💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › voltairine-de-cleyre-tour-impressions.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 14:36:23. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
➡️ Next capture (2024-06-20)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Tour Impressions Author: Voltairine de Cleyre Date: 1911 Language: en Topics: Mother Earth, debate, Libertarian Labyrinth Source: Retrieved on 25th April 2021 from https://www.libertarian-labyrinth.org/the-sex-question/voltairine-de-cleyre-emma-goldman-tour-impressions-and-a-rejoinder-1910-11/
LEAVING Philadelphia on Friday, the 7^(th) of October, I began my
meeting with comrades and their work on that evening in New York, and
from that day till the present writing (I date at Buffalo, the 18^(th)
of October) I have addressed nine meetings,—two in New York, one in
Albany, one in Schenectady, one in Rochester, and four in Buffalo. In
all these places I have to thank all comrades for kindly courtesy and
fraternal service. But these, while most grateful to me personally, are
of course not of public interest. What the readers of Mother Earth will
find interesting to know is, What has been the character and number of
the attendance at such meetings, the amount of interest displayed, the
reports given, and inquiries or suggestions as to the value of such
lecturing tours.
In point of numbers, the first meeting arranged by Branch 145 of the
Arbeiter Ring in New York, and the Ferrer Memorial meeting in Buffalo,
were the best attended, the number present at these being something
between 250 and 300, I should judge. Otherwise the attendance has
averaged from 100 to 150 people. The smallest gathering was that in
Schenectady; but, considering that the whole affair had been arranged in
but three days, and that almost entirely by the efforts of one energetic
comrade, the fact that the attendance was less than 100 was not to be
wondered at,—rather the wonder was that it should have been as
successful as it was.
As to the character of the attendance, it has been quite different in
different places, according to the method adopted in advertising. In
Rochester, where the matter of securing a hall was taken up by an
American of the old type (not an Anarchist), the policy of subterfuge
was resorted to. By advertising a mixed program, withholding the names
of the speakers until the last day in the afternoon, the Common- Council
Chamber of the City Hall was secured for the meeting. The audience (of
about 100) was somewhat mixed, but mostly American middle-class people,
in appearance. Of course, the other speakers, finding themselves with an
Anarchist sandwiched between them, failed to appear, and we had the
meeting to ourselves. Now, it was perhaps a triumph for an Anarchist to
be enabled to invade the City Hall and speak on “Anarchism and American
Traditions” in the Common Council Chamber; but I doubt the advisability
of such a policy of subterfuge, and should much prefer open dealing.
In Buffalo, the policy of advertising also was to clothe me somehow with
the mantle of Tolstoian respectability, as a means of persuading the
people to come to listen. Now, once for all, I am not a Tolstoian, nor a
non-resistant; and I hope I shall not in future be advertised as such.
The result of securing “respectable halls,” and a church in one
instance, to speak in, was certainly to attract a so-called
“respectable” audience; among the persons present at the lectures,
especially on education, were some teachers, and one member of the
School Board of Buffalo. But there was a lamentable lack of working
people present,—they were middle-class business or professional people
in the main. The only meeting where I found myself addressing working
people was that to which I was invited after my arrival here, which had
been arranged by the Socialists, and at which the principal speaker was
Robert Steiner, editor of the Arbeiter-Zeitung. There, at last, were the
industrial workers, the soldiers of the factory. To-night I am to
deliver a final address before what will probably be a small gathering
of intellectual faddists calling themselves the International
Progressive Thought League, in the parlors of the Iroquois Hotel. This I
have agreed to do, for the sake of saying to the faces of the rich, for
once in my life, what I think their society is. But I consider it
utterly useless as propaganda.
Of the meeting in Albany I can not say more than that it appeared to be
a quietly sympathetic gathering of people with more or less of
Socialistic leanings, of mixed nationalities. The New York audiences
were of course Jewish, being arranged by the Arbeiter Ring. So much for
the character of the attendance. As to the interest displayed in the
matter of the lecture on Modern Education, I have numerous inquiries as
to whether or no it can be printed to fill the demand, now growing
constantly stronger for dissemination of thought concerning changes in
education ideas. I am inclined to think myself that something much more
constructive would be of greater service. I must say, as a teacher, that
I have been extremely dissatisfied with the vagueness of the pamphlets
issued by the Ferrer Association, and am anxiously awaiting something
much more definite. I believe the best move will be the publication in
English of the primary books used by Ferrer in the Modern Schools of
Spain; for the evils of our own system lie principally in the elementary
schools, in my opinion.
