#WORLD #WORLDWIDE #INFORMATION #ANARCHISM #LIBRARY #News #Journal #Update - (en) anarkismo.net: The Schism in US Anarchism By Argyris Argyriadis (ca, de, it, pt, tr)[machine translation]

 American Anarcho-Individualism of the period up to the mid-1890s is pacifist,

moral and philosophical but "saloon", expressing the local particularities of the
developing world of the declining Wild West but not the new industrial dream into
which the USA was transmuting. ---- An initial attempt to explain and analyze
American Anarchism was attempted in my introduction to the Sofita editions book
for Voltaire De Clair "Why I am an Anarchist", continued with the translation of
the "Pittsburgh Manifesto", but I found that there were gaps to be filled . In
this third part an attempt is made to trace the chronology of the split within
the US Anarchist movement in order to make clearer the causes that led to it
during a turbulent period when Anarchism in the US was a significant political
movement.

Understanding the Schism Between Individualist and Communist Anarchism in the USA

Preface

Anyone who regularly reads my writings on Anarchism will notice that I often
refer to Historically Major Anarchism (HMA), to distinguish it from other
interesting but Minor trends. I believe that Anarcho-Communism and
Anarcho-syndicalism belong to Historical Major Anarchism, but not
Anarcho-Individualism.

American Anarcho-Individualism of the period up to the mid-1890s is pacifist,
moral and philosophical but "saloon", expressing the local particularities of the
developing world of the declining Wild West but not the new industrial dream into
which the USA was transmuting.

An initial attempt to explain and analyze American Anarchism was attempted in my
introduction to the Sofita editions book for Voltaire De Clair "Why I am an
Anarchist", continued with the translation of the "Pittsburgh Manifesto", but I
found that there were gaps to be filled . In this third part an attempt is made
to trace the chronology of the split within the US Anarchist movement in order to
make clearer the causes that led to it during a turbulent period when Anarchism
in the US was a significant political movement.

Introduction

The image of an anarchist throwing a bomb is undoubtedly a cultural caricature,
as with many caricatures there is often some truth behind the depiction. Some
forms of anarchism-specifically, some trends that developed in the 19th century
in the communist anarchism that emerged in Russia and Germany-had embraced
violence as a political strategy. Other forms of anarchism, however-such as the
Christian anarchism of Leo Tolstoy and the indigenous trend of early
individualist anarchism in the United States-resolutely rejected the use of
violence for political ends. Indeed, one of the charges leveled against early
individualist anarchism was that its ideology was too pacifist and its
communities would be defenseless against attack.

In the late 18th century, however, the peaceful image of anarchism in Europe
changed drastically. In the decades leading up to the Russian Revolution, several
anarchist groups and individuals (mostly individualists) repeatedly committed
acts of violent and almost random violence as a strategy to overthrow capitalism.
These acts, called "deed propaganda", were directed at people belonging to the
capitalist class and included bombing numerous crowded restaurants, assuming that
only capitalists could afford to eat there.

With the immigration flows from Europe, this violence exploded in America as
well. On May 4, 1886, labor demonstrators and police clashed in the streets of
Chicago during a strike event whose organizers included communist anarchists. The
event, known in history as the Haymarket affair, left dead on both sides.
Although the eight anarchists who were arrested and later tried were proven
innocent, the Haymarket case cemented the inextricable link between anarchism and
violence in the minds of the American public. Anarchists became the enemies of
society and culture. During the Haymarket hearing, the prosecutor stated: "The
law is on trial. Anarchy is on trial. These men have been chosen ... because they
are leaders ...

The radical community reacted with fury. The Haymarket case was the cause of a
deep schism that occurred in the US between the individualists and the communist
anarchists with whom they had previously initially aligned themselves, but it was
actually the final culmination of a series of events. This schism was rooted in
ideology and, specifically, the question of whether violence could be used as a
political option.

Freedom and violence as a choice

If one judges the facts, one will find that, from the front page of the first
issue of the Liberty newspaper on August 6, 1881, Tucker initially defended both
violence as a strategy and the people who used it for political purposes. The
central column of the issue was dominated by text with a beautiful description of
the Russian nihilist Sophie Perovskaya - the "heroine martyr of freedom" - who
was announced to have been "hanged on April 15, 1881 for helping by her deeds to
rid the world of a tyrant ( Tsar Alexander II)". Here is a memorial article by
Joaquin Miller.

