Anarchist Personalities I: Alexander Berkman

“The People! My Greek mythology moods have often pictured him to me as the mighty Atlas, supporting on his shoulders the weight of the world, his back bent, his face the mirror of unutterable misery, in his eye the look of hopeless anguish, the dim, pitiful appeal for help.”

From Prison Memoirs of an Anarchist by Alexander Berkman

This blog mainly exists as a forum to consider different aspects of anarchism, to question its philosophies and the real world consequences or benefits of a large group of people living without the aid of government, class or any ruling bodies. I may be staunchly anti-government and anti-capitalism but that doesn’t mean I don’t try to discern whether these personal opinions are morally good and feasible in the real world. I don’t desire simply to express my opinion nor do I expect others to agree on every aspect but hope they will question and argue many of my comments.

That being said I am also a lover of history; I respect what the past has to teach us about the present and future so it makes perfect sense to me not only to use this as a forum of thought but also to include short biographical vignettes of historical figures that have had a great impact on the development of anarchism. This is the first in a series that will develop gradually called “Anarchist Personalities,” and since I am a moderate in anarchistic ideas, believing them to be true but questioning whether I am correct in that assumption or not, I thought it would be appropriate to begin with a personality quite the opposite, Alexander Berkman. Berkman had no qualms about his beliefs and as an anarchist he could be classified as an extremist, which is easy enough to see in the story of his life.

Instead of briefly going over the facts of his entire life in one 1,000 word or so post I thought it would serve the purpose of illuminating the type of man and anarchist Berkman was through one event in his life. It is impossible to appropriately detail even the dullest of lives in less than a few hundred pages at least, and Berkman certainly didn’t live a dull life by any standard.

In late June and early July of 1892 the iron and steel workers at Homestead Pennsylvania went on strike. At the time the chairman of Carnegie Steel, the company that owned the Homestead Steel Works, was Henry Clay Frick, a no-nonsense manager who already had a long history as a strike buster and had no intention of negotiating with the strikers. The workers were locked out, the steel works fortified, scabs smuggled in and the Pinkertons, a detective agency of the day that would hire out men to protect the interest of companies like Carnegie’s, were called in. When the Pinkertons arrived by boat a battle ensued between the strikers and the Pinkertons which cost lives on both sides. No one is sure who shot first, but the Pinkertons were eventually driven back by the overwhelming number of the strikers. The victory was short lived, however, as the national guard soon came in to ‘restore order’ and though many of the workers eventually returned to work their demands were not met and the union was a broken relic.

This is relevant backstory to one of the most famous events in Berkman’s life. The Battle of Homestead garnered much infamy and the number of innocent civilians that were killed was greatly exaggerated, by the time the news of the battle reached Berkman supposedly many women and children were murdered in cold blood by the Pinkertons and the strikers won a righteous battle. This was mostly a fairytale, but it didn’t matter much to Berkman.

In his book Prison Memoirs Of An Anarchist, Berkman describes the news of the Homestead strike and battle as something magical. Here was the turning point, thought Berkman, a sign that the proletariat, as he referred to ‘the people’ in his memoir, was ready to throw off the shackles and yoke of the capitalist giants and their governmental backers. Berkman formulated an insidious plan.

He left Worcester, Massachusetts where he was living with another famous anarchist, Emma Goldman, and headed for Homestead by train. Apparently he stopped by Frick’s office on 5th Avenue prior to the 23rd of July, introducing himself to Frick as one Simon Bachman, and was dismissed by Frick. He returned in the early afternoon of that July day, a couple days after his first visit, brushed past the astonished receptionist and entered Frick’s office again where the man was speaking with John Leishman, the vice-president of Carnegie Steel.

There are conflicting results of what followed, but both agree on one important detail; Berkman drew a revolver and attempted to assassinate Frick. In a biography commissioned by Frick, Henry Clay Frick: The Man, Berkman managed to shoot Frick twice in the neck, then pulled a dagger on him before Frick attacked Berkman himself, gained the upper hand and with the help of two assistants subdued Berkman in a chair. Ingeniously Frick seemed to possess some kind of premonition and forced Berkman’s jaw open where Berkman allegedly concealed an explosive capsule that would have blown the hell out of them all.

Berkman’s account differed in many of these details, especially in the extraordinary heroism of Frick. In his memoirs Berkman describes the event as over in a flash. His first shot hits Frick but he is unsure of where and if he is dead or not. It soon became apparent that Frick was still very much alive as he yelled out “Murder!” and Berkman was struck from behind by an employee after the gun misfired and he struggled with a Leishman. There is no mention of an explosives are hand-to-hand combat with Frick himself who apparently hid behind his desk.

