Chicago Idea and the IWPA
Jun 12 2007 22:22
Can anyone help me with some information, please?
I'd like good material on the IWPA, the so-called "Black International," especially the Chicago and unionist/syndicalist sections. I'm also interested in the phrase "the Chicago Idea," does anyone know where the term comes from, where it first appeared?
Jun 15 2007 10:57
#2
An Anarchist FAQ (www.anarchistfaq.org) has a section on the haymarket events and their ideas in section A.5.
My reply to a recent Trotskyist attack on the Makhnovists also contains some information on the Chicago anarchists (refuting claims that they were marxists). That can be found here
Jun 15 2007 14:09
#3
Thanks for that, Anarcho. Pointing out the fabrications of the ISO must be tedious, but somebody has to do it. Better you than me.
To take Parsons case, who i know the most about, it would be accurate to say that in the early 1880s he had read Marx and was an active member of the Socialist Labor Party, but by the time of the Pittsburgh conference founding the IWPA, he was an anarchist.
Jun 15 2007 14:34
#4
David in Atlanta wrote:
Thanks for that, Anarcho. Pointing out the fabrications of the ISO must be tedious, but somebody has to do it. Better you than me.To take Parsons case, who i know the most about, it would be accurate to say that in the early 1880s he had read Marx and was an active member of the Socialist Labor Party, but by the time of the Pittsburgh conference founding the IWPA, he was an anarchist.
Yep. We have his autobiography here:
http://libcom.org/library/autobiography-parsons
Jun 15 2007 14:42
#5
Regarding the IWPA, check this out:
http://libcom.org/library/our-class-memory-on-the-beast-of-property-by-johann-most-communism-8
Also, not to threadjack but does anyone know about the "new" IWPA? The only thing on libcom that refers to it is this thread:
Jun 17 2007 02:28
#6
I was under the impression that the old org. was always the IWMA, not IWPA. I'd love to be set straight if wrong.
The "new" IWPA is a collection of various leftist organizations, nothing real interesting at all.
Jun 17 2007 05:05
#7
OliverTwister wrote:
I was under the impression that the old org. was always the IWMA, not IWPA. I'd love to be set straight if wrong.The "new" IWPA is a collection of various leftist organizations, nothing real interesting at all.
The US based group founded in Pittsburgh in 1883 by Johann Most and Parsons among others was IWPA, it didn't outlive the Haymarket anarchists by long. It grew fast among immigrant workers, dissident Knights of Labor lodges and splinter groups of the SLP and then disappeared.
I'm going to stick a copy of the Proclamation in the library.
Quote:
October 12–16
Pittsburgh congress convened in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Pittsburgh Manifesto written largely by Johann Most but amended by Victor Drury, Albert Parsons, Joseph Reifgraber, and August Spies; document served as the ideological and programmatic basis of the International Working People’s Association. This was the first and last congress of the IWPA.
Jun 17 2007 09:15
#8
The IWMA dissolved itself at a conference in Phillidelphia in 1876. This was after the Marxist General Council had expelled Bakunin and his comrades and shipped the office off to North America for reasons I've never exactly understood, but G.M Stekloff explains here fairly convincingly:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/steklov/history-first-international/ch24.htm
Then we had the London IMWA:
Quote:
†-The American Federation of International Working People ’s Association was an alliance of American anarchist and Social Revolutionist
groups founded at a convention held in Pittsburgh,PA from Oct.12-14,1883.It drew its name from the International Working
People ’s Association established in London in 1881 (the so-called “Black International ” of Mikhail Bakunin and his co--thinkers)to
which the American Federation actually never af filiated.The founding congress was attended by 40 delegates representing groups
from industrial cities spread across the East and Midwest,who unanimously approved the document reprinted here.Authorship of
the “Pittsburgh Proclamation ” has been attributed to Johann Most..
Which comes from a footnote attached to the pdf version of the Pittsburgh document linked in a previous post. They have the basic facts right except that Bakunin was dead years before the London congress.
Most came to the States from England in '82 so it's possible he was at the London conference but most of the sources i'm finding on him make it sound like he left directly from prison. He'd been arrested and served 18 months for writing an editorial in Die Freiheit praising the assasination of Tsar Alexander II.