Three issues later, Tucker went on to praise the Russian Nihilists for their
violent resistance to tyranny "... which the Nihilists alone are willing to root
out and bury from the face of the earth forever." However, on the same page, an
article by Tucker titled "Liberty's Weapons," begins, "Our methods are the
methods of peace. "Eleftheria" (newspaper) is not the supporter of violent
action... ".

Realizing, however, that such a shocking contradiction of his newspaper articles
might confuse his readers or lead them to accuse him of inconsistency, Tucker
expressed what he imagined their reaction would be by writing "And yet Liberty
finds words of defense in approving the tyrants who secretly plan these vengeful
solutions. Why; Because "Eleftheria" (newspaper) is forced to choose between a
class that kills and oppresses and another that tries to liberate itself". Adding
to the confusion, Freedom reacted differently than it did to similar attacks in
Europe when something similar happens in the US. For example, when President
Garfield was assassinated by Charles Guiteau in 1881, Tucker stated: "As to the
act committed by Guiteau, all reasonable men agree that it is reprehensible.
Tucker's critique of the American assassin Guiteau occurred two issues after the
idealization of the Russian Sofia Perovskaya. Some 24 issues later, Tucker
expressed his joy at the death of the French politician Gambetta, thereby
eliminating the possibility that he had changed his attitude toward violence as a
political strategy in the short time between his praise of Perovskaya and his
repudiation of Guiteau.

The explanation for this seeming inconsistency in the paper's and his own
attitude lies in Tucker's view of violence as a strategy of last resort that
could only be justified when freedom of speech and freedom of the press had been
destroyed, as it had been in Russia of Perovskaya. But as long as the radicals in
America could speak and publish, they could educate the public to the "Anarchist
Idea" and inspire rebellion, without actions like Guiteau's.

Although Tucker was acutely aware of the limitations on free speech and freedom
of the press in the United States, he insisted that newspapers "if they are not
allowed to say what they want, they are able to say what is absolutely necessary
to say about to ultimately achieve their goal, which is none other than the
triumph of freedom." Then, and only then, with the solid foundation of an
educated citizenry, could an anarchist society succeed. Until the foundations
were laid, Tucker advised radicals in America to avoid violence against the state
and to prefer peaceful means of agitating the people.

The Liberty newspaper's rejection of the tactics of violence in the United States
was part of a systematic view of strategy. The reasons for this rejection were
well expressed in an article entitled "Violence Breeds Violence" written by
Florence Feid Kelly, initials "FFK". In this article Kelly stated categorically
that no "permanent good" could be achieved through the use of force. He asked
every radical to "pause and study well" the effect of state violence on his
heart. He claimed: "violence did not convince him to accept the state or embrace
it as legitimate. Also, a strategy of violence will have an impact on the
American people: the revolutionary who plants a bomb could simply "scare" and
terrorize them into becoming conservative. "The use of force would result in"
nothing more than a violent battle for physical supremacy with such a
determination on each side to exterminate the other. And as is usually the case,
the chances of victory are all on the wrong side (in power)."

By insisting on pacifism in the United States, individualist anarchists came into
conflict with communist anarchists, some of whom, as immigrants, brought with
them political strategies of violence from Russia and Germany. For example, the
communist anarchist Johann Most who arrived in New York from Germany in 1882,
from where he also started the publication of the German-language newspaper Die
Freiheit, in which he appealed to workers to commit acts of violence against the
state. Because of his preference for the dynamite method of propaganda, the
publisher of Die Freiheit earned the nickname "Dynamost."

With such deep theoretical differences between the early individualist traditions
in the US and communist anarchism from Europe, it was to be expected that a gulf
would separate them. Nevertheless, Tucker's strong links with European anarchist
journals and personalities, as well as his advocacy of Proudonian economics, had
forged a bond that initially prevented the situation. For example, on July 16,
1881, when the International Working People's Association (IWPA - the anarchist
black international) was reconstituted in London, Tucker was unduly excited. In
an article entitled "Vive l'Association Internationale," Tucker passionately
wrote: "On this momentous event, which marks an epoch in the course of the great
labor movement... the Liberty newspaper, in this issue,

As historian Margaret S. Marsh reports in her book Anarchist Women, initially
there was goodwill and cooperation between individualist and communist
anarchists. "Their conflict... came after a brief period of harmony. Tucker and
the individualists initially wanted to work with the European anarchist movement.
In 1881 the editor of Liberty hailed the creation of the anarchist "Black
International," proposing that his publication serve as its English-language organ.

