💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › anarcho-lucy-parsons-american-anarchist.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 07:13:08. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Title: Lucy Parsons: American Anarchist
Author: Anarcho
Date: March 26, 2013
Language: en
Topics: Lucy E. Parsons, book review
Source: Retrieved on 24th April 2021 from https://anarchism.pageabode.com/?p=723

Anarcho

Lucy Parsons: American Anarchist

Lucy Parsons (c. 1853–1942) is worthy of a great biography. She took an

active part in the American anarchist and labour movements from the

1870s to her death and should be better known to today’s radicals.

Anyone described by the Chicago Police Department as “more dangerous

than a thousand rioters” is worthy of remembrance. So the reprinting of

Carolyn Ashbaugh’s Lucy Parsons: American Revolutionary should be

welcome news – except that the book is so terrible.

Ashbaugh’s right to note that “Lucy Parsons was black, a woman, and

working class – three reasons people are often excluded from history.”

(6) However, this would be more convincing if Ashbaugh could bring

herself to believe Parsons when she proclaimed herself an anarchist!

Simply put, this biography excludes Parsons own voice and instead

proclaims that while she may have called herself an anarchist for

decades “in realty, she advocated a syndicalist theory of society” (174)

and “her beliefs were syndicalist rather than anarchist.” (201)

It gets worse. Not only was Parsons unable to understand her own

politics, the Chicago Martyrs were equally confused about their own

politics and we are informed that the “trade unionists of the

International Working People’s Association… had been more ‘syndicalist’

than ‘anarchist.’” (181) Ashbaugh quotes two of the Martyrs last words

invoking Anarchy (136) yet wants the reader to believe that they died

not knowing what it meant!

The reprinting of this deeply flawed work is not surprising. There seems

to be a tendency within American Leninist circles these days to claim

the Chicago Anarchists as Marxists. This is because for most Marxists

“real” anarchists are individualists who do not believe in the class

struggle. As Ashbaugh’s book will reinforce their incorrect ideas on

anarchism it is useful to reiterate the basic ideas of revolutionary

anarchism and show just how wrong it is on anarchism, syndicalism and

Emma Goldman

Ashbaugh is very sure that Parsons was not an anarchist but a

syndicalist. So sure she repeatedly puts anarchist into quotes

(“anarchist”) and argues that the Haymarket Martyrs “were labelled

anarchists” because “it was easy to assume that divisions in the

American movement would follow” the European split between “Marxian

‘socialists’ and Bakuninist ‘anarchists.’” (45) She rejects this because

“Bakunin’s theories were orientated to ‘mass’ rather than to ‘class,’

and the Chicago revolutionaries were orientated to class and trade

unions. By 1885 Lucy Parsons held a position which could be called

syndicalist. She rejected the need for a state or political authority,

but felt that ‘economic’ authority would fall under the jurisdiction of

the trade unions.” (58) The only flaw in this argument is that Michael

Bakunin and the other revolutionary anarchists in the First

International advocated syndicalist ideas. We can easily show this by

quoting Bakunin from sources that were available to Ashbaugh when she

was writing her book.

Thus we find Bakunin arguing that workers can only free themselves by

“the establishing of complete solidarity with their follow-workers in

the shop, in their own defence and in the struggle against their common

master” and then “the extension of this solidarity to all workers in the

same trade and in the same locality in their joint struggle against the

employers – that is, their formal entrance as active members into the

section of their trade, a section affiliated with the International

Workingmen’s Association.” Socialism “can be attained” only “through the

social (and therefore anti-political) organisation and power of the

working masses of the cities and villages.” Like the later syndicalists,

Bakunin argued that “unions create that conscious power without which no

victory is possible” while “strikes are of enormous value; they create,

organise, and form a workers’ army, an army which is bound to break down

the power of the bourgeoisie and the State, and lay the ground for a new

world.” (The Political Philosophy of Bakunin, 304–5, 300, 379, 384–5)

Bakunin also advocated other key syndicalist ideas. Thus we discover

that “Lucy Parsons discussed the general strike” which was “the

syndicalist germ of thought which she had has in the 1880’s” (218) yet

Ashbaugh makes no mention of Bakunin’s arguments from the late 1860s

that “a general strike” will produce “a great cataclysm, which will

regenerate society.” (The Philosophical Philosophy of Bakunin, 383)

