💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › charlotte-wilson-the-chicago-anniversary.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 08:55:27. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: The Chicago Anniversary Author: Charlotte Wilson Date: December 1888 Language: en Topics: Haymarket, Chicago, social democracy Source: https://www.revoltlib.com/anarchism/the-chicago-anniversary/view.php
Since the Paris Commune no event in the world-wide evolution of the
struggle between Socialism and the existing order of society has been so
important, so significant, as the tragedy of Chicago. Standing as we do
to-day at more than twelve months' distance from the series of events
which culminated in the judicial murder of the Eleventh of November, we
are able to estimate their meaning with a calmer certainty than amid the
storm of horror, indignation and pity which the wrongs of our comrades
aroused last year, not only among Socialists but among all workmen aware
of the facts. Good men are being murdered for their devotion to the
cause of freedom; let us save them, or if that may not be, at least let
us protest against the crime. Such was the feeling which at the moment
united Socialist and Radical, Revolutionist and Parliamentarian.
First, as to the facts of the Chicago affair itself. Fuller inquiry,
more complete and detailed information have served to confirm the
statements laid before the public by the English Socialist press and
repeated at the South Place meeting of protest.
The eight Anarchist Socialists picked out by the Chicago police as
victims of the rage and terror inspired in the propertied classes by the
growing energy of the labor movement, had absolutely nothing to do with
the throwing of the bomb at the Haymarket meeting in May, 1886. The
prosecution utterly failed to connect these eight men with the fatal
bomb in any sense which did not equally apply to the 20,000
revolutionary Socialists of the Chicago Central Labor Union, or indeed
to any active revolutionary propagandist in the world. They were simply
selected as the most energetic and earnest advocates of opinions
obnoxious to the ruling classes, opinions gaining ground so fast as to
threaten the very existence of property and wage-slavery. These opinions
were, (1) Socialism, i.e., common property of the workers in the
instruments of labor; (2) Anarchism, i.e., the destruction of all
arbitrary authority and the substitution of cooperation by free consent
and decision by unanimity; (3) that these great social changes can only
be brought about by the direct action of the workers; (4) that if the
monopolists of property and upholders of authority resist the demands of
the people by armed force, the people are right in defending themselves
by armed force, and for this contingency they must be prepared.
For these opinions, of which the first, third and fourth are shared by
the Revolutionary Socialist party throughout the world, those eight men
were condemned to death and imprisonment, on the plea that the holding
and preaching of such views "set causes to work" which might result in
the death of some of the defenders of the existing order of society, and
possibly had so resulted in the actual destruction of eight police
officers in the Haymarket, though of this no proof could be obtained.
Exactly of the same nature was the moral quibbling by which in the worst
days of monarchical absolutism, during the shameful reign of the second
Charles Stewart, the court lawyer, secured the condemnation of Algernon
Sidney, the Republican. The revival by the American democracy of such a
dangerous instrument of despotism as "constructive conspiracy," with no
basis in fact but the openly proclaimed opinions of the accused and the
overt act of some person unknown, was felt by the whole Socialist party
and, indeed, by every lover of freedom, as a common danger to the
progress of humanity. It is idle to talk about freedom of opinion or of
speech when for the mere utterance of opinions distasteful to the ruling
minority or majority men can be condemned and executed, on the excuse
that the utterance of those opinions may "set causes to work" which
threaten the established social order and the lives of its defenders.
The whole affair was regarded, and justly, as part of the general attack
then being made by the ruling classes in Europe and America on the free
utterance of the people's grievances. It was felt that our comrades were
the martyrs not only of Anarchism but of freedom of speech and opinion
and especially of the expression of the wrongs of labor.