For a while Liberty served this function. In the issue of November 12, 1881, it
carried a report by JH Swain, who, as a representative of individualist
anarchism, attended the repeat conference of the black international in Chicago,
where he was extremely well received even though the majority of those present
were socialists (anarcho-communists). A year later, the two trends in American
anarchism would become enemies. The schism developed not only from theoretical
differences but also from three specific events as we will see below: A) the
second Congress of the International held in 1883, B) the revelation of Liberty
about the burning of buildings in New York and C) finally the Haymarket affair.

Second Congress of the International

After Johan Most was welcomed to America, Liberty soon became critical of him as
a supporter of communist anarchism. Henry Appleton, writing under the pseudonym
'X', attacks Most, calling him a 'state socialist' rather than an 'anarchist'.
Appleton presses Most to answer one question: under the social system he
proposes, how - and if - a peaceful individual who would not agree with his
economic theories could live (a question that anarchists have long addressed to
Marxists - Leninists to this day? Appleton demanded to know "if the Communist
Anarchists propose to leave me alone, as long as I do not wish to participate in
their plans, but will choose to do mine, taking the responsibility and cost of my
choice."

Appleton claimed that if someone retired from the society of Most and wanted to
"personally occupy, cultivate and use forty acres of land, on which he had
already built a house, a barn and bought tools, domestic animals" it would only
be a matter of time before "removed from his bed and exterminated to make room
for a choice supporter of Mr. Most." Since all that had to be said about this act
would be "to state that it was done in the name of the Commune". For this reason,
Appleton concluded that "these communists are not anarchists, but are at war with
Liberty, whose true meaning of anarchy is the embodiment of the absolute freedom
of the individual."

In 1883, Chicago anarchists-many of whom were communists-organized a conference
held in Pittsburgh. Its purpose: to create a platform on which radical
propagandists of all ideologies, from Marxism to Atomism, could agree. Dominated
by Most and his supporters, the planned conference succeeded in alienating both
the Marxists who refused to attend and the individualists who formally cut off
all association with the conference. The conference adopted the historic
"Pittsburgh Manifesto."

On October 6, 1883, on the front page of Liberty, Tucker refused to promote a
liberating platform for the radicals issued by the October 4 conference. This
text was incorporated into a final document prepared by communist anarchist
Burnette J. Haskell, editor of the San Francisco Truth. Tucker categorically
stated that this document was a failure. Moreover, he considered it so
"disreputable", that he called it "perhaps the most stupid and inconsistent text
that ever came under our notice". On a more personal-and perhaps the most
important-note to this controversy, Tucker was surprised to learn of Haskell's
intention to serialize the English translation of Bakunin's God and State in the
newspaper Truth. Tucker was disturbed by this intention because he was the first
to "introduce Bakunin to America." He had already announced his own intention to
translate and publish an English version of the work in question. In short,
Tucker did not want the first English translation of God and State to be
published by Haskell. Instead, he "hastened to complete" his own translation,
"put it into the hands" of the printers, and sent an advertisement of his
translation to the Truth. This ad was of course rejected as expected. It
allegedly included "monstrous expressions against Karl Marx and Lassalle."
Haskell, on the other hand, explained that he was trying to reconcile all forms
of socialism and forge "common ground for unity between socialists and anarchists."

Tucker characteristically replied: "Besides the eyes of Beelzebub, have you
acquired the soft tongue of Mephistopheles? ... How paltry is your excuse!
Frankly, now that was not the real reason for rejecting my advertisement but your
desire to prevent your readers from knowing that I was in advance of the
publication of 'God and State'' ... As for Haskell's attempt to unify the
socialists and anarchists, Tucker expressed deep skepticism.
Apparently, Haskell also responded through the pages of his own paper, prompting
Tucker to write another open letter to him at Liberty. of the two editors had
worsened and the bitterness led to ad hominem attacks that never died down.
Evidence is that when Haskell personally wrote to Tucker years later, asking for
a favor, Tucker refused to serve him.