Jun 17 2007 17:25
#9
David in Atlanta wrote:
This was after the Marxist General Council had expelled Bakunin and his comrades and shipped the office off to North America for reasons I've never exactly understood
Because it was about to be taken over by lunatics, and Marx preferred to destroy it than let that happen. It was a conscious and delibrate decision to try and destroy the International.
Jun 17 2007 21:27
#10
Jack wrote:
David in Atlanta wrote:
This was after the Marxist General Council had expelled Bakunin and his comrades and shipped the office off to North America for reasons I've never exactly understoodBecause it was about to be taken over by lunatics, and Marx preferred to destroy it than let that happen. It was a conscious and delibrate decision to try and destroy the International.
Interesting speculation. Which lunatics did you have in mind?
Stekloff doesn't mention any thing about it. He mentioned the general political climate in Europe, he mentioned a desire to salt the north american working class, nothing about any lunatics unless I missed something.
I do happen to agree with you that Marx was a "my way or no way" type, he wasn't alone in that though. I've often thought Bakunin and Marx were seldom so convincing as when they were trashing each other.
Jun 17 2007 21:37
#11
David in Atlanta wrote:
Interesting speculation. Which lunatics did you have in mind?
Bakuninists mainly. With a smattering of Proudhonists (altho I think they were maybe in decline in the international by this point?) and probably even some Blanquists.
Quote:
Stekloff doesn't mention any thing about it. He mentioned the general political climate in Europe, he mentioned a desire to salt the north american working class, nothing about any lunatics unless I missed something.I do happen to agree with you that Marx was a "my way or no way" type, he wasn't alone in that though. I've often thought Bakunin and Marx were seldom so convincing as when they were trashing each other.
I'd actually thought it was almost uncontentious that he moved it to NY to kill it. I've read it in a bunch of Marx biographies and histories of the international/Marxism/working class movements, which mostly come at it from a pro-Marx perspective - I'd assume more pro-Bakunin stuff would be even more along these lines? The line is usually "It was a shit, undemocratic thing to do... but he was right". Which is pretty close to my position on it - he had no "right" to throw his dummy out of the pram, but he was right that if those types had controlled the international it would've been a disaster.
Jun 18 2007 15:08
#12
Well I think I'm gonna have to disagree with Jack's characterisation of the Bakuninists as 'lunatics'. Mainly the fight was over political action or direct action. Marx's faction argued for the establishment of trade unions as an arm of social democratic parties largely based on the German experience, whereas the Anarchists advocated workplace groupings as political groups that would agitate for a general strike. I know a lot of folks like to put some space between Lenin an d Marx, but Marx's ideas regarding intellectuals and the role of the radical intellegensia in practice was not all that different than lenin's. Also part of the move as I understand it was Marx's falling out with the English trade union leaders who were never actually interested in revolution but were interested in establishing a reformist Labour party, basically they were using Marx to network with other labour groups and tolerated his revolutionary bombast until after the Paris commune at which point he became a bit more of a liability.
If you are looking for a good history that is nominally sympathetic to the anarchists check out GDH Cole's history of socialist thought. The second volume is devoted entirely to the fight between the two and is pretty good. It's also pretty good fr pointing out the blunders of the anarchists in the Paris commune which was a sorry period in history too.
Jun 18 2007 16:22
#13
Jack wrote:
David in Atlanta wrote:
This was after the Marxist General Council had expelled Bakunin and his comrades and shipped the office off to North America for reasons I've never exactly understoodBecause it was about to be taken over by lunatics, and Marx preferred to destroy it than let that happen. It was a conscious and delibrate decision to try and destroy the International.
And you're in SolFed? 
Maybe the entire italian, swiss, french sections were composed of lunatics, yeah?...
Jun 19 2007 14:24
#14
I'm totally appalled by Jack's comments on the International and the Bakuninsts. Unbelievable!!
And as, Oliver says, you're in Solfed?
Jun 19 2007 14:26
#15
Maybe Oliver should call for Jack to be purged from Solfed?
Jun 19 2007 14:30
#16
Seeing as anarchosyndicalism has its roots in these French, Spanish, Swiss and Italian "lunatics" mebbe you should think twice about which organisation you should be in. Wouldn't you be better off in the ICC?