Ashbaugh likewise states that the Chicago anarchists argued that the

“radical unions which opposed wage labor were to be the building blocks

of the future social order” (45) yet fails to mention that Bakunin had

argued that the “organisation of trade sections, their federation in the

International, and their representation by the Chambers of Labour… bear

in themselves the living germs of the new social order, which is to

replace the bourgeois world. They are creating not only the ideas but

also the facts of the future itself.” (quoted by Rudolf Rocker,

Anarcho-Syndicalism, 50)

This focus of economic struggle and union organisation was combined with

a rejection of the “political action” urged by Marx, namely socialists

standing in elections. Bakunin argued, rightly as history has shown,

that the “inevitable result” of such a strategy “will be that workers’

deputies, transferred to a purely bourgeois environment, and into an

atmosphere of purely bourgeois political ideas ... will become middle

class in their outlook, perhaps even more so than the bourgeois

themselves.” (The Political Philosophy of Bakunin, 216)

If quoting Bakunin is not sufficient, perhaps a few words by Marx and

Engels will help convince any Marxists still harbouring doubts about the

facts of the matter. Marx attacked Bakunin for arguing that “working

classes must not occupy itself with politics. They must only organise

themselves by trades-unions” and would “supplant the place of all

existing states” by the International. (Collected Works 43: 490) Engels

dismissed the general strike as “the lever employed by which the social

revolution is started” in the “Bakuninist programme” while suggesting

they admitted “this required a well-formed organisation of the working

class.” (Collected Works 23: 584–5) Thus Marx and Engels, if not many of

his followers, recognised the key aspects of Bakunin’s anarchism –

aspects which Ashbaugh seems to think of as syndicalist rather than

anarchist.

This shows the weakness of Ashbaugh’s claim that “Albert Parsons made it

clear that he considered the I.W.P.A a Marxist, not a Bakuninist

organisation.” (58) We need only remember that quoting can be selective

and that Parsons was a self-proclaimed anarchist whose book on anarchism

(Anarchism: Its Philosophy and Scientific Basis) included the writings

of such well known libertarians as Peter Kropotkin, Elisée Reclus, Dyer

Lum and C.L. James. Moreover, Ashbaugh’s summation that “Chicago

leaders, as early as 1883, were syndicalists” because “they had given up

political work for work in the unions which they believed would provide

the social organisation of the future” (45) refutes her own claims as

these positions on “political action” and unions are identical to

Bakunin’s:

“Toilers count no longer on anyone but yourselves. Do not demoralise and

paralyse your growing strength by being duped into alliances with

bourgeois Radicalism… Abstain from all participation in bourgeois

Radicalism and organise outside of it the forces of the proletariat. The

bases of this organization… are the workshops and the federation of

workshops… instruments of struggle against the bourgeoisie, and their

federation, not only national, but international… when the hour of

revolution sounds, you will proclaim the liquidation of the State and of

bourgeois society, anarchy, that is to say the true, frank people’s

revolution.” (quoted by K.J. Kenafick, Michael Bakunin and Karl Marx,

pp. 120–1)

As such, there were good reasons for the Chicago anarchists to take that

name, for their Marxist opponents to use it to describe them and for

Lucy Parsons to call herself one for decades. So while Ashbaugh states

that the I.W.W. “offered what Lucy Parsons wanted: a militant working

class organisation which fought at the economic level with strikes and

direct action rather than engaging in political campaigns” (218)

Parsons’ comrade Max Baginski was correct to point out that it was

Bakunin’s “militant spirit that breathes now in the best expressions of

the Syndicalist and I.W.W. movements” and these expressed “a strong

world wide revival of the ideas for which Bakunin laboured throughout

his life.” (Anarchy! An Anthology of Emma Goldman’s Mother Earth, Peter

Glassgold (ed.), 71)

So claims that Lucy Parsons’ “response was syndicalist” when she argued

that “a trades union and the Knights of Labor are practical

illustrations of the feasibility of Anarchism” (173) simply show an

ignorance of anarchist theory. Parsons was simply expressing the basic

ideas of revolutionary anarchism. This can be seen when Peter Kropotkin

expressed the exact same idea at a commemoration meeting for the Chicago

anarchists:

“No one can underrate the importance of this labour movement for the

coming revolution. It will be those agglomerations of wealth producers

which will have to reorganise production on new social bases. They will

have to organise the life of the nation and the use which it will make

of the hitherto accumulated riches and means of production. They – the

labourers, grouped together – not the politicians.” (“Commemoration of

the Chicago Martyrs”, Freedom, December 1892)