The arsons in New York

In the March 1886 issue of Freedom, in an article entitled "The Beast of
Communism," Tucker publicly exposed a scandal of "the movement." He mentioned
names and one of them was Most's. Tucker began by condemning the "Germans of New
York" for turning the word "anarchist" in the common mind of the time into a term
synonymous with criminal activity, violence and destruction. He wrote: "... the
word has been usurped, in the face of all logic and consequence, by a group of
communists who believe in a tyranny worse than that which now exists...". Tucker
called this hard core of communism "A gang of criminals whose events for the past
two years rival the worst moment that can be found in the history of crime."
Liberty admittedly had such a sharp tongue for politicians and other agents of
the state. What was it that led her to characterize so far comrades of the
movement? Tucker explains why he directed this harsh language at other radicals,
stating that "many of the most active leaders of the German Group of the
International Working People's League in New York and the Social Revolutionary
Club" set fire to their own property in order to collect the insurance contracts.
In one such fire, a mother and a newborn baby had been burnt to death. In
another, a mother and her two children lost their lives. What was it that led her
to characterize so far comrades of the movement? Tucker explains why he directed
this harsh language at other radicals, stating that "many of the most active
leaders of the German Group of the International Working People's League in New
York and the Social Revolutionary Club" set fire to their own property in order
to collect the insurance contracts. In one such fire, a mother and a newborn baby
had been burnt to death. In another, a mother and her two children lost their
lives. What was it that led her to characterize so far comrades of the movement?
Tucker explains why he directed this harsh language at other radicals, stating
that "many of the most active leaders of the German Group of the International
Working People's League in New York and the Social Revolutionary Club" set fire
to their own property in order to collect the insurance contracts. In one such
fire, a mother and a newborn baby had been burnt to death. In another, a mother
and her two children lost their lives. stating that "many of the most active
leaders of the German Group of the International Workers' People's League in New
York and the Social Revolutionary Club" set fire to their own property in order
to collect the insurance policies. In one such fire, a mother and a newborn baby
had been burnt to death. In another, a mother and her two children lost their
lives. stating that "many of the most active leaders of the German Group of the
International Workers' People's League in New York and the Social Revolutionary
Club" set fire to their own property in order to collect the insurance policies.
In one such fire, a mother and a newborn baby had been burnt to death. In
another, a mother and her two children lost their lives.

In addition, Tucker expanded his categories to include editors of leading
journals of so-called communist anarchism. He accused them of knowing the death
of innocents but remaining silent. Especially for Most, he mentioned that he
protects criminals. "Because he became aware of these deeds," continued Tucker,
"he not only refused to renounce them, but continued to keep them as his right
hand." As one of the most prominent anarchists in the country, Tucker felt
compelled to expose the murderous crimes committed in the name of justice.

Then, in a move seen as treacherous by many other radicals, he called on every
newspaper in America to put these facts before their readers, placing
responsibility where it belongs and separating the innocent from the guilty:
"Especially I appeal to the Anarchist Press. Every anarchist journal should copy
this article and publish it..." Many urban newspapers acceded to his request.

A great crisis broke out in radical circles, aggravated by the fact that many
seized the opportunity as a means of distrust against anarchism. The radical Der
Arme Teufel-a German weekly published in Detroit by Robert Rittichel-reported
that "these accusations are published by the capitalist press with great
satisfaction."

Tucker, despite urgings, refused to back down. In an article titled "Time Will
Tell," he repeated the accusations and stated, "I did everything I could to save
people's lives and save Anarchy from being plagued by criminals." Unfortunately
for the movement, subsequent investigations "substantiated" (we don't know if
they really did and to what extent) most of the charges Tucker had brought
against the communist anarchists. The authorities took the opportunity to blame
the emerging political and labor movement that was beginning to show that it was
quite threatening.

The Haymarket events

The city of Chicago seemed to act as a magnet for all sorts of radicals, most of
whom were immigrants-communists, socialists, and anarchists-many of whom were
deeply committed to the labor movement. The most popular organization was the
International Workingmen's Union. Indeed, Chicago sent more delegates than any
other city to the second 'Union' convention that Tucker had denounced as we saw
earlier. At that time the police repression in Chicago was excessive for any
labor gathering.

Perhaps in response to police brutality, Chicago anarchists openly embraced
violence as a political strategy. A. Spies, the editor of Die Arbeiter Zeitung -
and one of the Haymarket defendants who was executed - wrote a resolution which
was endorsed by the Central Workingmen's Union of Chicago. Among other things,
the resolution read: "We urgently call upon the exploited class to arm themselves
so that they can oppose their exploiters with the only argument that can be
effective - Violence!"[Emphasis in original]Native American Albert Parsons,
editor of the Alarm, was no less passionate about the call for armed resistance.
He wrote:

With the emergence of the eight-hour movement in the spring of 1886, 65,000
workers in Chicago went on strike, either threatened by their employers. As May
Day approached, violence between workers and police increased. On May 3, police
opened fire on a crowd of workers, killing several of them. The next day, a
protest rally was held in Haymarket Square. As the crowd began to disperse
peacefully due to rain, the police interrupted the speech of Samuel Fielden, one
of the organizers of the rally. Someone in the crowd threw a bomb at the police,
and the police returned fire. Final result, seven police officers dead while the
number of dead workers has never been confirmed, but is estimated to exceed
twenty people.

