There were a number of trends, events and developments during this time that belie most people's notions of 'normalcy', and the resurgence of radicalism generally and anarchism especially as briefly articulated has to be up there with most of them. That these trends etc., and the factors driving them at the time had as much to do with race, religion and ethnicity as it had to do with politics, economics, ideology and the prevailing social milieu, is certainly true.
Understandably though this was not widely acknowledged at the time especially by the folks -- including the mainstream media -- who were behind the resolutely determined efforts to ensure that Sacco and Vanzetti were tried then fried with extreme prejudice, if not extreme haste, regardless of their guilt. The Fourth Estate then as now acted as a bona fide Fifth Column for the preservation of the existing order and a promulgator of those keen to advance their own interests within that order. By all accounts it was both diligent and effective in fulfilling this role.
Some explanation of anarchism is appropriate, as like most radical political philosophies whether on the left or right, it can be a moving feast. There are probably few political ideologies that appear more at odds with itself (not to mention at odds with everything else that does not qualify as anarchic). Yet in its own strange way it is quite compelling. The basic philosophy of anarchism -- ostensibly at least the most extreme form of radical left-wing ideology -- is characterised by folks who simply do not believe that the state should exist let alone have authority, control, or power over individuals. Anarchists advocate a 'stateless' society based around 'non-hierarchical, free association' between individuals in the conduct of human affairs and in the organisation of societal structures.
As indicated anarchism can be a moving feast in its varying forms, as it can manifest itself either benignly or peacefully (anarcho-pacifism anyone?), or violently. We might say that anarchism was/is the Ben and Jerry's of political philosophies, with almost as many flavours to choose from! At its most extreme, it may manifest itself in the form of nihilism in its own varying forms. We even have an anarcho-capitalism, with doubtless many of those less enamoured of capitalism in any variation arguing that this could well be its most definitive form.
As a social/political movement it had enjoyed fluctuating periods of popularity, even previously in the U.S. in the latter quarter of the nineteenth century. In the second and third decades of the twentieth century, it appeared to make something of a come-back, and this was no doubt linked with the rise of socialism and political radicalism in Europe generally and Bolshevism in Russia especially, the latter reaching its pinnacle of achievement and success with the advent of the Russian Revolution. The Marxists and the Bolsheviks may have been the main players in the lead up to the Revolution and beyond, but the anarchists weren't far behind. This was certainly the case when it came to cashing in on the prevailing revolutionary fervour of the zeitgeist.
Although the fundamental tenets of anarchism as a mode of political and social thought had been around several centuries, its more modern manifestations and variants can be traced back to the Enlightenment. And it has played significant roles in numerous historical events, beginning in Europe, and of course, later America. In the mid nineteenth century around the time Karl Marx was busy honing his own theories, his contemporary Mikhail Bakunin -- one of the early exponents of anarchy's central ideology, if not exactly the first person to describe himself as one -- was developing his own radical ideas. It was this which came to be called anarchism as we know it today.
Although there was much common ground between the two ideologies, Marx and Bakunin later came to oppose each other about some of these fundamentals. For his part Bakunin disdained Marx's theories as too 'centralist' (or top heavy) and envisaged that, if a Marxist party came to power, its leaders would just concentrate and consolidate their new power and simply take the place of the ruling elites they had railed against and eventually overcome. Of course this prediction has a distinctly Orwellian undertone to it (albeit more Animal Farm than 1984). In this sense Bakunin's punditry proved prescient, in more ways and in more places on our favourite planet than possibly even Bakunin himself might have dared imagine.
The Cobbler and the Fishmonger
With this backdrop in mind then, it is anarchism's place and role in the American narrative that we are mostly concerned with here. And it is also interesting to look briefly at the history of the movement there that began in the decades prior and which led to the S&V saga. In 1886, after the eight-hour day was first proposed by the bourgeoning labor movement, rallies were planned and organised to turn this proposal into reality. It should be noted -- especially given their notoriously remorseless reputation for exploiting to the max their respective labour forces -- the Robber Baron clique at the time were implacably opposed to anything remotely resembling improvement of the lot of labour, and were prepared to do anything to discredit then derail (might we say "degrade then destroy"?) the movement.
Although most union leaders of the era were far from anarchists, they were happy to accept their support in achieving their aim, possibly on the basis that to do so, they were going to need all the help they could muster. All 'donations' were gratefully accepted as it were. In response, unions across the country prepared a general strike in support of the eight-hour day proposal. In Chicago, on 3 May, a fight broke out when strikebreakers attempted to cross the picket line, and two workers died when police opened fire upon the crowd.
The next day, anarchists staged a rally at the city's Haymarket Square during which an unidentified person (presumably someone with serious anarchist tendencies) threw a bomb, killing a cop. Amid the melee that followed, fear, panic and confusion reined, with police opening fire on the crowd and this time, each other, the cops themselves apparently being infected by a mutant strain of anarchist fervour. This time though, seven policeman and four workers were killed. Eight of the anarchists connected to the rally organisers were arrested and charged with murder, with four of the men being executed and another topping himself. In going from live luminary to dead martyr status, they became icons among the international labor movement. Known as the Haymarket Affair, although the incident went on to occupy mythical status, it effectively killed the labor movement at the time.
Notwithstanding this outcome, whilst it may not have been a huge consolation for the families of either those rally participants killed or of the organisers who were executed, Haymarket though provided the impetus for international May Day observances. The labor movement may have been buried, but the Bolshie sentiments that fuelled Haymarket were far from dead. You can kill a movement, but you can't kill an idea. Or so they say!
Jailed, Tried, Nailed and Fried
So in was in this milieu in America during this period that the Sacco and Vanzetti case -- one of the most complex and controversial trials in the American narrative -- came to symbolise the War on Anarchism. There are of course similar parallels to the War on Communism, especially those to do with the machinations of Joseph McCarthy and his notorious 'Inquisition', aka the House un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), and exemplified by the highly contentious trial and subsequent executions of suspected communist spies Ethel and Julius Rosenberg in 1954 for espionage. Much like one suspects the recent trial and conviction of Boston Bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev embodied and reflected our presumed collective fears of terrorism. The conviction of Tsarnaev, now sentenced to death for the crime, would suggest Zinn was on to something. The pattern it would appear keeps rearing its ugly head, one with a long, although hardly illustrious, history.
For their part Sacco and Vanzetti were arrested and charged in May 1920 for the robbery and the murder of a
security guard and the paymaster during a payroll robbery in Braintree,
Massachusetts. For his part Vanzetti was hit with a double whammy in that he
was also charged with another earlier robbery in 1919 in Bridgewater, not far
from Braintree. Together and separately they protested their innocence on all
charges, with their arrest and subsequent legal travails sparking worldwide demonstrations, protests, and violent responses from anarchists and radical minded folks, and indeed, ordinary citizens.
This was to continue for well over 6 years, right up until the end of the trial and the various appeals. Indeed, their plight became an authentic cause celebre, a phrase that had it not already existed might have been invented to describe it. Even to this very day, the case still seems to have a life of its own. This no doubt is partly because it recalls so many aspects of America's less heralded political past, but as Zinn observed it is because of its relevance to the political climate that has prevailed especially so since 9/11.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
1
