the assassination of mckinley article
Mar 24 2007 19:08
can someone qualify for me here the use of "brave"?
"As with the rest of the ‘Propaganda by the Deed’ period, the actions of a few, admittedly brave, anarchists failed to inspire revolution in the working class and instead led to severe repression of the movement at a time when they were not yet ready to defend themselves."
Mar 25 2007 11:50
#2
you dont think it takes a bit of courage to try to assassinate the guy who ran one of the most powerful countries on earth? you might think it a stupid act, but people can be both stupid and brave.
Mar 25 2007 12:13
#3
More to the point, it could at least mention the context. Why did anarchists do "propaganda by the deed"? While some may have believed the nonsense that it would inpsire the masses to rise (which sounds more like nihilism to me), it was a tactic adopted after the defeat of the Commune and the repression that followed.
A lot of the assassinations carried out by anarchists in this period were in direct reprisal for acts of repression (such as the assassination of Umberto I after he congratulated a general for massacring hundreds of workers in Milan protesting about the price of bread). We do our history no favours if we fail to understand why anarchists acted as they did,
Regards,
Martin
Mar 25 2007 13:40
#4
yeah, i wrote that piece a while ago (when I was 19) and when i said they were brave, i meant it as 'brave but stupid'.
Martin, didn't realise that the reprisals thing was such a big factor. I mean, for some it was obviously (i.e. Spanish anarchists and the pistoleros) but I always thought prop by deed was part of some idea of spontaneous revolt of the masses, no? Yeah, it does sound quite nihilist but then at the same time a lot of anarchist history is pretty shite like that (short on examples now, just got up) and like it might not help our understanding of our history to not understand why anarchists did certain things, it'd be equally bad to airbrush the absolutely bollocks reasons they did others.
Also, was the mckinley assassination in reprisal for something? I'd like to add, be careful with what you say as it'll probably get copy and pasted into a rewrite! 
Mar 25 2007 15:12
#5
Czolgosz made mention of the US imperialist massacres in the Philippines as well as the massacres of striking workers.
Mar 25 2007 17:36
#6
martin - sorry forgot to forward your PM to Ed, will do now.
Yeah reprisals were a big part... I was reading about the Argentine copper Varela again the other day who got offed by an anarchist in revenge for a massacre. Fucking good on him as well:
http://libcom.org/history/wilckens-kurt-gustav-1886-1923
Mar 26 2007 10:27
#7
Czolgosz got a mention in "White men can't jump" last night. Just a quickie though, "who assasinated Mckinley".
Mar 26 2007 12:07
#8
Black Badger wrote:
Czolgosz made mention of the US imperialist massacres in the Philippines as well as the massacres of striking workers.
yeah, thought i'd heard along those lines, but wasnt sure.
his actions didnt help anything, to be honest, but, frankly - i cant bring myself to hate czolgosz at all. he was an idealistic and frustrated young guy, and mckinley was really something of a bastard. it's, perhaps, unfortunate that he didnt get in touch with the broader Anarchist movement, which might've been able to temper out reckless and poorly thought out actions, maybe directed him to more useful work. i could be wrong, but i think he's nowhere near in the vein of, say, scummy fellows like Ravachol.
Mar 26 2007 20:18
#9
Martinh is right a lot of it was acts of desperation in response to massacres, i'm reading Rocker's "The London Years" and it seems most of the movement thought that the nihilist, "total war against the bourgeoisie" types were nuts back then too (and/or that their attitude might make sense in Russia but not in UK for example).
Mar 27 2007 19:43
#10
Pannekeok's article: The personal act, about Van der lubbe burning of the Reichstag is very interesting in relation to this question
[http://www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/1933/person.htm]
Mar 28 2007 10:59
#11
ernie wrote:
Pannekeok's article: The personal act, about Van der lubbe burning of the Reichstag is very interesting in relation to this question
[http://www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/1933/person.htm]
Also http://libcom.org/library/reichstag-fire-dutch-communism
Apr 7 2007 00:44
#12
"admittedly brave" is a concession, it is brave, but misguided as the article also says. LEave it how it is I think.
With regard to what Martin said I think that I read something about assassinations of polish police commanders (three iirc) who were particularly shitty in the early C20th
Apr 7 2007 10:48
#13
In Aristotelian terms, foolish and impulsive bravery already is the opposite of real courage - so stupid and brave is a contradiction. If I took a similar sort of nihilism to the extreme, and went into the street on a random, murderous rampage, I'd be in danger of police swat teams and I'd almost certainly die - would you call me 'stupid and brave'?
Apr 11 2007 21:45
#14
thanks all, i heard what i was hoping to hear.
some assassinations are praiseworthy, if they take out a fuck, and might thereby really change a situation. von stauffenberg's attempt on the nazi bigs i think fits this definition.
Apr 15 2007 03:05
#15
martinh wrote:
it was a tactic adopted after the defeat of the Commune and the repression that followed.
