DRAFT: This module has unpublished changes.

“August Spies on Anarchy” (1887)

 

Print-Friendly Version (PDF): August Spies on Anarchy (1887).pdf

 

Context: The Haymarket Affair grew from a strike against the McCormick Reaper Company in Chicago. On May 4, 1886, a group of anarchists led a peaceful protest in Haymarket Square supporting the striking workers and opposing the violent tactics used by police to stop the strike. After a series of speeches (including a brief announcement by the city’s mayor), the crowd began to leave. Nearby police moved in to disperse the remaining protesters and someone in the crowd threw a bomb, which killed several policemen. The police then began to fire into the crowd, some of whom fought back, and by the time the riot subsided seven policemen and at least four protesters were dead. Seeking to avenge the policemen’s death, authorities arrested eight anarchist leaders and, despite no material evidence that they were connected with the bomb, convicted them of conspiracy. Four were hanged, one committed suicide the day before his execution, and the other three were eventually pardoned by the Illinois governor. One of the condemned anarchists was August Spies, a newspaper publisher.

 

Chapter II. — Views of the Prisoners.

Following are extracts from the speeches of the eight Chicago anarchists [of the Haymarket Affair], relating to anarchy, made by them in reply to the question of the court why sentence should not be pronounced; including also other extracts from their writings:

 

August Spies on Anarchy.

From [the prosecution’s] testimony one is forced to conclude that we had, in our speeches and publications, preached nothing else but destruction and dynamite. The court has this morning stated that there is no case in history like this. I have noticed, during this trial, that the gentlemen of the legal profession are not well versed in history. In all historical cases of this kind truth had to be perverted by the priests of the established power that was nearing its end.

 

What have we said in our speeches and publications?

 

We have interpreted to the people their conditions and relations in society. We have explained to them the different social phenomena and the social laws and circumstances under which they occur. We have, by way of scientific investigation, incontrovertibly proved and brought to their knowledge that the system of wages is the root of the present social iniquities — iniquities so monstrous that they cry to Heaven. We have further said that the wage system, as a specific form of social development, would, by the necessity of logic, have to make room for higher forms of civilization; that the wage system must prepare the way and furnish the foundation for a social system of co-operation — that is, socialism. That whether this or that theory, this or that scheme regarding future arrangements were accepted was not a matter of choice, but one of historical necessity, and that to us the tendency of progress seemed to be anarchism — that is, a free society without kings or classes — a society of sovereigns in which the liberty and economic equality of all would furnish an unshakable equilibrium as a foundation and condition of natural order.

 

It is not likely that the honorable Bonfield and Grinnell can conceive of a social order not held intact by the policeman's club and pistol, nor of a free society without prisons, gallows, and State's attorneys. In such a society they probably fail to find a place for themselves. And is this the reason why anarchism is such a “pernicious and damnable doctrine?” . . .

 

[City prosecutor] Grinnell has intimated to us that anarchism was on trial. The theory of anarchism belongs to the realm of speculative philosophy. There was not a syllable said about anarchism at the Haymarket meeting. At that meeting the very popular theme of reducing the hours of toil was discussed. But, “anarchism is on trial” foams Mr. Grinnell. If that is the case, your honor, very well; you may sentence me, for I am an anarchist. I believe with Buckle, with Paine, Jefferson, Emerson, and Spencer, and many other great thinkers of this century, that the state of castes and classes — the state where one class dominates over and lives upon the labor of another class, and calls this order — yes; I believe that this barbaric form of social organization, with its legalized plunder and murder, is doomed to die, and make room for a free society, voluntary association, or universal brotherhood, if you like. You may pronounce the sentence upon me, honorable judge, but let the world know that in A. D. 1886, in the State of Illinois, eight men were sentenced to death because they believed in a better future; because they had not lost their faith in the ultimate victory of liberty and justice! “You have taught the destruction of society and civilization,” says the tool and agent of the Bankers' and Citizens' Association, Grinnell. That man has yet to learn what civilization is. It is the old, old argument against human progress. Read the history of Greece, of Borne; read that of Venice; look over the dark pages of the church, and follow the thorny path of science. “No change! No change! You would destroy society and civilization!” has ever been the cry of the ruling classes. They are so comfortably situated under the prevailing system that they naturally abhor and fear even the slightest change. Their privileges are as dear to them as life itself, and every change threatens these privileges. But civilization is a ladder whose steps are monuments of such changes! Without these social changes — all brought about against the will and the force of the ruling classes — there would be no civilization. . . .

 

Socialism, in short, seeks to establish a universal system of co-operation, and to render accessible to each and every member of the human family the achievements and benefits of civilization, which, under capitalism, are being monopolized by a privileged class and employed, not as they should be, for the common good of all, but for the brutish gratification of an avaricious class. . . . Socialism teaches that the machines, the means of transportation and communication are the result of the combined efforts of society, past and present, and that they are therefore rightfully the in divisible property of society, just the same as the soil and the mines and ail natural gifts should be. This declaration implies that those who have appropriated this wealth wrongfully, though lawfully, shall be expropriated by society. The expropriation of the masses by the monopolists has reached such a degree that the expropriation of the expropriateurs has become an imperative necessity, an act of social self-preservation. . . . Anarchism does not mean bloodshed; does not mean robbery, arson, etc. These monstrosities are, on the contrary, the characteristic features of capitalism. Anarchism means peace and tranquility to all. Anarchism, or socialism, means the reorganization of society upon scientific principles and the abolition of causes which produce vice and crime. Capitalism first produces these social diseases and then seeks to cure them by punishment.

 

Edited by: Prof. Stephen Duncan

 

Primary Source Material: Parsons, A.R. (1887). Anarchism: Its Philosophy and Scientific Basis. Chicago, Mrs. A. R. Parsons.

 

"August Spies on Anarchy" is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license by Prof. Stephen Duncan at Bronx Community College.

DRAFT: This module has unpublished changes.