1 replies)
Edit: Please note that my response doesn't deal with the original question; only to a response to the question dealing with the (false) premise that the two political sides operate on the same foundation in reality.
The Original Question:
Is the US becoming fascist under Trump?
I'll provide my response first, and the post replied to, second.
It’s impossible to not be biased when offering a political opinion, so with due respect, please indulge me as I try to remain impartial.
I’m having difficulty accepting your premise, which seems to indicate that both sides exists as absolutes, and more importantly, that both sides are on equal footing when it comes to objective facts and reality.
First, there may be a great political divide in this country - I do not contest that, however, the divide may not be as clear as you imply. I think it may be pretty hard to discern as you approach the middle of the continuum. However, that being said, empirically, it appears that the Left side of the continuum seems to accept facts and reality more than the Right side. It seems to me, again through observation, that the Right seems to have an aversion to events and information. Whether or not the Left has acceptable or agreeable policies and solutions to the objective facts they are dealing with is not the issue here (of course, I believe they do, but it is immaterial to this conversation). It is my opinion, from observation, that the Right tends more towards deception, or outright denial of the facts and information provided. Sometimes, they will invent facts out of thin air. They seem to not care about the objective universe around them, because it doesn’t fit with their ideology or policy prescriptions. They are more comfortable, when an issue is at odds with their views, just simply to dismiss them and offer “alternative facts,” which of course, to any reasonable and objective person, is an oxymoron. The term “alternative facts” is self-contradictory. You can not have a fact and alternative fact. That may exists in Quantum Theory, but it does not exist as a phenomenon in the macro world.
It just doesn’t appear to me that the Right is more accepting of a science-based ideology. The more that they have to justify their policies and actions by deception, or even just inventing things out of whole-cloth (the Bowling Green Massacre that never existed is a great example), the more they appear to be dogmatic. I’m not saying that the Left is incapable of being dogmatic, but I think the Right is definitely susceptible to it simply because their foundation exists on deception and alternative facts.
It is simply amazing to me that when discussing the political divide in this country, that it’s automatically assumed, even axiomatic, that the two sides’ political and social foundations are on equal footing in terms of reality. By observation, that is just not true. The Left, at least policy-wise, tends to conform to the objective information given to them. The Right tends to stick with ideology when it comes to policy and decision making, which may or may not align with the facts given to them. They’re not interested in modifying their policies to align with the objective reality around them, but are ready to modify reality to conform to their policy, which is rigidly tied to their overall ideology.
If we’re going to find solutions to the problems this country faces, and if we are going to progress in a world filled with nations who are more grounded in science-based solutions, then we are going to have to deal with the elephant in the room. The Right is not interested in progress or solutions. It’s raison d'être is simply to gain power and maintain power for an exclusive group of people, science and empirical facts be damned. The Religious Right, the far-right (white supremacists), and the rural working class (all three categories can overlap), will not get what they paid for, unless they fall within that aforementioned exclusive group. Any policies that happen to be enacted that are agreeable to them, is not by design, but simply an unintentional byproduct of the overall agenda to gain and maintain power.
I have tried to provide as impartial a response as I could - believe me, I could have been far less kind regarding my opinion of the Right, but the degree of my opinion is not pertinent to my argument.
Response Replied To:
Trump is in power because of a great and growing division in America, a symptom at best of something far more ominous—a deepening social/political war in US society.
What has emerged, is what political writers have termed the great “digital-divide.” Nowadays every citizen has full access to media tools like Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram, and can potentially communicate for free, to anyone else on the planet.
But with no echo, your views are lost.
The Internet now drowns-out the voice of anyone who either lacks celebrity already, or who expresses mixed views on one or several powerful political and social issues.
To stay afloat, individuals , and even news outlets, must stick to specific agendas that mirror and affirm the social/political beliefs of their core base of “friends,” or viewers.
No longer is it profitable to give genuine time to opposing viewpoints on climate-change, LBGQT rights, women’s health, immigration, terrorism, international trade or any other political hot potatos.
The most popular news sources now have the most opinionated news, ie., eg. FOX and Breitbart, vs CNN and The New York Times.
What would happen:
to Bill O’Reilly’s ratings, were he, in his “talking points,” to “point” out the baseless fear-mongering among those who rail against open borders?
to Anderson Cooper’s ratings were he to give an exclusive interview to conservative pundit Milo Yiannopolous?
Like bad electronic feedback loops in a poorly tuned radio oscillator circuit, only a few powerful “signal” patterns emerge in this otherwise noisy overpopulated system.
For America, it’s the…
Progressives who hate Trump, the “wild-card” president.
Conservatives who consider Trump to be the “law & order” president.
This is not a partisan rant, so please do not respond in support of your “side.”
Instead try this little Twitter experiment done by a friend of mine:
Make two separate profiles on Twitter.
On one, tweet “what an A-hole President Trump is.”
On the second, tweet “how great President Trump is.”
Your starting feeds will be very different, but don’t stop there…
For each profile, click every suggested “follow” profile that comes up.
The two feeds you get will start to eerily resemble descriptions of life on two separate planets from different galaxies.
Each feed will have tweets that link to “solid news.”
Go to the those linked news and “information” websites from each feed, but
FIRST start with the Twitter profile you created that annoys you the most. Scan over some of the links. Notice how you feel.
THEN scan the links to views from the Twitter profile that has views you prefer. How does your feeling change? Perhaps a sigh of relief like you’re happy that there ARE some rational people in this world?