Whichever account is true (if either) isn’t as important as Berkman’s basic actions. In his memoirs he made no secret of his ideal anarchist, a selfless man willing to do anything for ‘the people’ at a moment’s notice, even if that meant sacrificing oneself…or committing murder against an enemy of freedom. He was even somewhat disgusted by the hero of What Is to Be Done?
a popular novel among radicals like Vladimir Lenin and the anarchists, because the character showed too much hesitation and unwillingness to upset his own life for the revolution.

I won’t dive into the complex and controversial question of whether Berkman’s actions were justified or not. Some will say yes, others no. Personally I vouch for pacifism; more was accomplished by Martin Luther King Jr. in his non-violent marches than any bombing attack by revolutionaries. But one has to admire Berkman for his dedication and willingness to act. Berkman lived a life of extreme commitment. He suffered atrocious treatment in prison which his memoirs will expose, faced deportation from the United States for his anarchist views and many other tragedies in his life but never wavered in his beliefs. These are the facets of Berkman’s personality that are praiseworthy, even if his violent actions as a young radical are not.

Should Anarchists Vote?

“[…] the truth is that government is so massive and so complex that it is almost impossible for any individual to make a huge difference. It’s like being the captain of an enormous ocean liner. It is going to keep on going no matter who is at the wheel.”

-From Meet You in Hell by Les Standiford (attributed to an unknown modern president)

For any readers of this blog out there, welcome back. The holidays are a hectic time for many of us in this overly commercialized society of advertisements and consumerism, a.k.a., the United States, and my so-called ‘day job’ requires an added dose of dedication (which I do not possess but fake quite ably) which leaves me drained for some time afterwards. But Anarchy and Aphorisms has returned with regular updates once again each Sunday, until next December at least.

This first new post of this new year is focused on one simple question which is and will become increasingly relevant this year: should those of us that consider ourselves anarchists and anti-government still be involved in the election process? Like many simple questions this does not possess an equally simple answer, and inevitably the answer arrived at here will not be agreed to by some. But the relevance of it in our currently government run semi-democratic society makes it a particularly pressing and important question as it potentially affects the lives of any American citizen or those living in a country where legal, somewhat non-corrupt, elections take place.

Before we move to the ultimate answer/opinion let us take a quick look at the presidential candidates the United States is dealing with this year. At the moment the Republicans are still in the process of nomination with three hopefuls taking up most of the limelight: Romney, Gingrich and Santorum. Ron Paul is also out there making his best effort…but we all know that his chance of winning the Republican nomination is somewhere between none and none.

Whichever one of these three gentlemen actually wins the nomination is essentially irrelevant. While the Republicans can be kindred spirits in their belief in smaller federal government, this slight similarity to the anarchist doctrine is overshadowed by intention and the quagmire of uber-conservative nonsense that is spurted from these, and every Republican candidate, this year. Their preference in smaller federal government isn’t because they want American citizens to have more freedom (with the exception of Paul) but stems entirely from a desire for deregulation of the free market. The problem with free market in the American tradition is that with it government is a necessity or otherwise the enormous gap in wealth and the level of financial irresponsibility in the private sector would run rampant and probably collapse our already fragile economy. Without regulations we are facing something catastrophic. As long as there is free market in the sense we have now true anarchism cannot exist. But this is not a post intended to linger on free market concepts, that is for another time.

While Romney, Gingrich and Santorum are lost in debates about abortion, gay-marriage, contraception, their religious beliefs, integrity and mostly other unnecessary topics and Obama is stuck in a deadlock with a bickering do-nothing congress it really seems like whoever wins the eventual race this November won’t make a lick of difference one way or another. And it probably won’t.

Despite this the fact is, as the reader will be well aware of, we do not currently live in an anarchistic society. Holding fast to your political philosophies and belief in personal freedoms is important and speaking freely and openly about these beliefs to help get the word out (even if all of us anarchists don’t agree on every detail) is equally important. But as long as we live in a society where elections are vital to how the established government functions it serves no purpose to stand on the sidelines.

