The No. 25 (December 1957) issue of Views and Comments, an anarcho-syndicalist leaning publication produced out of New York by the Libertarian League from 1955 until 1966.
Contents include:
-What we stand for
-From the editors
-Voting: fight or farce?
-Little Rock
-Individualist anarchism: two points of view from Bulletin de S.I.A. (Toulouse), 2nd semester, 1957, Translated by Richard DeHaan
-1. Individualist perspectives by Emile Armand
-2. The two anarchisms by "LYG"
-The nature of Spanish fascism
-IWW pamphlet list
-The libertarian bookshelf (literature list)
This issue digitized for libcom.org by the Centre International de Recherches sur l'Anarchisme (CIRA) in Lausanne, Switzerland.
Comments
I read the article on Little…
I read the article on Little Rock because I remember reading in Left of the Left that Dolgoff was uncomfortable with the federal intervention there. I suppose this would have been the article his son was referring to.
The article basically opposed federal intervention because "anything which tends to increase the already enormous power of the central government is a step toward complete state control toward fascism". The article also says the intervention "hurts the cause of integration by uniting the Little Rock community and the whole of the South solidly behind the racists".
It's a pretty bad article. The forces closest to fascism at this time were not the Northern based federal government, but instead the Southern New Deal Democrats who upheld brutal race based apartheid through their state governments, sometimes in alliance with or toleration of what were in reality explictly fascist forces such as the Ku Klux Klan and the White Citizen's Councils.
Considering that Views & Comments and Dolgoff were part of the American anarchist movement that was for American involvement in WW2 to defeat fascism...it's curious that a line was drawn in this particular situation. To me it reveals a blind spot that much of the Old Left were often criticized (rightly and wrongly) about.
That's very interesting…
That's very interesting. Because I could totally see how you could make a principled anarchist argument against federal intervention (not saying that I agree with that argument), but then by the same logic you would have to oppose all US government military intervention – especially given the direct parallels between the apartheid US South and Nazi Germany with its own version of racial apartheid (and of course both sides with their involvement in genocides as well).
But this wouldn't be the only blind spot of Dolgoff, seeing as he also supported the state of Israel to an extent.