Fascist leaders seize power from hate and demonization of one or another political, social or religious group. This is a very vulnerable time for the United States.
The Real Digital Divide Afflicting American Politics - BillMoyers.com
The Internet and Social Media Are Increasingly Divisive and Undermining of Democracy
US election 2016: Divided nation split into 'alien tribes' - BBC News
Posted by Fantastic Anarchist | Sun Feb 5, 2017, 12:42 AM (6 replies)
From RTP, North Carolina:
I was let go from my last job which was pretty challenging. It was a Portfolio Analyst, and I admit, I was sort of learning on the fly, but I was working hard and didn't really receive any negative feedback so I thought everything was going well. Then one day, my boss set up a meeting with me title "Catch up" because he had been out for a week prior. It was Friday morning. I get on the call, say, "Good Morning, _____.
He was short and to the point. FA, we're going to let you go. The decision is final. You're just not keeping up. Then he passed me over to the HR lady who is also on the phone. Now, this guy always said that he was a "Type A" personality, but to me, I considered that pretty cowardly. I don't have a college education. I've always been able to get a job, though.
I'm circling the drain. I've been applying for jobs online, but haven't taken care of myself at all. It's a challenge to get out of bed to shower, brush my teeth, and eat. I've lost about 40 lbs. I keep ruminating that I'm a failure. My fiance and I have had to move into her mother's house. Oh, by the way, my measly $350 a week unemployment payment was "exhausted" about 2 weeks ago. Meanwhile, I'm missing payments on credit cards, one month behind on my car payment. I had great credit, and now it's in shambles. I'm scared. I'm terrified. I have day long panic attacks and I'm paralyzed with fear. I think I've broken down. I used to be outgoing, gregarious, always cracking a joke. Now, I'm scared of my shadow.
Anyway, last year I left my job of 8 years, which was a great job, the best job I've ever had, for another job that was paying $15K more a year. It was for an Operations Analyst position, when all I was doing prior was export data from Lotus Notes or Oracle BI, or a few other platforms. I would slice and parse the data and create nice dashboards. Fairly easy work. It was an international company, a clinical research organization. People from other departments, from other regions knew my name. A lot of times, people would ask me for help with Excel, and some other things, but primarily Excel. I had great friends at the company, and my life couldn't have been better.
When I left, I stayed at the second place for 3 months. It was for an Operations Analyst. Now, I don't know if it was them or me, but one example that should illustrate my point in terms of not communicating was the fact that my boss sent me three spreadsheets and left extremely vague instructions - not even an end goal of what she was trying to achieve. She said something to the effect that, "You're the analyst, you should know." Well, that kind of destroyed my confidence. I've always had an issue with the fact that I didn't graduate from college, so I always feel that I'll be found out as "incompetent" (I don't lie on my application, this is strictly from an intelligence perspective). So, I froze. I went back to my desk and stared at my screens trying to figure out what I needed to do. Nothing made sense on these three spreadsheets. Then I realized that the headers on one of them were formatted as currency when they were really supposed to be dates!!! So the top line was read like: $3456 $4786 $1275 and so on and so forth, when they were really supposed to be 1/16 2/16 3/16. Ok, so problem one found out, but still - I wonder what the hell else is formatted incorrectly. Inheriting dirty spreadsheets is a real pain, especially if whoever created it didn't know what they were doing. Okay, the main point isn't these three spreadsheets. Just serves as a lack of communication point. But by then, my confidence was just shot. I drove an hour to get there and an hour to get back. They were inflexible about the hours (I wanted to come in early so I could leave early and avoid traffic). No, couldn't do that. Finally, I just stopped going to work, and calling in sick. They fired me after 6 months.
I found a job about 3 weeks later for another CRO, the one with the Type A personality for a boss. I and another person were hired on the same day. The guy hired with me was a financial guru. So, thinking went like this, he would let me know what he wanted (he didn't know a lick of Excel), and I would create some really nice dynamic dashboards. Now, it could be due to my incompetence or not, but sometimes _____ would say one thing and they say something completely different when we were on a three-way call. My boss, we'll call Steve would talk, and talk, and talk, and talk. My counterpart, we'll call Andy, would pretty much remain silent. Some of the business terms, though, I didn't know, and if asked on the spot without the benefit of Google was a challenge. Fortunately, that only happened once or twice. But long story short, I got the distinct impression that Andy would come to a conclusion, give what he wants, I'd come up with a nice extravagant looking dashboard, then our boss, Steve, would mumble through the thing, sometimes I'd try to explain, but he would just shut me down, mumble, then asked me a question that I just provided when he shut me down. Anyway, Andy was his favorite. So, I had hiccups, some may have been my fault or not. Really impossible to tell since Andy constantly waffled on stuff. But, I never thought I'd be fired.
So, filed for UI. Took about three weeks. $350/week. Finally exhausted that.
The second job after my wonderful 8 year one, I worked six months. My third job, I worked three months. So, this is what I'm doing: I'm telling recruiters and potential employers (I removed second job and made third job look like it started right after 8 year job and I'm "currently" working) that I'm currently working that way I can ask that they don't call my current employer. I then say I have a list of references from wonderful 8 year gig, so I'm covered on that. So basically, my resume and my verbal goes worked at 8 year job until Sept of last year. Then immediately in Sept, I'm working at third job Sept to current(but listed as second, because real second was totally removed). Totally used so they don't contact them for a reference.