Thus Kropotkin shared the same “vision of a future society” as Parsons

and so Ashbaugh was wrong to suggest that Parsons “chose to call this

system ‘no government,’ but in realty, she advocated a syndicalist

theory of society. She advocated workers’ ownership and control over the

means of production and distribution through their unions.” (174) As if

anarchists like Bakunin and Kropotkin did not! Similarly, they opposed,

like Parsons, those who “advocated state control of the means of

production and distribution” and “working through the electoral process

to achieve state power.” (174) As well as the same goal, Kropotkin

shared the same means as Parsons and Bakunin. While Caroline Cahm’s

excellent Kropotkin and the Rise of Revolutionary Anarchism 1872–1886 is

the best work on Kropotkin’s ideas on the labour movement, the Russian

revolutionary ably summarised his position thusly in 1910:

“the anarchists ... do not seek to constitute, and invite the working

men not to constitute, political parties in the parliaments.

Accordingly, since the foundation of the International Working Men’s

Association in 1864–1866, they have endeavoured to promote their ideas

directly amongst the labour organisations and to induce those unions to

a direct struggle against capital, without placing their faith in

parliamentary legislation.” (Anarchism: A Collection of Revolutionary

Writings, 287)

Unsurprisingly Kropotkin expressed his support for the Chicago

anarchists’ activities many times: “Were not our Chicago Comrades right

in despising politics, and saying the struggle against robbery must be

carried on in the workshop and the street, by deeds not words?” (“The

Chicago Anniversary”, Freedom, December 1891) Years later, he wrote in

the Encyclopedia Britannica of “the execution of five Chicago anarchists

in 1887” and considered “Spies, Parsons and their followers in the

United States” as advocates of “anarchist-communist ideas.” (Anarchism,

295, 297) Given that the focus of the conflict between Bakunin and Marx

in the First International was precisely on “political action” by

parties versus economic struggle by unions, it is clear that Parsons,

like the other Chicago Anarchists, rejected the ideas of the latter in

favour of those of the former.

Significantly, when Lucy Parsons visited London in 1888 she did not

visit Engels but Kropotkin (Engels never wrote more than a few words,

publicly or privately, about the Haymarket events which should give

those seeking to turn the Martyrs into Marxists pause for thought).

Kropotkin also spoke at a meeting organised by anarchists in her honour,

talking of how the Martyrs “had joined the Anarchist movement, they gave

themselves to it, not by halves, but entirely, body and heart together”

and how they had died “loudly proclaiming their Anarchist principles

before the judges.” (“Before the Storm”, Freedom, December 1888) How did

Ashbaugh describe this event? Showing her complete ignorance of

Kropotkin’s ideas, she writes of how Parsons “shared the platform” with

“the world famous geographer and gentle anarchist theoretician of

non-violence”! (160) Similarly, she proudly recounted how Parsons was

asked to write on the IWW and the American union movement for “the

French paper Les Temps Nouveau” (221) yet somehow failed to mention this

was France’s leading communist-anarchist journal and intimately

associated with Kropotkin!

Yet more evidence on Parsons being an anarchist can be seen when she

reprints the manifesto issued at the I.W.P.A.’s Pittsburgh Congress of

1883 which urged the “[d]estruction of the existing class rule, by all

means, i.e. by energetic, relentless, revolutionary and international

action,” a “free society based upon co-operative organisation of

production” with “all public affairs” regulated “by free contracts

between autonomous (independent) communes and associations, resting on a

federalistic basis.” (44) While much of this is shared by anarchists and

Marxists, the last reflects the ideas of Bakunin and Kropotkin and not

Marx. As Bakunin stressed, a “truly popular organisation begins… from

below” and so “federalism becomes a political institution of Socialism,

the free and spontaneous organisation of popular life.” Thus anarchism

“is federalistic in character.” (The Political Philosophy of Bakunin,

273–4, 272) If in doubt, here is Emma Goldman arguing that anarchy is “a

society based on voluntary co-operation of productive groups,

communities and societies loosely federated together, eventually

developing into a free communism, actuated by a solidarity of

interests.” (Red Emma Speaks, 50)

So we are left with one of two positions: either Lucy Parsons, the

Chicago Martyrs and Peter Kropotkin were wrong about anarchism or

Ashbaugh is. The evidence (and plain commonsense!) is clear that it is

Ashbaugh who is wrong rather than world famous anarchists like Lucy

Parsons or Peter Kropotkin.