Several teachers have expressed to me their agreement with the
criticisms and suggestions in my lecture. I think perhaps a practical
move might be for the Ferrer Groups to obtain the list of the teachers
in the various cities, and send the pamphlet “The Rational Education of
Children” to them by mail (though postage makes it costly). While the
pamphlet is inadequate, it might stimulate thought and inquiry.
One gentleman, a Socialist, assured me that if he could obtain a
definite idea of how to work, could get the proper books, etc., he would
now open a school of the kind in Buffalo; he is quite positive of the
demand for it. The same demand exists in Philadelphia and Chicago.
Numerous inquiries are beginning to come from the far west. I expect to
meet it everywhere I go. The great need is for teachers who will know
what they want to do.
Aside from this interest, while I cannot now express a fixed opinion on
so short experience, my impression is that our present propaganda (if
there is any) is a woeful mistake. I am more than ever convinced that
our work should be with the workers, not with the bourgeoisie. If these
latter choose to come, very well, let them. But I should never approve
of this seeking after “respectable halls,” “respectable neighborhoods,”
“respectable people,” etc., etc., into which it appears we have somehow
degenerated. The chief result seems to be a lot of shallow flattery
dealt to the speaker at the close of the meeting, by people who have no
interest and no intent ever to take the speaker’s words as serious
things to be acted upon.
Comrades, we have gone upon a wrong road. Let us get back to the point
that our work should be chiefly among the poor, the ignorant, the
brutal, the disinherited, the men and women who do the hard and
brutalizing work of the world. If we cannot do this, if our gospel has
come to be a gospel for the “respectable,” then I, for one, shall
renounce it. But I do not think it has; the fault is in us, not in
Anarchism. The Socialists have thus much advantage over us; they have
not forgotten that their teaching is primarily a teaching for the common
man. Let us remember that ours is also. [note]For lack of space, the
second part of this report will appear in the next issue.[/note]
Greetings,
VOLTAIRINE DE CLEYRE.
Voltairine de Cleyre, “Tour Impressions,” Mother Earth 5, no. 10
(December 1910): 322–325.
---
IT is not often that I take issue with my friend Voltairine de Cleyre.
But there are a few points in her report which I cannot permit to pass
unchallenged.
Comrade Voltairine states that she speaks of the propaganda (“if there
be any”) “from short experience and impression.” Yet she finds it
necessary to emphasize the “seeking of respectable halls, respectable
neighborhoods, etc.” I have always known her to be cautious in passing
opinions, and I am therefore surprised that a mere impression should
warrant her in suggesting that we are seeking for “respectable halls,
respectable people,” etc.
The fact that the man who arranged a meeting for her in Rochester (by
the way, not an Anarchist) has tried to sandwich her between bourgeois
speakers, or that she was advertised in Buffalo as a Tolstoian
Anarchist, is by no means proof that we are all following the same
lines, or that “we have gone woefully wrong.”
I have traveled the length and breadth of this country for many years;
have been to the Coast four times within a short period, and I can
assure Comrade Voltairine that no one connected with my work has sought
for “respectable” patronage. Of course, if by “respectable halls” is
meant clean halls, I plead guilty to the charge. I confess that I prefer
such places, partly for sanitary reasons, but mainly because the workers
themselves—the American workers—will not go to a dilapidated, dirty hall
in an obscure quarter of the city. In that respect the people Voltairine
wants to reach are probably the most bourgeois in America. I have again
convinced myself of it the other day in Baltimore, where the American
workers would not attend my meetings because the hall was in the
“nigger” district. Strange as it may seem, the people who came were,
what Voltairine would call, respectables.
I agree with our Comrade that our work should be among “the poor, the
ignorant, the brutal, the disinherited men and women.” I for one have
worked with them and among them for twenty-one years. I therefore feel
better qualified than Voltairine to say what may be accomplished in
their ranks. After all, my friend knows the masses mainly from theory. I
know them from years of contact in and out of the factory. Just because
of that knowledge I do not believe that our work should be only with
them. And that for the following reasons:
The pioneers of every new thought rarely come from the ranks of the
workers. Possibly because the economic whip gives the latter little
opportunity to easily grasp a truth. Besides, it is an undisputed fact
that those who have but their chains to lose cling tenaciously to them.
The men and women who first take up the banner of a new, liberating idea
generally emanate from the so-called respectable classes. Russia,
Germany, England, and even America bear me out in this. The first
conspiracy against the Russian despot originated in his own palace, with
the Decembrists representing the nobility of Russia. The intellectual
pioneers of revolutionary and Anarchist ideas in Germany came from the
“respectables.” The women who are to-day enduring the hunger strike for
their ideas, in England, are also not from the ranks of the workers. The
same holds good in regard to almost every country and every epoch.
Far be it from me to belittle the poor, the ignorant, the disinherited.
Certainly they are the greatest force, if only they could be awakened
from their lethargy. But I maintain that to limit one’s activities to
them is not only a mistake, but also contrary to the spirit of
Anarchism. Unlike other social theories, Anarchism builds not on
classes, but on men and women. I may be mistaken, but I have always been
of the opinion that Anarchism calls to battle all libertarian elements
as against authority.
That to limit oneself to propaganda exclusively among the oppressed does
not always bring desired results, is borne out by more than one
historical proof. Our Chicago comrades propagated only among the
workers; in fact, cheerfully gave their lives for the oppressed. Where
were the latter during the eighteen terrible months of the judicial
farce? Were not the Chicago Anarchists shamefully betrayed by the very
organization which Parsons and Spies helped to build up—the Knights of
Labor? And has not the spirit of that time drifted into conservative
channels, as represented by the American Federation of Labor? The
majority of its members, I am sure, would hesitate not a moment to
relegate Voltairine or myself to the fate of our martyred comrades.
John Most worked for twenty-five years exclusively among the workers. He
certainly never sought for “respectables.” Indeed, the poorer and more
wretched the atmosphere, the more eloquently Most spoke. Where are the
results of his propaganda? Why was the man so utterly forsaken in the
last years of his activities? Why cannot the Freiheit, in spite of all
desperate efforts, be maintained?
I think the answer to these questions can easily be found in the very
thing Voltairine so fervently advocates—the propaganda exclusively among
the workers. Yes, that is, in my opinion, the reason why we have in the
past made so little headway. The economic factor is, I am sure, very
vital. Possibly that accounts for the fact that a great many radicals
lose their ideals the moment they succeed economically. Voltairine
surely knows as well as I that hundreds of Anarchists, Socialists, and
rabid revolutionists who were ardent workers twenty years ago are now
very respectable, indeed much more respectable than the very people to
whom Voltairine objects. That, however, should not discourage the true
propagandist from working among the disinherited, but it should teach
him the vital lesson that spiritual hunger and unrest are often the most
lasting incentives.
Anarchism excludes no one and gives no one a mortgage on truth and
beauty. Above all, Anarchism, as I understand it, leaves the
propagandist free to choose his or her own manner of activity. The
criterion must at all times be his or her individual judgment,
experience, and mental leanings. In the Anarchist movement there is room
for every one who earnestly desires to work for the overthrow of
authority, physical as well as mental.
Emma Goldman.
Emma Goldman, “A Rejoinder,” Mother Earth 5, no. 10 (December 1910):
325–328.
---
By VOLTAIRINE DE CLEYRE.
MY preceding report was written on the morning of the 18^(th) of
October, as I knew I should scarcely have time to report the final
meeting in Buffalo, which was to be held that evening. It took place, as
I said, in the parlor of the Iroquois Hotel before the “International
Progressive Thought League,” the subject being, “The poor ye have always
with you.”
Probably the best result of this lecture was the excellent report given
in the Buffalo Times, in which mention was made of standard works to be
read on Anarchism, which I had recommended in response to an inquiry
from the audience. A sort of side result of the lectures in Buffalo was
the controversy between the defenders of Catholicism, or, rather,
anti-Ferrerism, and the defenders of the memory of the great martyr in
the public press. No doubt some will have been led by it to study the
facts in the Ferrer case, and the knowledge of the Modern School
movement will be by so much widened.
My next experience was in Cleveland, where every arrangement had been
made to hold an excellent me- morial meeting Oct. 21. Had it not been
for the storm which at the last moment fell furiously upon us, I am sure
we should have had a crowded meeting; as it was, even in spite of the
drenching, one hundred and twenty people were in attendance,—wet, but
enthusiastic. A feature of the meeting was the exquisite singing of the
old Irish revolutionary song, “The Wearing of the Green,” and our
well-beloved “Annie Laurie,” around which floats forever the memory of
Albert Parsons’ voice; the singer, Mr. H. R. Carr, put something more
than artistic voice-culture in his work,—a soul! A few excellent words
were spoken by Prof. Bourland of one of the Cleveland universities,—an
explanation of conditions in Spain, and to some extent the psychology of
the Spaniard. It appears to me the most primary part in the
understanding of the Ferrer movement is to understand these conditions.
I learned that a foreign priest, sitting in the audience during my
speech, became so angry that he went out to “get a policeman to arrest
me.” However, he did not return. I infer he was angry be- cause I told
the truth about the Catholic Church in Spain, of whose character he was
likely ignorant.
The following Sunday the Cleveland Freethought Society extended to me
the courtesy of their platform, and an excellent meeting, very well
attended, interesting, warm, and homelike, was held. I observed with
regret that a number of the Anarchists in attendance showed some
tendency to preserve the old narrow excommunicative spirit of the
one-time “Boston Anarchists,”—one going so far as to declare that “no
Communist could be an Anarchist.” It made me feel that I was living some
twenty years back, in the days when we held that our own particular
economic gospel was the only “road to freedom,” and whoever did not hold
it was bound to the perdition of authority.
These were the only meetings held in Cleveland. Several of the larger
dailies gave interviews, one of which, in the News, was excellent; and
one in the Press, was execrable; the latter, I believe, not because of
the policy of the paper, but the incompetence of the reporter. There is
a decided tendency at present to interview everybody as to his or her
opinion concerning the teaching of sex- hygiene to the young in the
schools. Each reporter in turn gravely put me the question, I felt like
crying out, “Shades of Moses Harman! what have I lived to see?” But
while it is worth while to make use of the opportunity to give the
attitude of Anarchists on this important subject, I very much fear that
the present movement, commendable as it is in its motive, has been
undertaken by the wrong persons. I fear we shall have, instead of
physiological knowledge in the schools, a fresh crop of restrictions,
laws, moral suasion, and sentimental twaddle. However, the question is
to the fore; and let believers in science and in freedom use every
chance to express themselves while it lasts.
On the 26^(th) I spoke in Toledo, to a very small audience, on “The
World at Play.” The comrades who arranged the meeting made what in my
opinion was a grave error by charging a 25 cent admission. I would like
to say, as a suggestion for future workers, that to charge such a price
for any lecture of mine is both a business and an ethical mistake. I am
not well enough known to the general lecture-going world to justify such
a price for purely financial considerations; and in the second place, it
is very distasteful to me to find that Anarchism, in my name, is
associated with any such price,—a price fairly prohibitive to those whom
I most wish to address. I do not wish to censure my Toledo comrades for
having thought otherwise; but I think their experience demonstrated
their mistake.
Detroit was a resting place. Our meeting on October 29^(th) was simply a
club-meeting, only semi-public. We discussed the General Strike, and the
discussion was the most interesting I have heard since the famous
discussions heard everywhere during the actual General Strike in
Philadelphia last March.
And this brings me to a point upon which I am always in doubt, and upon
which I should like an expression of opinion from other speakers. I am,
on principle, in favor of “the open meeting” after the lecture; i. e.,
throwing the meeting open to question or remark by whosoever will. I
have always argued that it is better to have the people speak, even if
they speak folly, than to remain dumb recipients of the speaker’s
utterances, like pew-holders in a church. I have, however, over and over
again been compelled to see the effect of an excellent lecture spoiled
by a very foolish discussion, or pretence at discussion. In my own
meetings I have sat patiently—no, rather very impatiently—through
rambling, disconnected fooleries about every subject under the sun
except the lecture. Usually, those who get up at public meetings are not
persons who want to put a question, or know how to put a question; but
persons who are either fanatics on some unrelated subject, which they
drag in; or mildly insane persons; or persons who want to protect the
speaker from chivalry, courtesy, or some other laudable feeling which
is, nevertheless, out of place.
Such has been the generality of my experience on this trip. At the
Detroit club-meeting, however, I found a genuine, earnest, to-the-point
discussion. No doubt we all talked more or less nonsense, too; but no
more than is in the normal latitude of the subject. We were to talk of
the General Strike; and we did; and no one talked of anything else; and
many took an earnest and feeling part.
Thinking it over, I am asking myself whether this is not the real place
for genuine discussion. Of course, I see the objection: How then shall
we ever get a stimulation of thought among outsiders?
But do we get it through the public after-lecture discussion?
Voltairine de Cleyre, “Tour Impressions,” Mother Earth 5, no. 11
(January 1911): 360–363.