There was hysteria in the city of Chicago. Businesses closed. The bourgeoisie
demanded blood for blood. The anarchists were accused without evidence of whether
or not they were involved in the case. Thirty-one people were charged with murder
and sixty-nine with lesser crimes. In the end, eight men remained accused of
murder and were put on a mock trial. For example, jurors were not selected in the
usual way: a bailiff was asked to go out into the street and select anyone who
wanted to attend. The events in Haymarket Square and the reaction it brought to
the consciousness of the American public were the beginning of a continuing
prejudice and hatred against anarchism. The impact of the event also affected the
wider radical space.
The individualist anarchist Voltairine de Cleyre, influenced by the copper press
had exclaimed: "They should be hanged!" She immediately regretted her statement,
especially when she learned, a little later, about the real circumstances and
events. Fourteen years later, De Cleyre was still haunted by these words: "For
that outrageous bloodthirsty proposal for all the ignorance I had I will never
forgive myself..." In later years it was she who gave the most moving speeches at
the annual commemorations for the Haymarket martyrs;

Russian anarcho-communist Emma Goldman described her reaction in her
autobiography: It was "a great ideal, a fervent faith, to dedicate myself to the
memory of my martyred comrades, to make their cause mine..." Goldman left her
young husband and went to New York to dedicate herself to the cause that would
occupy the rest of her life: Anarchy!

Against this backdrop of passionate and profound reaction, Tucker became the
leading voice of reason within the radical community. Indeed, his initial
response upset some of his associates. Although he believed that only the
absolute suppression of free speech could justify an armed revolution, Tucker
clearly denounced the brutality of the Chicago police and all others involved in
the manhunt: "The conduct during the last days of the police, the court, the seat
and the press, including many of the labor bodies themselves, it was a complete
disgrace." But he continued to criticize communist anarchists in general and
those arrested in particular for advocating the use of violence to achieve their
political goals. In their meetings he would say, for example, communist speakers
often and consciously incited their listeners to violence. "Nevertheless, Tucker
defended the Chicago arrestees as well as Most who had been arrested in New York
for his views, but was never opposed to armed revolution.

For him as a social reformer his attitude was and remained hostile to any act of
violence, the same was true for other anarchist individualists. In an article
entitled "The Anarchists of Boston" Appleton describes the peaceful principles
and policies of individualist anarchism which were in stark contrast to those of
communist anarchism. Appleton continued with another text entitled
"Authority-blinded". While not excusing the communist anarchists for the
violence, Appleton denounced the mistreatment of those arrested by the police and
the court.

In the same issue and on the opposite page, the communist anarchist Dyer D. Lum
pointed out that "the serious situation in which the Chicago Communists (if you
will) have found themselves requires . . . much more in support than theses or
well-rounded and careful distinctions by "X"[Appleton]between "Boston anarchists"
and "Chicago wild communists". We see here that even within the pages of Liberty
an ideological war was being waged Tucker, replied to Lum: "I have denounced the
Chicago Communists in the strongest terms I could think of from this step. But I
could do nothing else in the face of their injustice than to rally to their
defense and ask Liberty's readership to do likewise." He then restated his belief
that the use of force to resist the state merely provided the pretext for
subsequent repression. Recalling the example of the persecution of many
free-speech radicals such as Anthony Comstock in the 1870s. In one of his first
major appearances in the pages of Liberty, Russian immigrant Victor Garros
provoked new controversy with Tucker (it is clearly seen here that the paper did
not censor by publishing opposing views as well). Garros warned that
"philosophical anarchists" were in imminent danger of becoming "respected" by
their enemies. They are the ones who need to leave Liberty. Jarros was referring
to the urban press - who praised or Tucker for condemning the New York arsonists
as seen above. He stated elsewhere:

Jarros wished to protest strongly against Tucker's representation of anarchism as
"Non-violent". Expressing his disdain for "Christian peace and true love", Yarros
defended that "anarchism means war... We have the right to use violence and
resist in any way..."

Responding to the declaration of war against the state, Tucker observed that war
measures "are almost always violations of rights." He then drew an important
distinction between the New York Communists who had caused the deaths of the
innocent and the Chicago Communists who chose and recklessly resisted the state.
"The arsonists of New York are despicable thugs. Because peaceful agitation
(agitation) and passive resistance are weapons more deadly to tyranny for this
and I support them ... the path of violent reaction strengthens tyranny ... War
and power are allies on the contrary peace and freedom they are comrades... I see
the tried (anarcho)Communists of Chicago as brave and serious men and women.