Jun 19 2007 14:35
#17
Anyway, back to the Chicago Idea. If you can get hold of The Voice of Terror: A Biography of Johann Most by Frederic Trautman it contains some info on Most's ( another "lunatic") efforts to organise the IWPA, even though it's pretty inaccurate and not that well disposed to Most
Jun 19 2007 15:40
#18
Quote:
"Because it was about to be taken over by lunatics"
That would be the anarchists, then? I'm amazed that anyone in an anarchist forum would write that!
The fact is, that the "Bakuninists" had become the majority in the IWMA. To stop them actually taking control of the top parts of the organisation, Marx (like a good bureaucrat) acted to stop them. So he got Bakunin expelled for fraud (even though Marx had evidence which showed Bakunin was innocent) and for belonging to an organisation which the fixed congress could not prove existed! Then he shipped it off to New York, to keep it out of the hands of both the anarchists and the Blanquists (who supported Marx against the anarchists).
When the Second International was formed, the social democrats made sure the anarchists were not allowed in. In the Third International, the council communists were shown the door (the anarchists and syndicalists had already left). Seems like a pattern is emerging...
Jun 19 2007 15:44
#19
oh Jack, ever the controversialist ...
Jun 19 2007 15:49
#20
"if those types had controlled the international it would've been a disaster." Jack
I think wrecking the International by moving the General Council to New York was pretty much a disaster, hmm?
Jun 20 2007 13:17
#21
"The Chicago idea"...wow! The old timers used to refer to this all the time. Well, come to think of it, mainly some of the old timers in the (NY) Libertarian Book Club.I remember as a kid this being explained as simply the American version of anarchist unionism (anarcho-syndicalism). That this idea incorporated the fight for immediate demands, working class organization and agitation/education of anarchist ideas within the working class.
BTW, the I'd recomend the groundbreaking book "History of the Haymarket Affair "
by Henry David and "The Haymarket Tragedy" by Paul Avrich. Both portray the Chicago idea in a very sympathetic way.
Most's IWPA wing seemed to have les sway on Chicago anarchists than what was to become the modern methods of anarcho-syndicalism.
BTW, the G.M Stekloff version seems to very pro-Marxian. I have a old of his book which was published by the publishing house of the CPUSA, International Pub.
Gotta run.
Jun 20 2007 13:38
#22
Anarcho wrote:
That would be the anarchists, then? I'm amazed that anyone in an anarchist forum would write that!
It'd be followers of Bakunin, yes. I've no special attachment to the word anarchist in the slightest. It's ridiculous to pretend that Bakunin wasn't a full of shit just because he was an "anarchist" - just as stupid as taking Marx's word as gospel because he was a "communist".
Quote:
The fact is, that the "Bakuninists" had become the majority in the IWMA. To stop them actually taking control of the top parts of the organisation, Marx (like a good bureaucrat) acted to stop them. So he got Bakunin expelled for fraud (even though Marx had evidence which showed Bakunin was innocent) and for belonging to an organisation which the fixed congress could not prove existed! Then he shipped it off to New York, to keep it out of the hands of both the anarchists and the Blanquists (who supported Marx against the anarchists).
Which is pretty much what I said, no?
Marx didn't have the "right" to do what he did, but personally, I think it would have been a far bigger disaster for the working class movement having the International controlled by Bakunin or Blanqui than it disintegrating.
Battlescared wrote:
Seeing as anarchosyndicalism has its roots in these French, Spanish, Swiss and Italian "lunatics" mebbe you should think twice about which organisation you should be in. Wouldn't you be better off in the ICC?
I don't give a fuck where its "roots" lie. Bakunin was a load of shit, as were most 19th century anarchists. Doesn't discredit the ideas and forms that later emerged from them.
Jun 20 2007 16:25
#23
I'm tempted to reply Cock! but I'll restrain myself. You obviously have not read Bakunin in any depth and you seem to have very little knowledge of the"lunatics" , good working class militants in the main, who made up the people expelled or who seceded from the International.
Anyway, I reckon you're well on the way to turning your back on anarchism completely quite soon and moving over to some Leninist outfit. A year, two years- we'll see.