It was recognized by all schools of Socialists that the only effectual
means of securing an opportunity for peaceful Socialist propaganda and
thus preparing men's minds to accept without bloodshed the inevitable
social changes--was to make a firm and united stand against the revival
of this method of tyranny; to protest against it with so much energy and
perseverance as to secure a decided public opinion in our favor. Not of
course among the rulers and masters whose interests and prejudices have
blinded their eyes and arrayed their sympathies against Socialism and
all true freedom. But among the workers and those earnest and sincere
men and women born in every class, who seek truth and right rather than
wealth, respectability, or ease. For even the admirers of written codes
admit that law is a two edged instrument cutting both ways and in the
hands of a ruling class affords no security to the liberties of the
people, unless its administration for class purposes is effectively
controlled by a courageous and enlightened public opinion.
Last year the foundations of such a strong and honest public view of the
question at issue were laid. A vigorous cry of indignation was raised by
the workers of every European country. Here in London 16,000 workmen
added their voices to the protests of their American comrades. And on
the platform Anarchists, Revolutionary Socialists, Christian Socialists,
Social Democrats, Land Nationalizers, Freethinkers, Radicals, stood side
by side to denounce the condemnation of the Chicago Anarchist Socialists
as a wrong to humanity.
To this united protest of the supporters of progress the organs of
capitalism and reaction opposed the usual tactics of those who are hired
to defend a bad cause. First they ignored the facts, and then when that
was no longer possible, they misrepresented them, obscuring the truth
with hinted suspicions and general accusations. The middle-class press
is paid to invent excuses for the crimes of its supporters. When the
triumphant middle-class of France attempted to terrorize the workers of
Paris by the massacres which followed the Commune, the middle-class
press throughout the world justified, and has never ceased to justify
the inhumanity by throwing suspicion on the motives and misrepresenting
the deeds of the victims. The same in the case of the Chicago murders.
To relieve the fears and to drug the conscience of the propertied
classes not only must the workers be terrorized, but their cause must be
discredited by the moral as well as the bodily destruction of its
champions. The capitalist press was equal to the occasion. The
middle-class American papers vied with one another in misrepresentation
and abuse, and the like organs of opinion across the Atlantic followed
suit in a tone softened by distance, but none the less hostile and
unscrupulous.
Thus the forces of the new social order and the old stood face to face
last year. This year the situation is still more clearly defined, we
begin to distinguish it as one of those crises which signal a now
departure.
The old facts remain unchanged, but in addition we now know (and the
information has been within the reach of every London Socialist) not
only that the Haymarket bomb was not thrown by or at the instigation of
the murdered and imprisoned men, but that it was not thrown by any of
the Chicago Anarchists, and that the throwing of it was contrary to the
policy upon which the whole revolutionary party there were at that time
agreed. We have said that they believed it right to withstand armed
force by armed force; and to be prepared for that emergency the workers
of Chicago have been armed since 1877. But the Anarchist Socialists did
not consider the eight hours agitation an event of sufficient importance
to justify street fighting. They hoped but little from a mere compromise
with capitalism, and though they energetically threw in their lot with
the workers in the struggle, they felt convinced that it had not in it
the elements of success. It might be useful propaganda; but its
immediate outcome could not be a real social revolution. In this belief
they resolved not to use arms even in self-defense and did not depart
from that decision even after six strikers had been shot dead and many
wounded by the police. They simply called a peaceful meeting at the
Haymarket to protest against the brutal violence of the police. At this
meeting a bomb was thrown by some person who to this day remains
entirely unknown.
Whilst our knowledge of the facts of the Chicago affair has thus been
enlarged and confirmed, the enthusiasm of the workers for the men who
died in their cause, has grown and spread. The ennobling elevating
effect on the whole Socialist movement of these men's devotion and
heroism; has deepened and widened. As Spies foretold, their "silence has
been more powerful than speech." The principles for which they laid down
their lives have been branded into men's hearts by their death. This
year the eleventh of November has been observed by the most awakened
portion of the working class throughout the world as a solemn
anniversary, a day when men with one accord out their eyes upon the
past, that they may draw therefrom fresh courage, fresh inspiration for
the future.
The scene at the graves of the five martyrs, of Freedom in the cemetery
a few miles from Chicago was impressive and touching in the extreme.
Even the middle-class newspapers were forced to minister to the general
interest by detailed descriptions of the dense crowds, the impassioned
speeches, the intensity of the sympathy manifested, the mass of wreaths
and emblems sent by working class organizations, the display, in spite
of stringent police orders, of the red that signified adhesion to
Anarchism.
In England this first anniversary has been rendered the more impressive
by the visit of our honored comrade Lucy Parsons, who has addressed
great and enthusiastic meetings in London, Norwich, Ipswich and
Edinburgh; everywhere stirring a deeper chord of social and
revolutionary feeling by her noble personality and the simple directness
of her heart-felt eloquence. Everywhere the workers have met her with
the enthusiastic sympathy due to her suffering, her courage and her
devotion. Everywhere she has caused those who heard her to realize the
true-hearted earnestness of the men and women who have been most
energetic in the Chicago labor movement, and deepened the sense of
solidarity between them and the English workers.
Of course this unseemly excitement among the wage-slaves, this perverse
respect and admiration showered upon men and deeds which the respectable
of the earth have agreed to cover with ignominy, has called forth the
renewed hostility of the middle-class press and the repetition even in
professedly Radical papers, like the Star, of the ancient
misrepresentation, suspicion, and abuse. That was a matter of course.
Their readers pay for the careful spicing of their dishes of truth. But
it is a burning disgrace to English Socialism that certain English
Social Democrats have deliberately lent their aid to the work of calumny
and played into the hands of the foe.
Not the Social Democrats as a party. The Socialist workmen of London
have displayed the warmest sense of solidarity with their Chicago
comrades. J. Burns and J. Blackwell, our well-known Social Democratic
comrades, stood on the platform with Mrs. Parsons at the Store Street
Hall; branches of the S. D. F. held capital local commemoration
meetings, Justice, the official organ of that body, hailed the Chicago
men as brother Socialists and martyrs of the Socialist cause. No, it is
a small clique of middle-class politicians who have done this thing.
Last year it was Henry George who, when he was seeking office in New
York, turned traitor and used the influence of his labor paper,
theStandard, to aid the manufacture of that middle-class opinion which
enabled the capitalists of Chicago to murder the enemies of capitalism.
This year it is the middle-class Social Democrats, some of whom stood
with us on the platform at the Chicago meeting last year, who have
turned traitors and helped the middle-class press in the manufacture of
that adverse public opinion which may in the end permit English
capitalism to reproduce here the murderous policy of Chicago.
The attack of the middle-class press has from the first taken two main
lines. First; it accuses the Chicago Anarchists of setting up a false
defense, and if it does not absolutely ignore facts to the extent of
stating that they really did throw the Haymarket bomb, at least hints
that the charge of conspiracy was proved, and that the condemned men
instigated the deed. Secondly; if this accusation falls through, the
papers covertly insinuate or, like the Evening News last year, loudly
suggest that tolerance of opinion and freedom of speech are all very
well, but there are limits, and those limits are reached at
Revolutionary Socialist Anarchism. It is not to be suffered that a man
be permitted to advocate the overthrow of all private property, of all
authority, and that he urge upon the people to act directly with a view
to obtaining this result and to defend themselves by force if they are
forcibly restrained. This doctrine if a man preach he shall
constructively be held guilty of complicity in the action of any person
who under whatever circumstances and with whatever intentions, in
whatever place and under whatever provocation, is guilty of any act of
violence against any of the ruling classes or their hired defenders.
In each of these lines of attack the enemies of Socialism have received
support from men and women calling themselves Socialists. We speak
especially of the correspondence in the Star, and the ungenerous and
misleading attack on Mrs. Parsons, on the Chicago martyrs, and on
revolutionary Socialists in general, which disgraced the Link on the eve
of its disappearance and left a lasting stain on a journal that during
its year of existence had borne a brave part in the struggle against
oppression.
And yet this sophistry tends to produce an effect on public opinion
which is dangerous not to Anarchists alone, but the whole party of
progress. In the eyes of the middle-class during times of any popular
excitement every active revolutionary Socialist, however much he may
have talked about parliamentary action and constitutional means in quiet
times, is an Anarchist; and he can only save himself from the fate of an
open enemy of the existing social order by casting principles and
conviction to the wind and compromising in word and deed with the wrongs
and injustice upon which that order is based. He must consent to play
into the hands of the rulers when the time comes to set for the people,
or he will be classed with the more plain-spoken revolutionists whom be
has been so careful to disown. In times of panic minor differences are
obliterated in the headlong rush of conflicting class interests, and all
those who work honestly and openly for the deliverance of the oppressed
are in the eyes of the oppressors guilty in exact proportion to their
earnestness and zeal.
Those Social Democrats who are abetting the capitalist press in its
misrepresentation of Anarchism, its insinuations against the good faith
of Anarchists--even the dead--and its attempt to deny revolutionists the
right to speak openly of their ideas, are preparing a trap for
themselves and moreover taking the most effectual means to usher in the
coming social revolution by deeds of cruelty which will provoke bloody
and violent reprisals.
We fully understand the considerations which lead Democratic politicians
to adopt this attitude of hostility towards revolutionists. They believe
that a social revolution can be brought about by a certain amount of
parliamentary and municipal wire-pulling. They actually think that if
they can change the form of existing government institutions and
introduce into them all active majority rule, that then they will he
able to introduce the economic reforms which they understand by a social
revolution, and moreover to paralyze the resistance of those capitalists
and landlords who are too foolish to compromise.
Now this fine scheme depends at the present time very largely on the
support of the lower middle-class and of the aristocracy of labor--these
forming the majority of actual electors--and these are just the classes
who having with difficulty gained what little they possess by means of a
desperate struggle with their fellows, cling to their narrow vantage
ground with blind tenacity, and turn sick at the vaguest idea of any
change which may interfere with their hard won sense of security. They
are ready to support extensive land taxation, even nationalization of
railways, etc., if these changes can be brought about without disturbing
their small savings. But a real revolution in the existing order of
society, Anarchy, Communism! The very shadow of such an idea scares them
into reaction. Therefore it is that those Socialists who seek the
suffrages of these shy birds, not only publicly dissever themselves from
revolutionary Socialism, but even allow themselves to slip from that
fair, if somewhat cowardly position of neutrality, into the treason of
actually joining the reactionary party in crying down their comrades. As
Mrs. Besant says in that article in the Link to which we have referred,
"Socialism is now playing a part in all our political and municipal
contests." And of course on the eve of such a contest as for example the
London School Board, it is extremely inconvenient to Social Democrats
seeking office to have their constituents reminded of Anarchism,
Communism, and revolution in connection with the new social idea.
It may be inconvenient, but is that a reason why we, who do not believe
in this democratic program and who do believe in revolution, should hold
our tongues and conceal our convictions? or that we should be called
"foolish and wicked" by our fellow Socialists for refusing to do so?
The Socialists who in their blind pursuit of the narrower expediency, of
immediate practical advantage, lose sight of the wider expediency of
good faith, justice, and the claim of every honest man and woman to full
and free expression of their opinion, are no longer comrades of ours. We
can no longer trust them. They are following the downward path which in
every country has opened before those who attempt to mingle the fresh
life of Socialism with the current politics of a decaying social order.
They are on their way to join that army of ambitious office-holders and
place-seekers who began their careers as champions of the people. We
part from them with regret, but with no surprise. Their action is but
another instance of the ill effect upon the best: of men and women of
that compromise with the evil spirit of domination which ruins the life
work of so many a noble nature, and continually delays the day of
deliverance.