Was Alexander Berkman A Good Revolutionary?

[MilitantAnarchist]

This maybe a question i get slated for by anarchists, but i do love the book The ABC Of Anarchism, and think alot of his work is inspiring.... But, when he tried to start 'attentat' by killing the steel works boss... he failed (even though the people who should of helped him turned on him), and was sent tojail.... then he was deported (if my memory is right) and then moved to france, where he was skint, then got prostate cancer, tried to kill himself but missed! and shot himself in the spine which paralysed him....
Even though he did alot of good and i respect him... but that seems pretty stupid to me...
Does that make him any less of a revolutionary anarchist?

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

If failure makes people less of a revolutionary, there aren't many revolutionaries. He advanced ideas, inspired minds, et cetera. That's something.

[Bilan]

He is amongst many who've shot themselves. His use of Propaganda of Deed (What you mentioned in his attempt to assassinate a boss) was something he later rejected (if I recall correctly) as it is counter-productive to the movement.
What you've mentioned as negative, however, does not negate his politics or his good contributions. They are personal things.

[Diagoras]

He had certain ideas, like propaganda of the deed (which many anarchists of the time thought might work), that failed. He recognized that failure and learned from it. Making mistakes shouldn't really qualify one as "less" of an anarchist or revolutionary, however one might measure it. Being depressed isn't really a disqualifying feature either. He had some great ideas, and did a lot of hard work for workers, anarchism and socialism in general. We don't need to idolize any past revolutionary... learn from what was good in them, and use that. Recognize the mistakes they made and learn from those as well.

[MilitantAnarchist]

Cheers, great posts... wasnt saying he was a bad revolutionary, because i think he was truley inspiring... but we will never know what he was like, we only know his teachings... i no the propaganda of the deed was good in theory, but he was let down by his workers...

[ZeroNowhere]

i no the propaganda of the deed was good in theory, but he was let down by his workers...
No, it was just crap in theory and practice. As for Berkman, he wasn't bad, but that's already been gone over.

[Sasha]

He is amongst many who've shot themselves. His use of Propaganda of Deed (What you mentioned in his attempt to assassinate a boss) was something he later rejected (if I recall correctly) as it is counter-productive to the movement.
What you've mentioned as negative, however, does not negate his politics or his good contributions. They are personal things.


i agree with you but have too put an side note here, acording too emma Goldman (in her auto-biografie living my life) his later rejection of the propganda of the deed was mostly personal as wel (berkman was still angry over the break with goldman and jealous on her support for/devotion to Czolgosz, the assasin of president mcKinley)

[Bilan]

No, it was just crap in theory and practice. As for Berkman, he wasn't bad, but that's already been gone over.

Have to agree. The time for a group of armed bandits over-throwing the government in the name of the working class is long gone, as is assassinations. The socialist revolution is a movement of the class, not of a few armed individuals. It will not be sparked by the death of a businessman, or fascist, or what have you, but through struggle.

[Black Dagger]

as mostly personal as wel (berkman was still angry over the break with goldman and jealous on her support for/devotion to Czolgosz, the assasin of president mcKinley)

Say what?

Goldman adored Berkman right up until when he committed suicide (which sent her into a deep depression). I'm also not sure about your comments on McKinley's assassin who was not an anarchist militant of any note but a peripheral figure who shortly after being exposed to anarchism was inspired to this action. Goldman and most of the anarchists in the US were in no way 'devoted' to him (though Goldman did defend him publically), and certainly in Emma's case i doubt anyone could have displaced Sasha in her heart - they were life long partners.

[Os Cangaceiros]

If you read what Goldman had to say about Czolgosz in Mother Earth, as I have, you'll realize that she never "supported" him (although she and Voltarine de Cleyre did write sympathetically regarding his case, but more on the level of understanding what he did and why he did it, rather than supporting it).

[Black Dagger]

Yes that was a trademark of Emma Goldman generally - she was very outspoken and would often defend the unpopular - pleading to her comrades to try to understand the actions of groups (say the CNT) or individuals (say Czolgosz) rather than simply to attack or criticise them (even if the criticisms are valid).

Goldman for example alternated between heaping praise and scorn on the CNT for its energy and dyed-in-the-wool love of liberty on the one hand and its collaborationist tactics on the one other. She saws the flaws of their efforts but would not join some of the other international anarchists of the day in berating them, rather she sought to understand their motivations. None of that changed her conviction that government collaboration was against anarchist principals, it's the same with the case of Czolgosz.