Like I said, You'd be better off in the ICC.
Jun 20 2007 16:34
#24
Battlescarred wrote:
I'm tempted to reply Cock! but I'll restrain myself. You obviously have not read Bakunin in any depth and you seem to have very little knowledge of the"lunatics" , good working class militants in the main, who made up the people expelled or who seceded from the International.
Anyway, I reckon you're well on the way to turning your back on anarchism completely quite soon and moving over to some Leninist outfit. A year, two years- we'll see.
Like I said, You'd be better off in the ICC.
I read shit loads of Bakunin when I was first into anarchist stuff (altho admittedly not anything for about 3 years), and always thought it was a load of shit. I've consistently supported Marx over Bakunin - I reckon there are threads in the archive from about 2005 with me arguing this. So the idea that I'm on some kind of trajectory away from anarchism is absurd.
Altho I'm perfectly happy to have nothing to do with the anarchist movement - beyond comrades in Sol Fed, libcom and the odd smattering of others I have reason to work with, I have absolutly no desire to have any activity with anarchists, and haven't for years. Same with Leninists, too, but hey, I'm sure that's enough to make me a Leninist.
Jun 20 2007 17:10
#25
Actually Jack I agree entirely with you that on paper the logical conclusion is to side with Bakunin over Marx. Bakunin's analyses is often hairbrained and somewhat scattered, not presented very well and relies on a lot of 'big talk' but not much insight. But that isn't the point to me.
I think its important to keep in mind who Baukunin was, while he was an intellectual in his own right (prior to leaving Russia he was on their premier scholars on Hegel), he was not really a serious revolutionary theorist. He was a front lines organiser and generally spent a lot more time doing the dirty work of building an international. He didn't really have the time that Marx did to put into writing, and even if he did I don't think he was really as smart as Marx. But what Bakunin lacked in smarts he more than made up in charisma.
I often think Bakunin's part in the first international is overstated. There are lots of other really interesting folks. Overall the anarchists made some pretty big mistakes (like encouraging the communards not to seize the state bank, or tolerating and occasionally siding with the proudhonsists) but the debate as much as it revolved around personalities was also very much about issues. On one side you had Marx advocating the the international be used to build political parties based around a common ideological program, and on the other you had anarchists like Bakunin, Guillaume, Varlin, arguing that the international should build organisations of workers based on the shop floor and should agitate for industrial action in defence of their interests. In the end the anarchists did not have the dazzling theoreticians like Engels and Marx, but they did have a better program and sound organisers.
I think as intellectuals we are often won over to the better presented idea too easilly, we're suckers for good presentation but sometmies looking back you can't help but think maybe the dumber guy was right.
Jun 20 2007 17:15
#26
EdmontonWobbly wrote:
sometmies looking back you can't help but think maybe the dumber guy was right.
This is my new motto.
Jun 20 2007 17:18
#27
I don't particularly support either of them in terms of what they did practically. For every time Bakunin declared the death of capitalism on the steps of the town hall, Marx declared the English revolution had started. Both could be naive as fuck, and both often placed their personal vendettas above what was the best thing to do.
I don't think either of them had a program that was in any way viable within the international, and in terms of what they did practically, neither was worth supporting.
However, Marx wrote some stuff of value, which I'm happy to take from. Bakunin, as you say, was less of a theorist, and so hasn't even left this.
Jun 20 2007 17:36
#28
Quote:
and in terms of what they did practically, neither was worth supporting.
You mean aside from one being the originator of the form of organisation Solfed uses today?
Jun 20 2007 17:43
#29
EdmontonWobbly wrote:
You mean aside from one being the originator of the form of organisation Solfed uses today?;)
We still have a lot to change.
Jun 20 2007 19:29
#30
Yeah, well don't we all.....
http://www.marxisthistory.org/history/usa/parties/anarchist/1883/1014-iwpa-pittsburgh.pdf
Is the Pittsburgh Manifesto
I'm not sure when the term "Chicago Idea" came into common use, but it's usually used to mean the mixture of trade unionism and armed struggle advocated by the Haymarket Martyrs.
http://www.lucyparsonsproject.org/index.html is an excellent source, as is The Haymarket Scrapbook, published by Charles H. Kerr