Now, I have been trouble finding a job. I'm terrified. I've never felt like this before. Day long panic attacks that paralyze me. Not taking care of myself like showering and stuff. I feel like I'm circling the drain. I'm weak and lack energy.
I need to know if things are going to get better. I feel like the me from just a year ago was a totally different person. Laughing, popular, gregarious, CONFIDENT, the whole nine. Now I don't even leave the house unless I absolutely have to. Yesterday, I finally showered and went to a watering hole I used to frequent. Ordered a Ginger Ale. I'm so depressed that I can't even drink! Wow. Anyway, people were happy to see me, but said I looked rally thin ... yes, about six months ago, I weighed 195ish lbs (at 6 feet tall). I now struggle to keep up to 150 lbs. My fiance and I don't really have set times for dinner so ...sometimes I'm so weak to even make something myself.
I need to know that everything is okay.
If you need more information or clarification, please let me know.
I need help.
Edit: Sorry about grammar and formatting, but went for speed rather than quality. Usually strive for both, though.
Posted by Fantastic Anarchist | Fri Sep 23, 2016, 10:35 AM (9 replies)
Posted by Fantastic Anarchist | Wed Oct 30, 2013, 07:18 AM (85 replies)
I'm still trying to find my online book regarding the last statement of the Haymarket Martyrs that seems to have mysteriously disappeared, but I thought this was interesting, so I thought I'd post:
Link to sample (available online for $9.99)
Wobblies and Zapatistas offers the reader an encounter between two generations and two traditions. Andrej Grubacic is an anarchist from the Balkans. Staughton Lynd is a lifelong pacifist, influenced by Marxism. They meet in dialogue in an effort to bring together the anarchist and Marxist traditions, to discuss the writing of history by those who make it, and to remind us of the idea that "my country is the world." Encompassing a Left libertarian perspective and an emphatically activist standpoint, these conversations are meant to be read in the clubs and affinity groups of the new Movement.
The authors accompany us on a journey through modern revolutions, direct actions, anti-globalist counter summits, Freedom Schools, Zapatista cooperatives, Haymarket and Petrograd, Hanoi and Belgrade, "intentional" communities, wildcat strikes, early Protestant communities, Native American democratic practices, the Workers' Solidarity Club of Youngstown, occupied factories, self-organized councils and soviets, the lives of forgotten revolutionaries, Quaker meetings, antiwar movements, and prison rebellions. Neglected and forgotten moments of interracial self-activity are brought to light. The book invites the attention of readers who believe that a better world, on the other side of capitalism and state bureaucracy, may indeed be possible.
Posted by Fantastic Anarchist | Thu May 23, 2013, 05:09 PM (0 replies)
I was reading the Last Words of the Haymarket Anarchists on my playbook, however, I got up to read where I left off, and it has disappeared. I tried to look for it online and couldn't find it. I did find this, so I thought I'd post it.
The Project Gutenberg EBook of Labor's Martyrs, by Vito Marcantonio
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or
re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
with this eBook or online at http://www.gutenberg.net
Title: Labor's Martyrs
Author: Vito Marcantonio
Release Date: February 9, 2004
Character set encoding: ASCII
*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK LABOR'S MARTYRS ***
Sacco and Vanzetti
By Vito Marcantonio
Introduction by Wm. Z. Foster
By William Z. Foster
On November 11, 1937, it is just fifty years since Albert R. Parsons,
August Spies, Adolph Fischer, George Engel and Louis Lingg, leaders of the
great eight-hour day national strike of 1886, were executed in Chicago on
the framed-up charge of having organized the Haymarket bomb explosion that
caused the death of a number of policemen. These early martyrs to labor's
cause were legally lynched because of their loyal and intelligent struggle
for and with the working class. Their murder was encompassed by the same
capitalist forces which, in our day, we have seen sacrifice Tom Mooney,
Sacco and Vanzetti, the Scottsboro boys, McNamara, and a host of other
champions of the oppressed.
Parsons and his comrades were revolutionary trade unionists, they were
Anarcho-Syndicalists rather than Anarchists. In the early 'eighties, when
they developed their great mass following, the mass of the workers were
just learning to organize to resist the fierce exploitation of a ruthless
capitalism. The great eight-hour strike movement led by the "Chicago
Anarchists" gave an enormous impulse to trade union organization
everywhere and it was for this that the employing interests had them
hanged. When, for example, the older Chicago unions nowadays go out on
parade on Labor Day, banner after banner bears the historic dale of 1886.
Indeed, the A. F. of L. was practically established nationally at that
time. Although the A. F. of L. had been founded in 1881, it never got a
real hold among the masses until the big strike movement of 1886, which
established the unions in man pew trades and industries and brought about
the reorganization and renaming of the A. F. of L.
In many respects 1937 bears a kinship to 1886. Once again labor is making
a vast surge forward, but on a much higher political level. In 1886, and
the years following, the best that the working class could do in the way
of organization was to produce the craft union movement, which,
notwithstanding all its failings, was an advance in liveability at least,
over the amorphous and confused Knights of Labor. But now, the working
class, grown stronger, more experienced and more ideologically developed,
has given birth to the C.I.O. movement, with its industrial unionism,
trade union democracy, organized political action and generally advanced
conception of the workers' struggle. The militant trade union movement of
today, heading towards a broad People's Front, is the direct lineal
descendant of the great strike movement of the 1886 Chicago martyrs.