I think Dimitri Karakozov is often credited as an early propaganda of the deed... guy, and he died in 66' , 5 years before la Commune. Anybody read How Non-violence Protects the State? i forgot the authors name but one ought to read it before being too hard on our propaganda-of-the-deedcestors, he presents some pretty salient arguments against non-violence.
no that i'm advocating violence, mind you, but neither can i advocate non-violence... christ i feel like a liberal.
Apr 15 2007 03:14
#16
also this from wikipedia citing the encyclopedia brittanica "Pisacane is considered an early propoponent of propaganda of the deed, arguing that "ideas spring from deeds and not the other way around... The use of the bayonet in Milan has produced a more effective propaganda than a thousand books."[1]" he died in 59'
Apr 18 2007 09:30
#17
fkschulze wrote:
no that i'm advocating violence, mind you, but neither can i advocate non-violence... christ i feel like a liberal.
fkschulze no one here's advocating non-violence. Just individual acts of violence devoid of mass support.
Apr 19 2007 20:23
#18
John. wrote:
fkschulze wrote:
no that i'm advocating violence, mind you, but neither can i advocate non-violence... christ i feel like a liberal.fkschulze no one here's advocating non-violence. Just individual acts of violence devoid of mass support.
doesnt help my feeling like a liberal... do you think that comes out with soap... maybe club soda?
Apr 19 2007 20:24
#19
more likely vodka
Apr 20 2007 19:33
#20
mitr wrote:
In Aristotelian terms, foolish and impulsive bravery already is the opposite of real courage - so stupid and brave is a contradiction. If I took a similar sort of nihilism to the extreme, and went into the street on a random, murderous rampage, I'd be in danger of police swat teams and I'd almost certainly die - would you call me 'stupid and brave'?
A random murderous rampage is not the same as a conviction that an assassination will lead the working class to rise up. I disagree with propaganda by the deed for the most part, but it doesn't follow that those people were stupid. I believe Aristotle thought the world was flat, does that make him stupid?
Apr 20 2007 21:15
#21
Hey, don't be dissing someone who (agree 100 percent with him or not) gave his life for the working class cause. The reaction of American anarchists at the time of the assassination was horrible - only Emma Goldman and a few others stuck by Leon Czolgosz. He's a fucking martyr and it seems disrespectful to call him names and all. It'd be like saying "Oh those Haymarket guys, yeah, well they shouldn't have organised a public meeting in the first place, the wankers. They asked for it." Sure, it's different, and individual terrorism isn't always the right thing, but still - be respectful to the dead!
An "Ode to Czolgosz"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSiqckf55q0
Apr 21 2007 15:18
#22
i'm sure that last post is ironical
Apr 21 2007 17:13
#23
No.
Apr 28 2007 02:34
#24
long live political assassination.
Apr 28 2007 02:40
#25
mitr wrote:
In Aristotelian terms, foolish and impulsive bravery already is the opposite of real courage - so stupid and brave is a contradiction. If I took a similar sort of nihilism to the extreme, and went into the street on a random, murderous rampage, I'd be in danger of police swat teams and I'd almost certainly die - would you call me 'stupid and brave'?
Only if you killed politicians.
Apr 28 2007 09:14
#26
what would harry roberts do?
Not much mate, he's been in prison for over three decades.
May 6 2007 00:17
#27
newyawka wrote:
i'm sure that last post is ironical
That song was pretty exceptional
May 8 2007 04:00
#28
Killing tyrants doesn't change the system, as far as I'm concerned. I'm not particularily sold on killing tyrants leading to revolutions either. Leon could have spent his time organising people instead of throwing his life away and giving the state "justification" in its persecutions of anarchists.
But wasn't he looked upon within the movement as a spy because he was rather preoccupied with violence?
May 9 2007 04:37
#29
El_Borrador wrote:
Killing tyrants doesn't change the system, as far as I'm concerned. I'm not particularily sold on killing tyrants leading to revolutions either. Leon could have spent his time organising people instead of throwing his life away and giving the state "justification" in its persecutions of anarchists.But wasn't he looked upon within the movement as a spy because he was rather preoccupied with violence?
i dont think anybody here is really defending his actions as being extremely wise or effective or anything - mostly just saying that there was some honest courage in it (and that, in an odd way, his heart was in the right place).
and, yeah, before he went and did the assassination, folk like Goldman tried to keep away from him, thinking he was a provocateur or somesuch. one way or another, i wouldnt be altogether surprised if he was a bit, erm... unstable. and considering that USA had its history of stupid acts of propaganda-by-deed by his time, it likely inclined him towards brave-but-pointless assassinations, rather than organizing.
May 11 2007 18:10
#30
it wasnt totally pointless. stories like that can be pretty inspirational to those who are just getting into 'the good fight'. a single extraordinary act has the effect of a thousand pamphlets, isnt that the idea of prop of the deed? i think it so. prop of deed was not in and of itself expected to topple governments or industry, it was supposed to appeal to other revolutionaries and inspire them to action. Czolgolz's predecessor Bresci still inspires thousands to this day for a similar act. Czolgosz' didn't inspire as many but it certainly didn't hurt. at the very least it forced american anarchists to face up to their own theory.
I think it's a typo.