Just like it would be if we lived in a world where anarchism was the way of life it is essential to be involved. While there is no shame, and plenty of reason to do so, in not attending elections as a form of protest against a government that seems to do much more harm than good it is also obvious that taking a part in trying to better this fractured system is commendable. As long as this system is in place, with no sign of disappearing in the near future, taking a stand and being involved is the best the average man or woman can hope to do in changing that system. This may come only in the form of choosing the lesser of two evils since, again let’s face it, many an election has two unappealing and often worthless candidates to choose from. It may not seem like it but your vote does count under the right circumstances. If enough of the usually non-voting, likeminded people of this country would actually hit the polls it might be enough to help initiate some change, however small.

Until the day might come when our society is ready to shed the restraints of government and realize that it is nothing more than a superfluous device of oppression, anarchists should not be afraid or feel hypocritical about taking action in our political system by choosing candidates more endearing to their opinions for office. A vote will ultimately be more effective than a Molotov cocktail, a much overused a cliché symbol of anarchists which is far away from what most of us stand for. Whatever your opinion is stay true to your convictions.

The New American Revolution: Occupy Wall Street

“In a society based on exploitation and servitude human nature is degraded.”

-Peter Kropotkin

Finding truth in media is like finding honesty in politics – it is there in small doses, but it’s hard to define and filter out from the subjective white noise droning through the airwaves and cluttering up popular publications. Searching for information on Occupy Wall Street, what it is and what it stands for, brings in results as varied as the protesters themselves. TIME magazine says one thing, radio pundits another, T.V. coverage finds a different angle (depending on the channel, and the channel’s corporate owner) and the internet is like a myopic game of bobbing for apples.

The information can be confusing and conflicting. Our poll-manic media has already released a number of surveys to establish how popular the movement is with Americans: the TIME/Abt SRBI poll claims 54% of Americans have a favorable view of the protesters, supposedly from a ‘random’ group of 1,001 people. Another survey found 59% are favorable, while the Wall Street Journal’s survey has only a 37% approval rate (no surprise there). Obviously each organization has its own opinion and the so-called ‘random’ groups being surveyed are probably randomly selected from subscribers of the publication, so a liberal leaning magazine like TIME will have more favorable results and the more conservative Wall Street Journal less so. Such polls are essentially pointless, as are most claims and ‘facts’ perpetuated by corporate media, no matter where their sympathies lie.

Trying to pin down an amorphous movement like Occupy Wall Street and present it in a specific light will serve only to make the matter more confusing. The protests are not about any single objective or idea, the best way to describe it is as the anger of the people at the vast inequality of this county come to a head.

The protestors have resisted forming a list of demands or any specific idea as a primary objective; they want it to remain open. It is a noble practice, preventing any small group involved in the protests from taking charge and speaking their opinions in the guise of the entire crowd’s opinions. It is a waiting game to see what impact, if any, will eventually come from the protests. That is one of the problems of the lack of specific demands, because the movement is more emotional than cognitive, what will the government do in response? Increase taxation on the wealthy? It seems unlikely that congress will pass any legislation to this effect. Another commonly heard protest associated with O.W.S. is that corporations, and the wealthy, have too much power is Washington. If that is true, appealing to Washington to end this practice is futile.

Anarchists were among the first to show up on Wall Street on 17 September. There are a few members of O.W.S. that say the President has become irrelevant, it is likely that the anarchists are the preachers of this doctrine. The depth and complexity of the bureaucracy that truly controls the U.S. government does appear to limit presidential power; the people, and not any branch or member of government, are the only ones with any true power to change the establishment. The only sure victory is if O.W.S. continues indefinitely and continues to grow.

The universal goal of anarchism is complete individual liberty. With corporate power growing (Mitt Romney is now referring to corporations as “people”), what limited liberty we currently enjoy, thanks to the founding fathers forethought in drafting a Bill of Rights, is under threat. The movement still growing on the streets could be the first step towards breaking the chains that government and an unrestrained free market forge to keep the populous in check. One of the definable objectives that all the occupiers share is that the wrong groups have too much power over this country, and that these groups have taken control of the American government with their bottomless well of money.

Occupy Wall Street has proven that the people are well aware of what is happening to this country, and that powerful minorities are halting the natural growth of society to their own advantage. The people are not as ignorant as these minorities like to fool themselves into believing. The people are not blind to these facts, and they are becoming very tired of it, and very angry.

While the government is bogged down in disputes and partisan bickering, and the President views O.W.S. as little more than a way to gain support and win another election, the people involved, walking the streets, not only in New York City, but in Oakland, Detroit, Bloomington, Hong Kong, Tokyo and other cities in the U.S. and around the world, are the ones working for change.

Technorati: 6VT6TAKFVDNU