Not only has labor matured very much in the fifty years that have passed
since 1886, but so also has the capitalist system that gives it birth. In
1886 American capitalism was young, strong and growing. It had before it a
long period of unparalleled expansion, during which the workers became
afflicted with many illusions about the possibilities of prosperity under
capitalism. Now, however, American capitalism, like the world capitalist
system of which it is a part, has exhausted its constructive role of
building the industries. It is now obsolete and gradually sinking into
decay. Industrial crises follow each other with increasing severity and
the masses are becoming more and more pauperized. The growth of fascism
and war is the attempt of this outworn capitalist system to keep in
existence although history has imperatively summoned it to leave the stage
and to make way for the next order, socialism.
The modern working class, although it has not learned all the needed
lessons of the situation in which it finds itself, is nevertheless rapidly
becoming free from capitalist illusions and is reorganizing itself
accordingly, industrially and politically. Of this renaissance, the C.I.O.
is the greatest mass expression.
The Haymarket martyrs were bold pioneer fighters for socialism and they
paid with their lives for their devotion and clear-sightedness. Although
they sleep all these years in Waldheim Cemetery, their work was not in
vain and they are not forgotten. In keeping green the memories of these
proletarian heroes, the International Labor Defense, the Communist Party
and other progressive and revolutionary organizations are preserving one
of the most glorious of all American revolutionary traditions. The lives
of Parsons, Fischer, Engel, Spies and Lingg, and Sacco and Vanzetti, must
be made more than ever the inspiration of the proletarian youth. We must
indeed realize in life the noble last words of Spies, spoken as he stood
on the gallows with the hangman's noose around his neck:
_"There will come a time when our silence will be more powerful than
the voices you are strangling today."_
By Vito Marcantonio
President, International Labor Defense
_"These are my ideas. They constitute a part of myself. I cannot divest
myself of them, nor would I if I could. And if you think that one can
crush out these ideas that are gaining ground more and more every day;
if you think you can crush them out by sending us to the gallows; if you
would once more have people suffer the penalty of death because they
have dared to tell the truth--and I defy you to show that we have told a
lie--if death is the penalty for proclaiming the truth, then I will
proudly and defiantly pay the costly price."_--(August Spies, just
before he was sentenced to death on October 9, 1886.)
The man who spoke these words had no illusions. He knew that the court he
was facing was a hostile court, an enemy court, a court determined to
stamp out all that he stood for and believed in. He knew, also, that the
truth of which he spoke was much bigger than the little man who sat in a
black gown waiting for him to finish so that he could pronounce the brutal
words that would mean his death on the gallows. He knew that the movement
he represented was bigger than the forces which were trying to crush it
and that it would survive.
Survive it did--to become one of the most powerful factors on the American
scene today, one of the most vital factors in the extension and
preservation of democracy and the rights for which he laid down his life.
And why should we venerate the memory of this man and the other victims of
the Haymarket tragedy? Not simply because they were brave men. Not simply
because they had the courage of their convictions and did not weaken in
the face of death. But because their fight is still going on today,
strengthened by their magnificent pioneer work, because of the foundation
they helped lay for the American labor movement of the present day.
Back in 1886, that movement was still almost in its infancy. Noble
attempts to build it had been made in the days of our Revolutionary
forefathers. But all they did was to lay the groundwork, to drive in the
first piles on which the rest of the structure could be built. The man of
the early 'eighties of the last century began the actual construction.
One of the main issues around which they rallied the working people of
this country was the fight for the eight-hour day. Albert Parsons, only 36
when he was executed, had spent more than ten years actively organizing
American workers. He was a printer, a member of the powerful International
Typographical Union which even in those days had over 60,000 members. He
was a member of the Knights of Labor, the first great trade union center in
American history. He was one of the outstanding spokesmen of the
eight-hour day. An able orator, he toured the United States, soap-boxing,
lecturing and recruiting supporters for the movement.
By his side was August Spies, a German worker from the metal trades
industry, who carried the fight to the Central Trades Body of Chicago to
which he was a delegate. Around them were many others: Adolph Fischer,
George Engel who came to America as so many of our immigrant forefathers
did because he believed "_he would live a free man, in a free country_."
Oscar Neebe, Samuel Fielden, Michael Schwab and young Louis Lingg, only
twenty-three at the time of his death.
Their efforts bore fruit. The movement for the eight-hour day gained
momentum. Union after union discussed the problem and went on record in
favor of fighting for it, until finally the slogan became: General Strike
for the eight-hour day. The date set was May 1, 1886, a day that has now
become the international fighting holiday of labor.
In Chicago, the May Day strike was a great success. Those who remember it
and took part in it tell us that thousands of workers filled the streets.
Some paraded, others gave out handbills, others went in committees from
factory to factory calling the workers out on strike. Despite all the
efforts of a hostile press to whip up hatred for the workers, to alienate
the middle class, to spread the fear of disorder and raise the bogey of
revolution (much as Mayor Shields of Johnstown so unsuccessfully tried to
do when he attempted to introduce the menace of vigilantism into
Johnstown, Pa., during the recent steel-strike with his black helmeted
monkeys), the day passed in absolute peace.
One Chicago daily, the _Mail_, actually carried an editorial addressed
directly to Parsons and Spies. It called them every vile name that the
censorship would pass and stated that any disorder which might occur
should be laid at their door.
In many industries the workers decided to stay out on strike after May 1.
One of these was the McCormick Reaper Plant in Chicago. On May 3, August
Spies was invited by the strike committee to address the pickets at the
factory gate. Just as he finished speaking, the police charged down upon
the assembled workmen with clubs and guns. First reports had it that six
were killed outright and scores wounded. Chicago papers were quick to
point out that _only_ two had lost their lives!
Spies rushed back to the office of the German radical paper, the
_Arbeiter-Zeitung_, of which he was the editor. Hastily he wrote up a
leaflet denouncing the police attack, calling for revenge "_if you are the
sons of your grandsires who have shed their blood to free you_." It ended
with a dramatic call to arms, which Spies upon re-reading ordered stricken
out. The typesetter left it in and at the Haymarket trial which followed
it provided the prosecution with some of its most valuable ammunition in
firing the hatred of the jury.
That same evening a committee of trade unionists decided to hold a protest
meeting in the Haymarket Square in Chicago, on the night of May 4. Several
thousands people attended. Spies opened the meeting and stated its
purpose: to discuss the question of the eight-hour day and to protest the
police shootings at the McCormick plant. Parsons, who had just returned to
the city from a speaking tour was hurriedly sent for and rushed over with
his wife, Lucy Parsons, and their two children, to lend a hand.
The speakers stood on an empty wagon for a platform and addressed the
crowd for about two hours. Reporters covering the meeting, instructed to
take down only the "most inflammatory" remarks made, testified from the
witness stand at the subsequent trial as to the mildness of the speeches.
In the audience was the mayor of Chicago, Carter Harrison, who was quickly
satisfied by its peaceful nature and went in person to Police Captain
Bonfield with instructions to call off police reserves and send his men
home. They would not be needed.
Just as the last speaker, Samuel Fielden, was saying, "_In
conclusion----_," a good part of the crowd had been driven home by rain
which began falling when he started his speech--a squad of armed police
descended upon the Haymarket Square. Mumbling orders for the crowd to
disperse, they fell upon the assembled men and women with clubs and guns.
At that moment, someone--to this day unknown--threw a bomb into the midst
of the meeting, killing one policeman outright and wounding scores of
These are the facts of the Haymarket meeting and the events which lead up
to it. What the press made of it was the prelude to one of the rawest
frame-up trials in American history.
All the leading radicals in the city were rounded up and arrested. Many
more were indicted in their absence and heavy rewards were posted for
their capture. Among these was Albert Parsons, who had left before the end
of the meeting, and had fled to a safe hiding place when the man-hunt
began. The newspapers from coast to coast, our worthy _New York Times_ not
excepted, howled for their blood, raved about an Anarchist plot to blow up
Chicago, seize the government, murder, arson, pillage, rape--the whole
program which William Randolph Hearst has made only too familiar to the
On June 21, 1886, the trial began. Eight men were singled out as
victims--August Spies, Albert Parsons, George Engel, Adolph Fischer, Louis
Lingg, Samuel Fielden, Michael Schwab and Oscar Neebe. Efforts to postpone
it until the hysteria had died down failed. The men who came forward to
defend the Haymarket victims were conservative lawyers headed by one,
Captain Black. Convinced of their innocence and enraged by the efforts to
railroad them to the gallows, they did their best to provide adequate
defense. But they had illusions about the justice available in the
American courts. They planned, for instance, to have Parsons walk into the
courtroom and surrender himself, asking for a fair trial! This they were
sure would make a "good impression" on the judge and jury!
The judge, Judge Gary, gave one of the most shameful performances that
this country has ever seen, and it has seen plenty from its judges. He
helped choose the jury---to make sure it would convict. He questioned men
who stated they had already formed an opinion about the case, had definite
prejudices against Anarchists, Socialists and all radicals, were not
certain they could render an impartial verdict--and ruled that they were
not disqualified! He said from the bench that "_Anarchists, Socialists and
Communists were as pernicious and unjustifiable as horse thieves_," and,
finally, in charging the jury, that even though the state had not proved
that any of the eight men on trial had actually thrown the bomb, they were
nevertheless guilty of a conspiracy to commit murder.
The bigoted speeches of the prosecutor Grinnell, and his aides, are
equalled only by the speeches of the prosecution in the Mooney case, the
Herndon case, the Scottsboro case. In other words, they established a fine
precedent for all anti-labor prosecutions to follow.
The trial lasted 63 days. The jury was out only three hours. That's all
the time they needed to examine the mountain of evidence presented in
those months. It is true that most of it was perjured, framed-up evidence
prepared by the prosecution, wild-eyed stories of the men leaping from the
wagon which was really a barricade, flaming pistols aimed at the police,
etc. The rest was quotations from their writings and speeches made years
before the Haymarket meeting was ever dreamed of. The verdict was a
foregone conclusion: death for all but Oscar Neebe and for him 15 years in
The judge thanked the jury from the bench and announced that there were
carriages outside the door waiting to take them home. The press of the
entire nation congratulated Chicago upon having such upright and
courageous citizens to serve on juries. Chicago papers collected a purse
of $100,000 to divide among them as a reward for work well done.
The case was appealed to the Illinois State Supreme Court which, on March
18, 1887, found no errors on which it could reverse the verdict. This
despite affidavits proving that the jury was chosen from a carefully
selected panel of enemies of the men by the bailiff and the judge and many
other flagrant violations of civil rights, too many to enumerate.
And then came the appeal to the United States Supreme Court. Old as they
are, none of the present incumbents were then sitting on the bench. But
their worthy forerunners were equally reactionary. They found no
constitutional grounds for reversal! Of course not, even though the right
of free speech and assembly had been trampled underfoot at the Haymarket
Square, the right to a fair trial made into a cruel farce.
On November 11, 1887, Albert Parsons, August Spies, Adolph Fischer and
George Engel were led out to the gallows. At the last moment, yielding to
the terrific pressure of protest which had been developed by the defense
in the last months, and a great wave of general sympathy with the men
throughout the country, Governor Oglesby commuted the sentences of Fielden
and Schwab to life imprisonment. Two days before the execution--when the
defense committee had mobilized a great movement in Chicago--tables for
signing petitions to the governor had been set up in the city streets, the
able police of Chicago, worthy ancestors of those police who murdered
eleven steel strikers at the Republic plant on Memorial Day, 1937,
suddenly discovered a bunch of "bombs" in the jail where the men were
held. On the next day they announced that Louis Lingg had committed
suicide by blowing his own head off with a small bomb!
Hitler used the Reichstag fire. Chicago used "bombs."
The men died bravely, like the heroes that they were. Spies' last words
spoken on the gallows were prophetic: "_The day will come when our
silence will be more powerful than the voices you are throttling today_."
He was right, righter than he knew. That silence is making itself heard in
the auto factories of Michigan, in the steel mills of Pennsylvania and
Ohio, on the docks, in the mines, in textile factories. The eight-hour day
is a reality. The defense of the rights of labor is a reality. The great
movement for industrial unionism and democracy which they dreamed of is a
reality--in the C.I.O.
They did not die in vain. Taught by the lessons of the Haymarket tragedy,
such an organization as the International Labor Defense has been built by
the workers and progressive people of America, to stand guard and prevent
such legal murders today. Tom Mooney is still alive, J. B. McNamara and
Warren Billings; Angelo Herndon is free, four Scottsboro boys are
free--though all were threatened by the same fate as the victims of the
Haymarket martyrs. Reaction still takes a heavy toll of victims, but it
must reckon with the might of organized, united mass defense represented
and organized by the I.L.D. For example, the Nine Old Men who have made
the United States Supreme Court the stronghold of reaction with the same
callousness as their predecessors, arrogantly refused to review the appeal
in the case of Haywood Patterson, one of the innocent Scottsboro boys. But
the fight goes on, until all the remaining five are free.
We are dedicated to the cause--their cause--of freedom and democracy, to
the struggle for justice and defense of the rights and liberties of the
* * * * *
There are two other labor martyrs who must be honored at the same time as
the Haymarket heroes. The tenth anniversary of their death coincides with
the fiftieth anniversary of the former in this year of 1937.
Again let us listen to the words of one who faced his doom:
"_I am suffering because I am a radical, and indeed I am a radical; I
have suffered because I was an Italian, and indeed I am an Italian; I
have suffered more for my family and for my beloved than for myself; but
I am so convinced to be right that you could execute me two times, and
if I could be reborn two other times I would live again to do what I
have done already_." (Bartolomeo Vanzetti, just before he was sentenced
to death on April 10, 1927.)
To me those words are particularly poignant. For I am an Italian, and
proud to be of the same people that produced such a great spirit as
Vanzetti, the descendant of Garibaldi, the forerunner of those heroic
anti-fascist brothers who are today fighting Fascism and Mussolini in
Italy and in Spain.
Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti were poor Italian workers. Both came
to this country like all our countrymen in search of peace and work and
plenty. Both found only hard work and hard knocks. Sacco was a
shoe-worker. Vanzetti had followed many trades after his arrival here in
the summer of 1908. He worked in mines, mills, factories. Finally he
landed in a cordage plant in Plymouth, Massachusetts. That was the last
factory job he held. For here, as in all the others, he talked union and
organization, and organized a successful strike. After that, he was
blacklisted for good and had to make a living peddling fish to his Italian
neighbors in the little town known as the cradle of liberty.
During the years 1919 and 1920 two phenomena made their appearance in the
state of Massachusetts. One was national, the other local. The first was
Mitchell Palmer's red delirium which caused him to hunt radicals with the
same zeal but much more frenzy than the old Massachusetts witch hunters in
every corner of the land. The second was a wave of payroll robberies
obviously executed by a skilled and experienced gang of bandits.
In April, 1920, both these currents crossed the paths of Sacco and
Vanzetti. Their friend Andrea Salsedo was arrested by Palmer's "heroes,"
tortured, held incommunicado for 11 weeks and thrown from the eleventh
story of the Department of Justice office in New York City to his death.
This happened on May 4, 1920. Early in April the Slater and Merrill Shoe
Factory paymaster was murdered in Bridgewater, Massachusetts, and some
$15,000 carried off. On May 5, Sacco and Vanzetti were arrested in South
Braintree, Massachusetts, and held on suspicion of being the guilty
bandits. After he nabbed them, Chief of Police Stewart discovered, with
the aid of Department of Justice agents, that he had two dangerous
radicals marked for "_watching_" in Department files in Washington.
What happened after that, though it lasted seven long and torturous years,
is fairly familiar to the American people. It ended ten years ago in the
electric chair at Charlestown Jail in Massachusetts. The finest minds in
the world, the greatest masses of workers and their friends, made their
protest known to the American government, through its embassies, before
its government buildings, in the streets and roadways of America.
But Judge Webster Thayer, who bragged, "_Did you see what I did to those
anarchistic bastards_," disregarded all the evidence proving their
innocence, poisoned the minds of the already hatred-ridden jury against
them, with speeches about the soldier boys in France, the flag,
"consciousness of guilt," the perfidy of "foreigners." The witnesses for
the defense proved the innocence of Sacco and Vanzetti beyond the shadow
of a doubt. Italian housewives told of buying eels from Vanzetti on the
day of both crimes with which he was charged (another payroll robbery
committed on Christmas eve, 1919, was thrown in for good measure against
him, to secure that conviction first and bring him to trial for murder as
a convicted payroll robber). Sacco had an official from the Italian
Consulate in Boston to testify for him. He had been in Boston on the day
of the Bridgewater crime enquiring about a passport to Italy for himself,
his wife and child. The official couldn't forget him, because instead of a
passport photo he brought a big framed portrait of his whole family with
Ballistic testimony from an expert who was a state witness was brought to
show that the fatal bullet was not Sacco's, but to no avail. New trials
were denied. The State Supreme Court upheld the murder verdict. The
governor upheld it. He appointed a special commission of professors headed
by President Lowell of Harvard, and they upheld it. Four justices of the
United States Supreme Court were contacted for a stay of execution. All
On August 22, 1927, Sacco and Vanzetti were legally murdered by the State
of Massachusetts. The tragedy of their untimely and cruel death is still
an open wound in the hearts of many of us who remember them as shining
spirits, as truly great men such as only the lowly of the earth can
We of the International Labor Defense call upon all the progressive
people in America today to help us honor their memories by helping us
fight the reaction, the bigotry, which brought about their death, by
helping us defend and protect the victims of the present and the future.
During the fifty years that have passed since 1887 the toll of victims has
grown. But though the road is red with the blood of these martyrs, the
triumphant march of labor towards progress and democracy has not been
halted. The example of steadfastness which they have set up before us has
strengthened us in our determination to carry on the fight in which they
lost their lives. On this anniversary, we give our pledge. It shall be
done. Reaction, fascism and the terror which it brings in its path shall
Posted by Fantastic Anarchist | Thu May 23, 2013, 08:31 AM (0 replies)
Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn were two Left Libertarians that heavily influenced me. They both stressed critical thinking (even to question their authority). Take nothing at face value. Go and examine, discover. I started learning about anarchist philosophy about 7 years ago. It was in no small measure because of these two.
Why Noam Chomsky Is the Subject of Relentless Attacks by Corporate Media and Establishment 'Intellectuals'
Greenwald: "no living political writer who has more radically changed how more people think in more parts of the world about political issues than he."
March 23, 2013
One very common tactic for enforcing political orthodoxies is to malign the character, "style" and even mental health of those who challenge them. The most extreme version of this was an old Soviet favorite: to declare political dissidents mentally ill and put them in hospitals. In the US, those who take even the tiniest steps outside of political convention are instantly decreed "crazy", as happened to the 2002 anti-war version of Howard Dean and the current iteration of Ron Paul (in most cases, what is actually "crazy" are the political orthodoxiesthis tactic seeks to shield from challenge).
This method is applied with particular aggression to those who engage in any meaningful dissent against the society's most powerful factions and their institutions. Nixon White House officials sought to steal the files from Daniel Ellsberg's psychoanalyst's office precisely because they knew they could best discredit his disclosures with irrelevant attacks on his psyche. Identically, the New York Times and partisan Obama supporters have led the way in depicting both Bradley Manning and Julian Assange as mentally unstable outcasts with serious personality deficiencies. The lesson is clear: only someone plagued by mental afflictions would take such extreme steps to subvert the power of the US government.
A subtler version of this technique is to attack the so-called "style" of the critic as a means of impugning, really avoiding, the substance of the critique. Although Paul Krugman is comfortably within mainstream political thought as a loyal Democrat and a New York Times columnist, his relentless attacks against the austerity mindset is threatening to many. As a result, he is barraged with endless, substance-free complaints about his "tone": he is too abrasive, he does not treat opponents with respect, he demonizes those who disagree with him, etc. The complaints are usually devoid of specifics to prevent meaningful refutation: one typical example: " often cloaks his claims in professional authority, overstates them, omits arguments that undermine his case, and is a bit of a bully"). All of that enables the substance of the critique to be avoided in lieu of alleged personality flaws.
Nobody has been subjected to these vapid discrediting techniques more than Noam Chomsky. The book on which I'm currently working explores how establishment media systems restrict the range of acceptable debate in US political discourse, and I'm using Chomsky's treatment by (and ultimate exclusion from) establishment US media outlets as a window for understanding how that works. As a result, I've read a huge quantity of media discussions about Chomsky over the past year. And what is so striking is that virtually every mainstream profile or discussion of him at some point inevitably recites the same set of personality and stylistic attacks designed to malign his advocacy without having to do the work to engage the substance of his claims. Notably, these attacks come most frequently and viciously from establishment liberal venues, such as when the American Prospect's 2005 foreign policy issue compared him to Dick Cheney on its cover (a cover he had framed and now proudly hangs on his office wall).
Last week, Chomsky was in London to give the annual Edward W. Said lecture, and as always happens when he speaks, the large auditorium was filled to the brim, having sold out shortly after it was announced. The Guardian's Aida Edemariam interviewed him in London and produced an article, published Saturday morning, that features virtually all of those standard stylistic and personality critiques:
"When he starts speaking, it is in a monotone that makes no particular rhetorical claim on the audience's attention; in fact, it's almost soporific . . . . Within five minutes many of the hallmarks of Chomsky's political writing, and speaking, are displayed: his anger, his extraordinary range of reference and experience . . . . . Fact upon fact upon fact, but also a withering, sweeping sarcasm – the atrocities are 'tolerated politely by Europe as usual'. Harsh, vivid phrases – the 'hideously charred corpses of murdered infants'; bodies 'writhing in agony' – unspool until they become almost a form of punctuation.
Read more at AlterNet.
Posted by Fantastic Anarchist | Tue Mar 26, 2013, 07:15 PM (49 replies)
Important message about voting near the end. I was like this, but decided it was time to get off my ass.
Part Two can be seen here:
Posted by Fantastic Anarchist | Wed Mar 13, 2013, 07:51 AM (2 replies)
Jewish Voice for Peace: Israeli soldiers shoot to kill with "Made in the U.S.A." tear gas canisters.
Photo by Israeli activist Haim Schwarczenberg.
Israeli soldiers shoot to kill with "Made in the U.S.A." tear gas canisters.
Ask Congress to investigate.
Dear <Fantastic Anarchist>,
I could barely believe the photo. On December 9, an Israeli peace activist with a camera caught the exact moment an Israeli soldier pointed his weapon out of the back of a truck and shot a young Palestinian man in the face. The man’s name was Mustafa Tamimi and he was hit at close range by a tear gas canister. He died later of severe brain injuries.
Chances are that tear gas canister was made in the United States, which is why I want you to contact Congress now and ask for an investigation into the deadly misuse of tear gas by the Israeli army.
Tamimi was inside his own village, Nabi Saleh, at the time of the shooting, protesting the theft of its land by settlers.
Tear gas canisters like the one that killed Tamimi have already permanently injured or killed many more unarmed protesters trying to protect Palestinian land.
Most of these canisters are made in the United States by Wyoming-based Defense Technology and Pennsylvania-based Combined Systems Inc. (CSI).
We've seen these same tear gas canisters being used against unarmed pro-democracy protesters in Arab Spring protests from Cairo to Bahrain. Shamefully, they are also being used in the United States, where Occupy-Oakland activist Scott Olsen suffered a critical brain injury after being shot just blocks from where I’m sitting now.
The U.S. Arms Export Control Act (Public Law 90-829) limits the use of U.S. weapons given or sold to a foreign country to “internal security” and “legitimate self-defense” and prevents their use against civilians. And yet civilians are being targeted and killed. Congress must ask why.
Only yesterday Congress released a new condition, as part of the the foreign operations portion of the spending bill, asking the State Department to submit a report "detailing any crowd control items, including tear gas, made available with appropriated funds or through export licenses to foreign security forces that the Secretary of State has credible information have repeatedly used excessive force to repress peaceful, lawful, and organized dissent (1)."
This is a good and important first step. Yet while the concern in Washington is about the terrible misuse of U.S.-made tear gas in countries such as Egypt and Bahrain, we need to remind Congress that similar abuses in Palestine cannot be ignored.
On January 1, 2011, Jawaher Abu Rahmah died after she was choked by tear gas at a protest in Bil’in (2). Her brother Bassem Abu Rahmah was killed when he was shot by an Israeli soldier directly in the chest with a tear gas canister in April 2009 (3). In March 2009, an Israel soldier shot Tristan Anderson, an American citizen, in the head with a tear gas canister during a demonstration in Ni'ilin, leaving him partially paralyzed with permanent cognitive impairment (4). Also severely injured was Bil'in resident Khamis Abu Rahmah, who suffered a fractured skull and brain hemorrhage (5). Another U.S. citizen, 21-year-old Emily Henochowicz, lost her left eye when an Israeli soldier fired a tear gas canister directly at her, striking her in the face during a West Bank protest in May 2010 (6).
Not even children are safe. In September, 2010 an 18-month-old child died at a hospital after being choked by tear gas in East Jerusalem (7).
These tear gas canisters are lethal. Congress must order the State Department to investigate right away, before another person gets killed.
No more gas. No more tears.
Sydney Levy, Director of Advocacy
Jewish Voice for Peace
(1) Huffington Post, December 15, 2011: "Congress Pushes State Department Over Misused American Tear Gas In Spending Bill"
(2) Popular Struggle, January, 1st, 2011: "Israeli forces kill female protester in Bil'in"
(3) Popular Struggle, April 17, 2009: "Demonstrator Shot Dead During Bil'in Demonstration"
(4) Democracy Now! , November 16, 2010: "First Interview Since Critical Injury at West Bank Protest"
(5) Electronic Intifada, November 27, 2009: Interview: "Bilin activist continues to struggle despite injury"
(6) Democracy Now! , August 5, 2010: "Emily Henochowicz Speaks Out"
(7) +972 Magazine, September 24, 2010: "Baby dies of tear gas inhalation on third day of unrest in E. J’lem"
Source links in original link here:
Posted by Fantastic Anarchist | Tue Dec 20, 2011, 11:07 AM (2 replies)
Go to Page: 1