Anarchism and Individual Terrorism Author(s): D.

Novak Source: The Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science / Revue canadienne d'Economique et de Science politique, Vol. 20, No. 2 (May, 1954), pp. 176-184 Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of Canadian Economics Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/138596 Accessed: 14/12/2009 08:32
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Canadian Economics Association and Blackwell Publishing are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science / Revue canadienne d'Economique et de Science politique.

http://www.jstor.org

ANARCHISM AND INDIVIDUAL TERRORISM

D. NOVAK
McMaster University A SIGNIFICANT ASPECT of anarchism, which brings it close to Russian nihilism and in the minds of some people is responsible for the erroneous identification of the two, is individual terrorism. Individual acts of violence, known especially in the last century as "propaganda by deed," have been regarded by some anarchists as part and parcel of the over-all revolutionary activity which is to culminate in the overthrow of the existing social system by acts of mass violence. There were and are anarchists of different schools opposed to violence as a means towards the establishment of an anarchist society, and they include not only religious anarchists like Leo Tolstoy and individualists like Benjamin Tucker, but also many of those who at one time or another could be classed as anarchist communists, for instance, Francisco Ferrer, Louisa S. Bevington, and Gustav Landauer. The so-called philosophical anarchists are also opposed to violence, if by them are meant people who believe in the possibility or at least the desirability of realizing the ideals of anarchism but do not accept the usual anarchist analysis of the existing system or the methods generally advocated by anarchist groups for the achievement of anarchism. Thus Godwin, Tolstoy, and Tucker, could be included in this group, and among our contemporaries Bertrand Russell.1 In the present century anarchists have almost ceased in theory and practice to view individual terrorism as important. Violent acts have been usually perpetrated by people who had practically no significance as thinkers and writers. Alexander Berkman is probably the only notable exception here, while men like Kropotkin, fortunately for anarchism, propagated anarchist ideas by the written and spoken word rather than by "deed." The problem of individual terrorism is not sufficiently dealt with in anarchist literature. Frank incitements to violent acts could hardly be printed, but terrorism was a theme of discussion in anarchist circles, especially in the last quarter of the nineteenth century. It was easier to express one's attitude in print after an act of terrorism had been committed, as one could then attempt to explain or justify such an act without laying oneself open to the charge of direct incitement. In many cases, the court speeches of anarchists tried for acts of terrorism have been published. The views on individual terrorism which are of special interest are those of Peter Kropotkin, one of the foremost anarchist thinkers, since they may be taken as indicative of the position held by the more thoughtful anarchists towards the end of the last, and the beginning of the present, century. In his Anarchist Morality, written in 1890, Kropotkin gave what might appear to be a moral justification for acts of terrorism. He answered the question whether
1See especially his Roads to Freedom: Socialism, Anarchism and Syndicalism (London, 1918). Cf. A. Gray, The Socialist Tradition: Moses to Lenin (London, New York, Toronto, 1946), 371; and M. Eastman, Marxism:Is it Science? (London, 1941), 270-1. 176 Vol. XX, no. 2, May, 1954

Anarchism and Individual Terrorism

177

the anarchists, claiming that one should treat others as one would be treated oneself, had any right "to kill not only a tyrant, but a mere viper," with these words: "Yes, certainly! Because any man with a heart asks beforehand that he may be slain, if ever he becomes venomous; that a dagger may be plunged into his heart, if ever he should take the place of a dethroned tyrant."2 Apart from the subjectivity of the proposition, however, which vitiates it, the statement refers only to a "tyrant,"and in the general context of Kropotkin's views at that time it may be taken as a justification of tyrannicide perpetrated during a revolution rather than of an act of individual terrorism. In his later writings Kropotkin tried to show that terrorism was a social phenomenon arising in special circumstances. In 1894 and 1896 he pointed out how much violence had been committed by governments or with the connivance of governments-against the Paris Commune, against the peasants in Belgium, Italy, and Spain, against the workers by the "Pinkerton thugs," against the natives in all parts of the world. Hoedel, a social democrat, and Nobiling, a republican, shot at the German Kaiser, Passanante, a religious Mazzinian, at the Italian King, and Otero, a non-anarchist worker, at the Spanish King; violence was committed by the Irish nationalists, Russian socialists, constitutionalists, and Jacobins, and various acts of violence were perpetrated by miners in Belgium, England, and America, whereas only a few anarchists in Spain and France committed violence. At the same time the bourgeois governments, in spite of their legal powers, did not hesitate to use violence against their enemies. In addition there were wars, exploitation, prisons, poverty, and complete disregard for human life. The governments and political parties, claimed Kropotkin, had therefore no right to protest against violence, because they themselves practised it and did nothing to eliminate the conditions that produced it.3 When the Empress Elizabeth of Austria was assassinated by Luccheni in September, 1898, Kropotkin expressed his sorrow for her as a "victim of social struggle" and commented sadly that at least women and children ought to be spared. He pointed out how Luccheni had grown up without parents, in bad social conditions, and restated his view that social conditions were responsible for the perpetration of violence.4 The avowed aim of individual terrorism has been to secure a change in some grave situation, an expression of vengeance, a protest against oppression, or a propagation of anarchism by deed. Anarchism by deed was believed to have an "educational" value in reminding the working class of its oppression, raising its revolutionary confidence, and making it more determined to overthrow the existing system. Those who perpetrated such deeds did so, consciously, only to further what they believed to be great and noble objects, such as justify the greatest sacrifice an individual can make-his life. Like all those
2AnarchistMorality (London, 1892), 21. 3Les Temps nouveaux (Paris, 1894), 60-83; L'Anarchie: sa philosophie, son ideal (Paris, 1896), 56-8. on 4"Kropotkin the Geneva Tragedy," a letter by Kropotkinto G. Brandes written because Kropotkinhad been attacked in a Danish paper and published with Brandes'spreface in the Politiken after the Empress Elizabeth of Austria had been assassinated. The English version was published in the anarchist monthly, Freedom, Oct., 1898, in London.

178

The Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science

who decide to take another man's life, the anarchist terrorist was a fanatic fired with missionary zeal which did not allow him the slightest doubt as to the wisdom of his course.5 Alexander Berkman, who at the time of the famous Homestead strike at the Carnegie Steel Co. in Pittsburgh in 1892 attempted to kill, but only wounded, the manager of the company, H. C. Frick, expresses what passed in his mind at that time: It is the People calling. Ah, the People! The grand, mysterious, yet so near and real, People.... Ah, to help this helplessly suffering giant, to lighten his burden! The way is obscure, the means uncertain,but in the heated student debate the note rings clear: To the People, become one of them, share their joys and sorrows, and thus you will teach them. Yes, that is the solution! . . . The People-the toilers of the world, the producers-comprise, to me, the universe. They alone count. The rest are parasites,who have no right to exist. But to the People belongs the earthby right if not in fact. To make it so in fact, all means are justifiable;nay, advisable, even to the point of taking life. . . . The more radical the treatment, I held, the quicker the cure. Society is a patient, sick constitutionallyand functionally. Surgical treatmentis often imperative. The removal of a tyrant is not merely justifiable;it is the highest duty of every true revolutionist. Human life is, indeed, sacred and inviolate. But the killing of a tyrant, of an enemy of the People, is in no way to be considered as the taking of a life. A revolutionist would rather perish a thousand times than be guilty of what is ordinarily called murder. In truth, murder and Attentat are to me opposite terms. To remove a tyrant is an act of liberation, the giving of life and opportunity to an oppressed people. True, the Cause often calls upon the revolutionist to commit an unpleasant act; but it is the test of a true revolutionist,nay, more, his pride-to sacrifice all merely human feeling at the call of the People's Cause. If the latter demand his life, so much the better. . . . Could anything be nobler than to die for a grand, a sublime Cause? Why, the very life of a true revolutionisthas no other purpose, no significancewhatever, save to sacrifice it on the altar of the beloved People. And what could be higher in life than to be a true revolutionist?It is to be a man, a complete MAN. A being who has neither personal interests nor desires above the necessities of the Cause; one who has emancipated himself from being merely human, and has risen above that, even to the height of conviction which excludes all doubt, all regret; in short, one who in the very inmost of his soul feels himself a revolutionistfirst, human afterwards.... aye, I am not conscious of any personalityin matters pertaining to the Cause. I am simply a revolutionist, a terrorist by conviction, an instrument for furthering the cause of humanity.6 a long accountof someterroristic committed anarchists variouscountries, of acts in and by the reasons which led them to perform these acts. This book,however,is somewhat superficial and one-sided,as the narrative accounts. appearsto be based chieflyon newspaper The firsttwo chapters, were comdealingwith the anarchist theoryand with M. Bakunin, sourcesand containsome historical errors. piled to a large extentfromsecondary Emma Goldmanin her essay, "The Psychologyof Violence,"in Anarchism and Other Essays (New York, 1911), quotes extensivelyfrom the speeches in court of anarchist terrorists SantaCasaerio, and Vaillant, Bresci. Angiolillo, Gaetano 6Prison Memoirs an Anarchist (London,1926), 5-10. Cf. also pp. 55, 57-8, 59, 67, of 68, 71-4. On page 55 Berkman writes:"Notthat lying is to be condemned, providedit is in the interestof the Cause.All the meansare justifiable the war of humanityagainst in its enemies.Indeed,the morerepugnant means,the stronger test of one's nobility the the and devotion." on the nextpage he expresses indignation the lying of the capitalist Yet his at journalists. Perhapsthey also did not mind the means,providedthey servedtheir cause?
5E. A. Vizetelly in The Anarchists: Their Faith and Their Record (London, 1911), gives

Anarchism and Individual Terrorism

179

There is, in these words, a blending of romanticism, religious idealization,7 messianism, dramatization and heroism,8 fantacism, and rationalization. These are, no doubt, present in varying degrees in the mind of every terrorist. In addition, however, the propagandist aspect of the act is frequently emphasized. The importance that Berkman attached to his act from this point of view is reflected in these words: "To be sure, an Attentat on Frick is in itself splendid propaganda. It combines the value of example with terroristic effect. . . . The chief purpose of my Attentat was to call attention to our iniquities; to arouse a vital interest in the sufferings of the people by an act of self-sacrifice; to stimulate discussion regarding the cause and purpose of the act and thus bring the teaching of anarchism before the world."9 It is difficult to believe that a man decides to kill another man in order to attain any one of the aims enunciated by Berkman. The iniquities of our system can be more effectively called to our attention by the spoken and written word than by an act of assassination. Although an act of self-sacrifice is likely to arouse interest in the sufferings of the people, it is much less likely to do so than persuasion when the aspect of self-sacrifice is overshadowed by that of the suffering of the victim. Furthermore, experience shows that acts of individual terrorism did the teachings of anarchism more harm than good. The fact that anarchism came to be associated in many minds with terrorism and violence is undoubtedly one of the reasons, although perhaps not the main one, for its lack of success as a social and political ideology and movement. It should also be noted that terroristic acts naturally led to the enactment of severe laws against anarchists, for example, in France and even in Switzerland, for long the refuge of revolutionary exiles, after Vaillant had thrown a bomb into the Chamber of Deputies in Paris on December 9, 1894.10 The discussion of the role that "propaganda by deed" plays in individual terrorism, considered by Berkman the "chief purpose" of his act, is conspicuously absent from Emma Goldman's essay on terrorism, "The Psychology of Political Violence." She believes that "To the earnest student it must be apparent that the accumulated forces in our social and economic life, culminating in a political act of violence, are similar to the terrors of the atmosphere, manifested in storm and lightning,"11 and that acts of violence are not due to the anarchist teaching but to social conditions.12 Thus Emma Goldman's differs comparison of an act of violence with "lightning" or a "thunderbolt"'13 from Berkman's appraisal of it as chiefly an act of propaganda, because the latter is an act consciously and purposefully willed and performed. A statement attributing particular events to the social conditions which produce them, understood in the widest sense of the term and taking into consideration the 7Thewords"Cause" "People" and invariably appearwith capitalletters. 80n page 68 Berkman exclaims:"I wantedto die for the Cause."Luigi Luccheni,who assassinated EmpressElizabethof Austriain Genevain September, the 1898, is reported If to have cried on leaving the court: "Long live Anarchy!Down with the aristocrats! therewere only two hundred bravemen like myselfall the throneswould soon be vacant!" See Vizetelly,The Anarchists, 237. 9Prison Memoirs an Anarchist, 68. 57, of ?OSee and llAnarchism OtherEssays,85. 149, Vizetelly,TheAnarchists, 156. l3bid., 98. 97. 12Ibid.,

180

The Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science

role that nature itself plays in the shaping of these conditions, is tautologous, and applies to the acts of a tyrant as much as to those of his assassin. If we do not blame the latter, neither can we blame the former. Moreover, the belief that assassination of an oppressor leads to the amelioration of the conditions would, on this basis, be illogical, and might be shown to presuppose a teleological view of life which the anarchists do not accept. An individual act cannot be fully explained by a generalization which may, with greater or lesser validity, apply to social acts. An individual act must, of course, be considered and analysed against the general social background, but for its comprehension factors of a more or less "private" nature have to be appraised, and the help of psychology here is indispensable. In another of her works, written more than twenty years later, Emma Goldman tried to interpret the individual acts of violence with a greater use of psychology, when she wrote: Since then [1892] I had ceased to regard political acts [of violence] as some other revolutionists did, from a merely utilitarian standpoint or from the view of their propagandisticvalue. The inner forces that compel an idealist to acts of violence, often involving the destructionof his own life, had come to mean much more to me. I felt certain that behind every political deed of that nature was an impressionable, highly sensitized personality and a gentle spirit. Such beings cannot go on living complacentlyin the sight of a great misery and wrong. Their relations to the cruelty and injustice of the world must inevitably express themselves in some violent act, in supremerending of their torturedsoul.14 As suggested above, in order to comprehend as fully as possible the reasons which make a man decide to commit an act of assassination, we must try to discern, against the general physical and social background, those events whose effects have come to shape the psychological endowment of the particular individual. This, of course, means the application of modern psychological methods and findings, especially those of psycho-analysis. It does not, however, mean that one has to accept the view, sometimes voiced in modern textbooks on psychology, that revolutionaries are generally maladjusted and neurotic personalities, with the implication that well-adjusted and balanced personalities adapt themselves to the existing situation. In so far as progress depends on change, and change depends on the activities of those who are dissatisfied with the state of affairs prevailing, we ought to be grateful for the existence of these "maladjusted" and "neurotic" personalities. On the other hand, the difference between the approach of a democratic socialist and that of a terrorist to the solution of social problems presupposes a different psychological attitude. It may be suggested that, from the point of view of the social significance of one's actions, their normality or abnormality is reflected in the way in which they are beneficial or harmful to society in general and to any individual in particular. This view follows from the concept of man as essentially a social animal. Thus a man who attempts to kill another behaves abnormally, and this is especially true of a man who has proclaimed the sanctity of human life. His is not the rational behaviour of a social being, but the irrational behaviour of an anti-social nature which he denounces in his
14Living My Life (London, 1932), I, 190.

Anarchism and Individual Terrorism

181

opponents. Dissatisfied, he becomes impatient and violent because his passions and feelings of hatred are stronger than his reason, which is now relegated to the role of fabricating rationalizations for the terroristic act. To ascertain the complex causes that are responsible for this effect is a task of the psychologist and, very frequently, the psychopathologist. Emma Goldman's psychological explanation of political acts of violence thus appears contradictory and incomplete. The justification for taking another human being's life by a man who considers human life the most sacred thing could only be accepted by one who is accustomed to "explain" things by the concepts of dialectical contradictions, the metaphysical rather than practical nature of which the anarchists are among the first to decry. Further, a saint or a hermit who withdraws from society into solitude because he "cannot go on living complacently in the sight of a great misery and wrong" can also be regarded as an "impressionable, highly sensitized personality and a gentle spirit." The same can be said about conscientious objectors. Why one "gentle spirit" should indulge in violence while another withdraws from it or passively accepts it, is a question which anarchist apologists for violence cannot answer. Certain similarities can be pointed out between the views on violence of the anarchist advocates of terrorism and those of Georges Sorel.15 Sorel's concept of myth as an imagined coming battle in which the victory of a given social movement is deemed by its members to be inevitable16 could also cover the concept of a revolution shared by many anarchists, especially in the last century. In this view individual acts of violence could be interpreted as occurrences justifying the belief in the coming myth, since "the myths are not descriptions of things, but expression of a determination to act."17They could be part of that "proletarian violence" which "makes the future proletarian revolution certain" and which compels capitalism to show its real face.18 Those who condone the acts of violence committed by the anarchists would, no doubt, after a due change in terminology, agree with the statement that "syndicalist violence, perpetrated in the course of strikes by proletarians who desire the overthrow of the State, must not be confused with those acts of savagery which the superstition of the State suggested to the revolutionaries of '93, when they had power in their hands and were able to oppress the conquered-following the principles which they had received from the Church and the Monarchy. We have the right to hope that a Socialist revolution carried out by pure Syndicalists would not be defiled by the abominations which sullied the middle-class revolutions."x9 Just as, in Sorel's view, the "worthy progressives" should bless those who propagate the general strike since they are trying "to render the maintenance of Socialism compatible with the minimum of brutality,"20so the anarchists have claimed that their acts of
15See his Reflections on Violence (London, 1925, authorized translationby T. E. Hulme). On page 261 Sorel actually says: "The new school is rapidly differentiating itself from official Socialism in recognizing the necessity of the improvement of morals. It is customary for the dignitaries of ParliamentarySocialism to accuse it of anarchical tendencies; for my part, I should not object to acknowledge myself an anarchist in this respect, since Parliamentary Socialism professes contempt for morality equalled only by that which the vilest representativesof the stockbrokingmiddle class have for it." 90-1. 215. 17Ibid.,82. 16Ibid.,22. s8lbid., l9Ibid.,

215. Thispartof the sentence italicized Sorel. is 2?Ibid., by

182

The Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science

individual or mass violence were intended to do away with violence altogether. Sorel's emphasis on individualism,21 on new ethics,22 and his views on the state and politicians,23 are further instances which bring him close to the anarchists. The main aspects of Sorel's views, as expressed in his Reflections on Violence, which divorce him from the anarchists are his appreciation of intuition and "integral knowledge"; his acceptance of many Marxist principles, interpreted and adapted though they are to his purpose; and his concept of the general strike or a revolution as a myth which may not even be realized.24 Everyone advocating violence as the means of improving a particular situation has to be certain of a positive answer to two questions: Is violence the only possible means? and, will it really achieve the aim? If the answer to the first question is negative, the use of violence is not morally justified; if the answer to the second question is negative, then resort to violence is both unjustified and useless. These two aspects of the problem express the interdependence of means and ends and are inseparably connected. Revenge, and propagation of the anarchist ideas, cannot be logically accepted as aims justifying the use of violence because they contradict the essentially humanitarian ethics of anarchism; besides, the latter could be better achieved by peaceful means. It follows, then, that the anarchist terrorist can defend his act only by claiming that it will result in an improvement of the existing state of affairs, and that there is no other way but violence to effect this result. The claim that violence is the only means of bringing about change is contradicted by the existence of other theories and movements which advocate non-violent methods of social change, by the fact that many of these movements have demonstrated the efficacy of such methods by achieving their objectives, as well as by the opposition to violence in the anarchist movement itself. The main argument naturally centres around the effects of violence, since to show that individual acts of violence do not achieve an improvement of conditions is tantamount to proving their inefficacy, apart from moral objections to their use. History shows that tyrannicide did not do away with tyrants, nor regicide with kings; indeed, very often one tyrant was succeeded by a worse one. To use a recent example, the assassination of Heydrich in Prague in 1942, which was carried out by parachutists on orders of the exiled Czechoslovak Government in London, resulted in the appointment of another Reichsprotektor and an even more severe reign of terror costing thousands of Czech lives; the Czech Government did, of course, owing to war psychosis, enjoy certain benefits of this "propaganda by deed." In actual fact, hardly any of the anarchist protagonists of acts of individual violence held that any significant improvement in social conditions would, or did, follow. The designation of these acts as "propaganda by deed" makes it apparent what their advocates expected their chief purpose to be. The people, who in theory figure as the prime beneficiaries of acts of violence, have on the whole proved antagonistic to them25 and very often the 21Seeibid.,e.g., 279-86. 22Seeibid.,e.g., 240-51. 23Seeibid.,e.g., 66, 118-29, 185, 195. 24On lastpointsee ibid.,especially the 135-6. 25Cf.L. Tolstoy,TheRussian Revolution (London,1907?).

Anarchism and Individual Terrorism

183

victim rather than the assassin has drawn the people's sympathy. Some terrorists have been undoubtedly aware of this;26 despair or indignation over the "ignorance of the masses" on the part of the terrorist does not change the facts and serves him only as a device to obscure reality. The unpopularity of acts of violence can also be seen from the fact that the anarchists often accused the police of committing these acts and laying the blame on the anarchists.27 In view of this it is incredible that only some anarchists28 have drawn the obvious conclusion, that is, that by perpetrating such deeds the anarchist terrorist often played into the hands of the police. On the other hand, terrorism may actually lull many people into passivity and expectation of salvation from without; for why should they trouble themselves to improve their lot, taking many risks, when there are others only too eager to do it for them? Individual terrorism may thus become responsible not only for the alienation of a large part of the population on whose support a successful transformation of the social structure is dependent, but also for the dissipation and forced inactivity or actual elimination of those forces whose occupation with terroristic activities separates them from the people. Trotsky's observations in this connection are pertinent: Terroristwork, in its very essence, demands such a concentrationof energy upon the "suprememoment",such an overestimationof personal heroism, and lastly, such an hermetically concealed conspiracy as . .. excluded completely any agitational and organizationalactivity among the masses.... Struggling against terrorism,the Marxianintelligentsia defended their right or their duty not to withdraw from the working class district for the sake of tunnelling mines underneath the Grand Ducal and Tsaristpalaces. . . . Whether or not the terroristact, even if "successful",throws the ruling circles into turmoil, depends on the concrete political circumstances. In any case such a turmoil can only be of a short duration; the capitalist state is not founded upon ministers and cannot be destroyed with them. The classes it serves will always find new men, the mechanism remains whole and continues its work. But the turmoilwhich the terroristact introducesinto the ranks of the toiling masses themselves is far more profound. If it is enough to arm oneself with a revolver to reach the goal, what need is there for the strivings of the class struggle?29 Acts of individual terrorism betray an exaggerated individualism which fails to take into account the importance of social factors. They suggest an attitude of weakness and despair, rather than of strength and hope. Extreme means are generally used only in extreme circumstances. Those whose strength inspires confidence in their success have no need of resorting to such means. The justification of acts of individual terrorism reminds one too much of the "great man view of history" which is basically alien to the theory of anarchism. It confuses the causal relationship between a social system and a representative of that social system, and thus contradicts the anarchist theory of revolution which aims at changing the social system as the root of the existing evil. This
26See, e.g., Berkman,Prison Memoirsof an Anarchist, 11. 27See, e.g., Goldman, Anarchismand Other Essays, 92-3. 28Forinstance, L. S. Bevington. See below. 29L. Trotsky, "The Collapse of Terror and of Its Party," published in Przeglad Socyaldemokratczny, May, 1909, and "Terrorism,"published in Der Kampf, 1911; Collected Works, IV, 347-8, 366. Quoted in Not Guilty: Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Charges Made against Leon Trotsky in the Moscow Trials (London, 1938), II, 251-2.

184

The Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science

contradiction is apparent in many anarchist writings. Emma Goldman, when urged by a journalist friend to point out the policeman who maltreated her after her arrest, refused to do so, saying: "It is the system I am fighting, my dear Katherine, not the particular offender.'30 After the assassination of President McKinley by Czolgosz in 1901, Emma Goldman was "bewildered" by Berkman writing her that the "propagandistic, educational import of an Attentat" lay in its being "aimed against a direct and immediate enemy of the people," an import which he failed to see in Czolgosz's act.31 While President McKinley, however, was in Emma Goldman's eyes a "direct and immediate enemy of the people," Governor Altgeld, in pardoning three imprisoned anarchists, performed a deed for which every lover of freedom must be grateful.32 The anarchists criticize socialists who believe in the use of state machinery for bringing about socialism, especially the Marxists, on the basis that one cannot use the state, an instrument of oppression, for liberation; yet many of them see nothing incompatible in advocating violence for the elimination of violence. Many similar contradictions and inconsistencies could be shown. It may be suggested that these are mainly due to the fact that the anarchist philosophy is basically humanitarian and therefore antagonistic to the preaching of violence; one must accept the one or the other. The age which has witnessed the broadening of political democracy and is experiencing the use of its methods in the creation of economic or social democracy, but which has also seen Hitler and Stalin on the one hand, and Gandhi on the other, cannot be indifferent to the problems of violence and non-violence. These experiences have also left their imprints on anarchism. Practically all anarchists have now accepted L. S. Bevington's precept: "Let us leave indiscriminate killing and injuring to the Government-to its Statesmen, its Stockbrokers, its Officers, and its Law."33 This change indicates that even the anarchists have come to realize the inefficacy of "political acts of violence" as means of social struggle.
30Goldman,Living My Life, I, 308. My italics. 31Ibid.,323. For the whole letter, see Berkman,Prison Memoirsof an Anarchist,412-17. 32Goldman,Anarchismand Other Essays, 93. 33L. S. Bevington, Anarchism and Violence (London, 1896), 9-10. Quoted in Russell, Roads to Freedom, 67n.