Thus it is uncontroversial to note that the Chicago Martyrs were also

syndicalists. This is because, being revolutionary anarchists, they like

Bakunin and Kropotkin advocated revolutionary unionism as a strategy to

create an anarchist (libertarian socialist) society. This can be seen by

Goldman noting that “in this country five men had to pay with their

lives because they advocated Syndicalist methods as the most effective

in the struggle of labor against capital.” (Red Emma Speaks, 87) Where

Ashbaugh goes wrong is her assumption that anarchism and syndicalism are

mutually exclusive rather than the latter being a longstanding strategy

of the former.

And it must be noted that Ashbaugh’s attempts to bolster her case by

stating that “Lucy did not separate ‘anarchist’ from socialist thinkers”

(58) falls for much the same reason. Familiarity with anarchist thinkers

would show that “Kropotkin, Bakunin, Proudhon” (58) all considered

themselves socialists – perhaps we can add them to the long list of

“alleged ‘anarchists’ [who] also called themselves ‘socialists’” (157) –

along with the “Chicago ‘anarchists’”! Similarly, their respect for

Marx’s analysis of capitalism hardly automatically excludes them from

anarchism – if it did then Bakunin would join them given his praise for

Marx’s Capital and other contributions to socialist thought.

Similar comments can be made against the book’s claims on Emma Goldman.

It is clear that Ashbaugh assumes that the reader is not familiar with

her ideas and works, otherwise how do you explain the continued

distortions inflicted upon her? She proclaims that “Goldman became

interested in the freedom of the individual” while “Parsons remained

committed to the freedom of the working class from capitalism” (200) and

“believed that women would be emancipated when wage slavery in the

factories, fields, and mines of capitalism had ended.” (202) Their

differences “were the result of different backgrounds and social

milieus” (203)

Yet reading Goldman shows that she placed her feminism within a class

context and recognised the need to end capitalism to ensure genuine

liberty and equality. This can be seen when she argued for “a complete

transvaluation of all accepted values – especially the moral ones –

coupled with the abolition of industrial slavery.” Thus women’s suffrage

was of no use “to the mass of women without property, the thousands of

wage workers, who live from hand to mouth.” She rightly asked: “As to

the great mass of working girls and women, how much independence is

gained if the narrowness and lack of freedom of the home is exchanged

for the narrowness and lack of freedom of the factory, sweat-shop,

department store, of office?” (Anarchism and Other Essays, 194, 201,

216)

So much for Goldman’s feminism becoming “separate from its working class

origins” and taking on “an abstract character of freedom for women in

all things, in all times, and in all places”! (202)

As for the claim that there “was a major difference between Emma Goldman

and Lucy Parsons on the basic question of class consciousness” (181) it

is significant that Ashbaugh fails to explore Goldman’s advocacy of

syndicalism. She is aware of it, mentioning (in passing) that Goldman’s

lectures included “Syndicalism, the Strongest Weapon of the Working

Class, a Discussion of Sabotage, Direct Action and the General Strike.”

(233) This lecture was reprinted as a pamphlet, with Goldman stating

that in the First International “Bakunin and the Latin workers” forged

ahead “along industrial and Syndicalist lines” and that syndicalism “is,

in essence, the economic expression of Anarchism” and that “accounts for

the presence of so many Anarchists in the Syndicalist movement. Like

Anarchism, Syndicalism prepares the workers along direct economic lines,

as conscious factors in the great struggles of to-day, as well as

conscious factors in the task of reconstructing society.” (Red Emma

Speaks, 89, 91, 90)

This was not the only place Goldman expressed syndicalist ideas, arguing

that anarchism “stands for direct action” and that “[t]rade unionism,

the economic arena of the modern gladiator, owes its existence to direct

action.” She noted approvingly how internationally “direct,

revolutionary economic action has become so strong a force in the battle

for industrial liberty as to make the world realise the tremendous

importance of labour’s power. The General Strike [is] the supreme

expression of the economic consciousness of the workers ... Today every

great strike, in order to win, must realise the importance of the

solidaric general protest.” (Anarchism and Other Essays, 65–6)

Thus, just like Parsons, Goldman argued that it was the “war of classes

that we must concentrate upon” and those “who appreciate the urgent need

of co-operating in great struggles ... must organise the preparedness of

the masses for the overthrow of both capitalism and the state” as this

“alone leads to revolution at the bottom” which “alone leads to economic

and social freedom, and does away with all wars, all crimes, and all

injustice.” She was well aware of the need for the “liberation of the

human body from the domination of property; liberation from the shackles

and restraint of government.” Wealth “means power; the power to subdue,

to crush, to exploit, the power to enslave, to outrage, to degrade” and

property was “not only a hindrance to human well-being, but an obstacle,

a deadly barrier, to all progress.” A key problem of modern society was

that “man must sell his labour” and so “his inclination and judgement

are subordinated to the will of a master.” Anarchism, she stressed, was

the “the only philosophy that can and will do away with this humiliating

and degrading situation… There can be no freedom in the large sense of

the word… so long as mercenary and commercial considerations play an

important part in the determination of personal conduct.” (Red Emma

Speaks, 355–6, 73, 66, 50)

So in terms of all the key issues – syndicalism, direct action, general

strike, class struggle – Goldman and Parsons were in agreement. This can

be seen from the awkward fact that Parsons sold “pamphlets by Emma

Goldman and Alexander Berkman, the majority of Kropotkin’s works” (227)

Likewise after economic crisis in 1907–08 and 1914–15, Parsons “now

concentrated her work in unemployment organising” (232) as did Alexander

Berkman.

Of course there are personal conflicts at work here which can distort

the level of agreement between individuals and groups (see the conflicts

between Leninist Parties, as an obvious example). Parsons and Goldman

did not seem to get on so assuming, as Ashbaugh does, that the former is

completely objective on the latter and her ideas is problematic, to say

the least. If it is a case that Parsons “wanted to remain the

unquestioned leader of the anarchist movement, but the leadership

changed and with it the direction of the movement” (206) then her

comments against Goldman should be questioned, not accepted at face

value. This becomes petty in the extreme at time, as can be seen when

Ashbaugh quotes Parsons’ thoughts on Goldman’s Living My Life as a

flawed book “beginning and ending with Emma, Emma” (254) – as if an

autobiography could be anything else!

So Ashbaugh’s book is not a serious critique of Goldman’s ideas by any

means. Its attempts to contrast the “free love” individualistic

anarchists with Parsons no-nonsense syndicalism fails if you have even a

basic awareness of Goldman’s politics. Luckily, Ashbaugh could rest easy

as few Marxists know much about Goldman’s ideas – as can be seen, for

example, by International Socialist Organisation (ISO) member Lance

Selfa’s error-ridden article “Emma Goldman: A life of controversy”

(International Socialist Review, no. 34, March-April 2004) which also

fails to mention her syndicalism.

As such, claims that Parsons’ paper the Liberator’s “message was of

strikes and industrial conflict, orientated to the class struggle” while

Mother Earth “dealt with all facets of life and social revolution – sex,

women’s emancipation, literature, art, theatre” and found its

“readership in the avant garde of the literary and artistic world” (221)

is simply inaccurate. In reality, Mother Earth covered the class

struggle in articles like Max Baginski’s “Aim and Tactics of the Trade

Union Movement” and Voltairine de Cleyre’s “A Study of the General

Strike in Philadelphia” (see Anarchy! An Anthology of Emma Goldman’s

Mother Earth, Peter Glassgold (ed.)) It also reprinted “The Basis of

Trade Unionism” by leading French syndicalist Emile Pouget.

To state that the success of Mother Earth “reflected the dissociation of

anarchism from strictly class struggle movements” (225) is simply

nonsense. How could it be when articles like de Cleyre’s argued that

“the weapon of the future will be the general strike” and is it not

clear that “it must be the strike which will stay in the factory, not go

out?” (Anarchy! An Anthology of Emma Goldman’s Mother Earth, Peter

Glassgold (ed.), 311) were printed?

At best it could be argued that by not being totally focused on unions

and labour struggles Mother Earth made a mistake, but that would be

wrong. Indeed, few Leninist newspapers today would be so narrowly

focused (as can be seen by the ISO’s own journal). So if Parsons were

“outraged that an anarchist paper would deal with such questions” like

free love “for her advancing the working class revolution came first at

any cost” (203) then this showed a weakness in her politics rather than

a flaw in the rest of the American anarchist movement.

Simply put, if it is a case that “Lucy did not share Emma’s ideological

position on sexual freedom, and she had never considered women’s

emancipation as important as class struggle” (255) then Goldman was

right – the struggle against patriarchy is as important as the struggle

against capitalism and the state. This applies to other forms of social

oppression like racism and homophobia as well. We are well aware that a

theoretical commitment to social equality by socialist organisations

need not be reflected in practice while arguing that everything will be

fine after the revolution will ensure that social hierarchies like

sexism, racism and homophobia will never be addressed.

This does not mean, of course, that social hierarchies can be ended

without ending capitalism and the state. As can be seen, Goldman was

well aware of the limitations of women’s liberation within capitalism –

being free to become a wage slave is not much of a step-up from being a

slave to a husband. Similarly, all having the chance to be a boss may be

a form of equality but it is a limited one. True social equality means

no bosses.

As such, there is a kernel of truth in Parsons’ position – a kernel

which Goldman shared. However, Parsons’ conclusions were flawed and

given this, it is little wonder Ashbaugh distorts Goldman’s ideas and

the wider anarchist movement’s position!

There is, however, another issue upon which Parsons and Goldman took

radically differing positions, namely the Russian Revolution. Ashbaugh

notes how Parsons “took a hard Communist Party line against Goldman’s

and Berkman’s perceptions of Soviet Russia” (255) and ignored the

persecution of anarchists and the destruction of the Kronstadt revolt.

She presents a wonderfully self-contradictory discussion of Parsons’

position on the Soviet regime, that she though the “workers had seized

power in Russia” (255) before asserting that she “did not ask whether

there was freedom or workers’ democracy under the new regime.” (255–6)

That raises the question of how the workers could have “seized power”

without there being any “freedom or workers’ democracy”? Goldman and

Berkman were actually in Russia and saw that there was neither freedom

nor democracy for the working class, that it was a party dictatorship

(as happily admitted by such leading Bolsheviks as Lenin, Trotsky and

Zinoviev) and drew the obvious conclusions. As Goldman summarised:

“There is another objection to my criticism on the part of the

Communists. Russia is on strike, they say, and it is unethical for a

revolutionist to side against the workers when they are striking against

their masters. That is pure demagoguery practised by the Bolsheviki to

silence criticism.

“It is not true that the Russian people are on strike. On the contrary,

the truth of the matter is that the Russian people have been locked out

and that the Bolshevik State – even as the bourgeois industrial master –

uses the sword and the gun to keep the people out. In the case of the

Bolsheviki this tyranny is masked by a world-stirring slogan: thus they

have succeeded in blinding the masses. Just because I am a revolutionist

I refuse to side with the master class, which in Russia is called the

Communist Party.” (My Disillusionment in Russia, xlix)

Clearly it is a travesty to proclaim that “[m]any ‘anarchists’ who had

been orientated to the class struggle came into Communist Party circles.

Those with individualistic and libertarian views like Emma Goldman and

Alexander Berkman, who became disillusioned with Soviet Russia, did

not.” (250) Goldman and Berkman opposed Soviet Russia precisely because

they were “orientated to the class struggle” and sided with the Russian

workers and peasants against their new rulers. Moreover, many

anarcho-syndicalists (“anarchists” like Rudolf Rocker and Armando

Borghi) saw through (to use Berkman’s title) The Bolshevik Myth.

In short, if Parsons “analysed society in terms of class struggle” (256)

then she should have done so with regards the Bolshevik regime and, like

Goldman and Berkman, have recognised that there was a new ruling class

in Russia, the party and state bureaucracies and, like them, supported

the strikes, protests and uprisings of the workers against their new

masters. Like Goldman she should have also argued that in “the economic

field” social transformation “must be in the hands of the industrial

masses” as the “industrial power of the masses, expressed through their

libertarian associations – Anarcho-syndicalism – is alone able to

organise successfully the economic life and carry on production.” (My

Disillusionment in Russia, 253)

Suffice to say, it is Goldman and Berkman who were proved right by

history not Parsons. The real question is why Parsons sided with the

Bolsheviks? Sadly, Ashbaugh does not present much explanation for this

(presumably because she thought Parsons was right).

And talking of the Communists, Ashbaugh claims that Parsons “join[ed]

the Communist Party in 1939.” (261) Yet there is good reason to question

this claim. Significantly, the Communist Party did not announce her

membership in its press nor did its obituary make the claim that she had

been a member. As such, it is hard not to conclude that there is a

reason why Ashbaugh’s comment had no supporting evidence, namely that

there is none and Parsons did not join the Communist Party at any time.

Moreover, Ashbaugh did not ponder the illogical nature of her assertion.

She notes that left-wingers in 1919 “found themselves expelled from the

Socialist Party” and joining the Communist Parties “was the only route

left open to them.” (247) However, Parsons did not join then. Why wait

20 years to join the Stalinist Communist Party during its Popular Front

phase? That goes against the class struggle nature of Parsons’ politics

which Ashbaugh is so keen to praise everywhere else in her book. And why

do neo-Trotskyists like the ISO point to this apparent support for

Stalinists as a good thing? It seems strange, for example, to applaud

how syndicalist William Z Foster became a Leninist and yet remain silent

on how he became a Stalinist.

As well as a blindness to the Soviet Regime, Ashbaugh has a rosy view of

Social Democracy. She does not seem that keen to learn the lessons of

history. Yes, the Socialist Party of America may have became “a mass

organisation rather than a small socialist sect” (209) but it became

reformist, expelling the likes of Big Bill Haywood as part of a “break”

with the IWW. (229) Parsons was right to argue that workers had “to

strike and remain in and take possession of the necessary property of

production” (218) and to mock those who believed in political action

favoured by Marx and his followers like the Socialist Party: “Do you

think the capitalists will allow you to vote away their property? You

may, but I do not believe it… It means a revolution…” (218)

It is also important to stress that it is pure assumption for Ashbaugh

to proclaim that “the I.W.W. and the Socialist Party never fully

cooperated with each other, a fact which limited both.” (218) There is

little basis for such assertions and much evidence against it – look at

the history of Social Democracy and contrast it with that of

syndicalism. Many radicals embraced the latter precisely because of the

reformism and bureaucracy of the latter and its tame unions. In other

words, Bakunin was proven right.

So, in conclusion, while some anarchists will be sympathetic to comments

about “restoring the working class movement called anarchism to the

dimensions of 1886” and how Parsons “complained that anarchism had moved

too far from the working class” (226), it is not the case that anarchism

is somehow fundamentally different from syndicalism. As such, it simply

shows an ignorance of anarchism to argue, as Ashbaugh does, that Parsons

“believed her husband had died for anarchism, and she was prepared to

defend and die for anarchism. Although her beliefs were syndicalist

rather than anarchist, she tried to cling to the ‘anarchist’ movement as

it changed shape.” (201) Revolutionary anarchism has advocated

syndicalism since Bakunin.

Moreover, if it is the case that “[w]hile the anarchist movement became

more and more involved with women’s emancipation, sexual freedom, and

individual liberties, Lucy Parsons became involved in the Social

Democracy” (200) then this is a mark against her (and Social Democracy!)

rather than anarchism. And if Parsons “was a member of this new party”

(209) (the Socialist Party) then it was for a very short time and she

quickly returned to anarchist ideas on direct action and revolutionary

unionism. As such, it is untenable to suggest, as Ashbaugh does, that

Goldman and Berkman were at the forefront of removing the class struggle

focus of anarchism. Looking at their works it is clear that they shared

the same politics as Parsons – communist-anarchism.

This is a seriously flawed book. Lucy Parsons, for all her faults and

mistakes, deserves better than this. Ashbaugh’s understanding of

anarchism is non-existent yet she inflicted her ignorance onto the

world. This has consequences as her book has been used by a member of

the ISO in America as the basis of a recent article and pamphlet on

Parsons which was obviously an attack on anarchism to try and draw

activists away from it into Leninism (this plagiarised work embellished

her numerous inaccuracies, including proclaiming Kropotkin a pacifist!).

That this book is reprinted by a press associated with that sect and

called Haymarket Books besmirches her and her husband twice fold!

So please do not buy this book. If you are interested in Lucy Parson

then there is an excellent an anthology of her writings edited by Gale

Ahrens called Freedom, Equality & Solidarity: Writings & Speeches,

1878–1937 (Charles H. Kerr, 2003). Allowing Parsons voice to be heard

without commentary (although it does have an useful Introduction by

Ahrens and Afterword by Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz), it is a more reliable

introduction to her life and ideas.

Lucy Parsons: American Revolutionary

Carolyn Ashbaugh

Haymarket Books

2012