As the day of execution approached, Tucker expressed his deep regret, but did not
change his view of the situation: "the day is approaching when the brutal state
is going to execute these wrongdoers, for which there will be vengeance. But how;
Not with dynamite. This won't hurt it. How then? With the light. One that thrives
on the blood of its victims. This should flood the candlestick with the light of
freedom. If these seven must die, this must be the lesson of their sacrifice.'
On November 11, the executions finally took place. The front page of the November
19 Liberty was entirely dedicated to the memory of the Haymarket martyrs.
However, on the inside pages there was also a lecture he had given before a local
anarchist club, a few days before the executions. There, again, Tucker expressed
an ambivalent stance: On the one hand he was outraged at the prospect of the
state executing innocent men, but he was determined to distinguish between
individualist anarchism and Chicago anarchism.

Tucker became so determined to separate individualist anarchism from communist
anarchism that he then announced the publication of a new German-language journal
called Libertas, to be written by his close friends George and Emma Schumm, in
order to express individualist anarchism to German speakers state socialists and
radicals who were able to withdraw from the struggles after the executions.

Conclusions

Although, as we have seen, the conflict has many personal elements as well as
rivalries between the protagonists of the scheme, as can be seen from the side of
and especially Tucker, there was a strong desire for hegemony believing that they
have the moral advantage. On the part of the communists there was a strong desire
for destruction since, expelled from Europe, the conditions they had to face did
not seem much better in the USA, also there was a strong fantasy that they could
immediately achieve social transformation. So we will focus on the analysis of
the political differences that the two camps had.

So the conflict between individualist and communist anarchists, both
theoretically and strategically, centered on the question of violence: could it
be used as a tactic to achieve social change?
Communist anarchists defined violence in socio-economic terms and, in their
analysis, there was already a state of war between the working class and the
capitalist class. As a logical consequence, self-defense was defined in such a
way as to allow communists to attack anyone in the capitalist class based on
their class affiliation alone. Since they considered open warfare to exist, the
use of force to achieve their goals was not only strategic but necessary.

Individualist anarchists used natural rights as an ideological framework within
which to examine the issue of violence. They considered violence something
impermissible. Furthermore, for them, the true source and stronghold of political
oppression lies not in the actions of politicians but in the sanctions or
obedience it confers on the political system or society. The state could not be
destroyed by eliminating a class of people because the state was, in essence, an
idea embraced by society. The very idea had to be eliminated. As Tucker wrote:
"Our purpose is the abolition, not only of all existing states, but of the State
itself ... It is not something that can be specifically defined ... The State is
a principle, a philosophical error in social existence "The solution:

During the twenty-five year period that Liberty was being published many
strategies were advanced by anarcho-atomists to eliminate the philosophical error
that was "the state." Broadly speaking, the strategies fell into three
categories: education, passive resistance, and the creation of parallel
institutions. Passive resistance, as opposed to civil disobedience, involved the
passive refusal to obey unjust law rather than direct confrontation with such laws.

The rejection of violence as a political strategy led the individualist movement
to other alternative strategies through which social change could be achieved but
which did not thrive. Since the oppressive nature of the state is based on
violence, the strategies they advocated, although appealing to the ears, remained
quite "philosophical".

On the other hand communist anarchism found its way through trade unionism and
organized class struggle rejecting armed action which nevertheless remained in
the USA until the mid 1920's. In defiance of all those who considered it doomed,
anarchism developed together with socialists and radical trade unionists the
glorious page of what would later become known as Revolutionary Industrial
Syndicalism'. But what is certain is that the events of Chicago are a milestone
for both tendencies of American anarchism that have never since been reconciled
but have taken their own separate paths until today. More far and never loved ones.

Instead of an epilogue

In a conversation I had with my partner Dimitris S. about the means and ends, I
was reminded of a saying by Enrico Malatesta: "We can succeed if we don't
neutralize each other in the meantime." This also happened in the American
movement of the time.

The historical record is not made to glorify one or the other trend both in their
own way could be characterized as having made mistakes, the challenge for us who
continue in even worse times is to learn from them so as not to repeat them.
Maybe then we can vindicate Malatesta and succeed.

https://www.anarkismo.net/article/32686
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S  N E W S  S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca