Emma Goldman - A Most Remarkable Woman

Emma Goldman was regarded by J. Edgar Hoover as, “The most dangerous woman in America.”  She was also popularly referred to as “Red Emma” and she was regarded by some in the following way – “…owned no God, had no religion, would kill all rulers and overthrow all laws…”

Goldman was born on June 20, 1869 in the Jewish quarter of a small city in Russia in what is now modern Lithuania.   She was her mother Emma’s third child and her father Taube’s, first.  As a young girl, she was subjected to Taube’s fearsome rages.  He was not happy that his child was female; he wanted a son. 

As Jews, the family was constantly subjected to powerful feelings of anti-Semitism that was common throughout Russia.  As a consequence, they moved to the Baltic town of Popelan where Taube became an inn keeper and a petty public official.  Of Goldman’s two sisters, she formed a close relationship with her older sister Helena.  For a time, when Goldman was eight years old, she lived with her uncle who physically abused her.  This left her with an antipathy and ambivalence towards men that haunted her throughout her adult life.  She was eventually rescued from this situation by her family.  Even as a young girl, Goldman was strong-willed and formulated her own views regarding the world around her.  She was influenced by the Russian populists and nihilists; she vigorously rejected the conventions of the time.  Her thinking was particularly informed by the readily apparent unequal treatment of women and the blatant anti-Semitism she are her family were subjected to.  The future that awaited her – factory work, arranged marriage, her inferior role as a woman and as a Jew – was daunting.  She rejected this kind of outcome to her life.  In contrast, America seemed to offer a modicum of hope and promise.

In late 1885, Goldman, 16 years old, and her sister Helena a woman of 24, set sail for America.  They arrived at Castle Gardens in New York that functioned at that time as a holding area for newly arrived immigrants.  Once the sisters were able to prove they had family who would look after them, they travelled to Rochester where her aunt Lena was living.  There, Goldman found that she did not escape the prejudices she had hoped to leave behind.  She worked long hours as a seamstress and ultimately married a man that proved to be a major disappointment both emotionally and sexually.  She finally divorced him and, after two short years, gathered her belongings and her sewing machine together with five dollars and took the train to New York City.  The year was 1887.

Goldman came to strongly believe in the need for human equality and freedom, and was informed in her early years by the harsh treatment of workers, especially woman.  She was particularly influenced by the Haymarket Affair.  On May 1, 1886, 340,000 workers went on strike all over the country demanding an eight hour day.  In the city of Chicago, 80,000 workers took to the streets.  Anarchist militants were among those who were instrumental in organizing this workers’ action.  The following day, the Chicago police were mobilized against the strikers at the McCormick Harvester Works.  They fired on the crowd - killing six strikers.  The next day, a protest rally was held at Haymarket Square.  The police attempted to break up the rally, and in the ensuing chaos, a bomb was thrown at the police killing one and fatally wounding seven others

.

The subsequent trial sentenced five anarchists to death.  Four were later hanged - Albert Parsons, August Spies, George Engel and Adolph Fishcer - and one of the condemned, Louis Lingg, committed suicide.  Goldman was especially taken by the speech August Spies made in his own defense prior to his execution.  Seven years after the hangings, a judicial enquiry found that all of the executed were innocent of the charges and the three serving life sentences were released.  In the years that followed, the growing labor movement had to struggle against their corporate employers and both the Federal and local governments in order to curtail some of the abuses perpetrated against employees, and secure decent living conditions for working people.

At that time in the nation’s history, there was significant opposition to the excesses of industrial capitalism.  There existed an activist community in the lower east side of Manhattan in the 1880’s where there was a significant population of exiles from Russia fleeing from the anti-Semitic prohibitions and pogroms.  A pogrom was  a large scale riot perpetrated against the Jews.  It occurred periodically in Russia.  The first pogrom historically referred to occurred in Odessa in 1821.  At that time, the Russian government instituted a policy that had as it basic intention the eradication of Jews; unless, they agreed to convert to Christianity.

On account of this disillusionment with capitalism, there was strong attraction to anarchism.  According to Goldman the founding principle of anarchism, “is the theory that all forms of government rest on violence, and are therefore wrong, harmful as well as unnecessary.”   Furthermore, she believed that, “Anarchism is the great liberator of man from the phantoms that have held him captive; it is the arbiter and pacifier of the two forces for individual and social harmony.”  This worldview appealed to immigrant Italian, Slavic and Jewish communities in the larger cities where the excesses of capitalism were most pronounced.  In such communities, immigrants suffered from abysmal working conditions, long hours of poorly compensated labor and squalid living conditions.

Pierre Proudhon (1809-1865) and Mikhail Bakunin (1814-1876) both envisioned the total elimination of the state following revolution.  These theoreticians envisioned a peaceful evolution to what they referred to as a “stateless collective.”    Goldman defined Anarchism as, “the philosophy of a new social order based on liberty unrestricted by man-made law…”  Her fondest hopes for herself and humanity is reflected in the following comment – “I want freedom, the right to self-expression, everybody’s rights to a beautiful, radiant things.” She also believed that, “Real wealth consists in things of utility and beauty, in things that help to create strong, beautiful bodies and surroundings inspiring to live in.  But if a man is doomed to wind cotton around a spool, or dig coal, or build roads for thirty years of life, there can be no talk of wealth.”  These powerful sentiments illustrate that Goldman was an idealist; she strongly believed in a possibility of an idyllic social order.

 

By the time Goldman moved to New York, the views of the anarchist Pyotr Kropotkin (1842-1921), a Russian aristocrat, fell into favor.  He believed in violent revolution.  At first, Goldman was attracted to this view.  Eventually, however, Goldman and even Kropotkin himself came to despair of violence as a means to an end. Many of her views and sentiments were expressed in the journal Mother Earth that Goldman founded in 1905.  Unfortunately, many of the documents that appeared in this journal were ultimately destroyed by federal agents.

 

Her disillusionment regarding the promise America held out to her came to a climax following the Russian revolution and the onset of World War I.  She was an outspoken opponent of involuntary conscription and spent two years in prison for conspiring to, "induce persons not to register" for the newly enacted draft.

During this tumultuous period, those who openly opposed the American government were pursued in what came to be called the Palmer Raids – a direct result of the red scare that permeated American culture prior to its entry into World War I.  In 1919, President Woodrow Wilson appointed A. Mitchell Palmer as attorney general. Palmer subsequently chose J Edgar Hoover as his assistant and together they employed the Espionage Act (1917) and the Sedition Act (1918) to organize an offensive against radicals and left-wing organizations.

 

Following the Russian revolution, Palmer was convinced that Communist agents were actively plotting against the American government. His view was seemingly validated by the discovery of thirty-eight bombs sent to leading politicians and the Italian anarchist who blew himself up outside Palmer's Washington home.

On November 7, 1919, the second anniversary of the Russian Revolution, over 10,000 suspected communists and anarchists were arrested. In spite of the fact that the evidence seized did not expose any real conspiracy to overthrow the government, a large number of these suspects were held without trial for an extended period of time. The vast majority was eventually released but Goldman and 247 other people were deported to Russia.  Another series of raids took place on January 2nd, 1920 in which an additional 6000 were arrested and held without trial.

 

Upon her release from prison, Goldman’s American citizenship was revoked and she was deported to the Soviet Union.  Goldman spent two years within the newly formed Soviet Union.  There, she quickly became disillusioned with the Bolsheviks after becoming acquainted with the excesses of the new government as it consolidated power.  As a consequence, she became an outspoken critic.  In her thinking, it brought to the fore the evils of government and that communism, as practiced, and anarchism held irreconcilable beliefs.  She envisioned a stateless society as the ultimate goal of anarchism.  In addition, she became an avid adherent to sexual liberation and aestheticism.  She ultimately fled the Soviet Union and became stateless.  She traveled extensively and was held in contempt by both the political right and left.

In 1927 at the age of 58, Goldman began to write the story of her life while residing in Toronto, Canada.  During the Spanish Civil War, prior to World War II, she traveled to Spain in order to support the anarchist’s cause.   Goldman died on May 14, 1940.

Emma Goldman refused to accept the limitations imposed upon her by the simple fact that she was a woman and a Jew.  She had a vigorous intellect and was an eloquent and dynamic speaker, who came to be seen as a threat to the status quo.  She was never hesitant to speak out against injustice whenever and wherever she saw it and was eventually maligned by adherents to both sides of the political spectrum.  This reality did not deter her from her strong moral sense of purpose, and she remained a strong advocate of the dispossessed.  She endured much hardship in her life, but remained true to her vision of the possibilities for the future, and maintained a profound optimism regarding the future prospects for humanity.  

The Legacy of Dag Hammarskjold and the UN

The United Nations (UN) has been existence for over seventy years.  Its existence may be controversial for those who believe that it poses a threat to national sovereignty; however, it has played a critical role over its lifetime in providing an environment for dialog between nations in the midst of conflict and has on many occasions averted the possibility of unrestrained conflict.  One of the early architects of the UN was Dag Hammarskjold.  A brief description of his life and his contribution to the cause of world peace is described below.  In addition to his role as a global statesman, Hammarskjold was also a poet in his own rite.

The UN was created in 1941 by the Allied powers during World War II anticipating the end of the war with the goal of maintaining the peace after the hostilities had ended.  The one significant drawback regarding the makeup of this organization is the fact that it is essentially controlled by the powerful industrial nations through the Security Council that was originally composed of five members - the United States, the Soviet Union, China, France and England.

The UN is under the leadership of the Secretary General, who is voted in.  The first Secretary General was Trygve Lie, who remained in that position until 1952.  During his administration, many UN members had lost confidence in the international organization for a number of reasons.  The Security Council had become known for its inaction.  Furthermore, the Taiwanese government represented China on the Security Council after mainland China - People’s Republic of China (PRC) - had fallen to the Communists.  As a consequence, about one-quarter of the world’s population was not represented. In protest regarding this exclusion, representatives of the Soviet Union boycotted the UN from January to August 1950; it was their absence that allowed for the UN-sponsored military intervention in Korea.

At that time, Lie had supported the Security Council’s decision to resist by force the invasion of South Korea by military forces from North Korea - a conflict that was first called a “police action” but eventually came to be referred to as the Korean War.  The Soviet Union essentially ignored Lie after 1950 and right-wing elements of the United States were severely critical of his leadership.  As a consequence of the Korean War, Lie came under intense political pressure.  He ultimately resigned his position on November 10, 1952. 

At that time, Dag Hammarskjold was Minister of State in Sweden’s Foreign Office.  He was recommended for the post of Secretary General of the UN and was accepted by all with the exception of the Chinese.  Hammarskjold was truly surprised by the nomination; he never expected it.  After considerable personal deliberation, he accepted the nomination and on April 10, 1953, he was instated.

The following taken from a speech he made at John Hopkins University in 1955 sheds considerable light on his worldview and the principles that motivated him, “The dignity of man, as a justification of our faith in freedom, can be part of our living creed only if we revert to a view of life where maturity of mind counts for more than outward success and where happiness is no longer to be measured in quantitative terms.  Politics and diplomacy are no play of will and skill where results are independent of the character of those engaging in the game.”  He was a realist, but also was a man of strong ethics.  He was a believer in the power of the mind, especially when operating through reasoned judgment.  He deeply valued integrity and what he often referred to as “maturity of mind.”

To further illustrate the character of his thinking, I have included a number of his commentaries taken from his book entitled, Markings:

“The more faithfully you listen to the voice within you, the better you will hear what is sounding outside.  And only he who listens can speak.  Is this the starting point of the road towards the union of your two dreams – to be allowed in clarity of mind to mirror life and in purity of heart to mold it?”

“A heart pulsating in harmony with the circulation of sap and flow of rivers A body with the rhythms of the earth in its movements?  No.  Instead: a mind, shut off from the oxygen of alert senses, that has wasted itself on “treasons, stratagems and spoils” – of importance only within four walls.  A tame animal – in whom the strength of the species has outspent itself, to no purpose.”

“Like the bee, we distill poison from the honey for our self-defense – what happens to the bee if it uses its sting is well known.”

“O how much self-discipline, nobility of soul, lofty sentiments, we can treat ourselves to, when we are well-off and everything we touch prospers – Cheap: scarcely better than believing success is the reward of virtue.”

“Only he deserves power who every day justifies it.”

“To preserve the silence within-amid all the noise.  To remain open and quiet, a moist humus in the fertile darkness where the rain falls and the grain ripens-no matter how many tramp across the parade ground in whirling dust under an arid sky.”

“The style of conduct which carries weight calls for stubbornness even in an act of concession: you have to be severe with yourself in order to have the right to be gentle to others.”

“Do not seek death.  Death will find you.  But seek the road which makes death a fulfillment.”

“Forgiveness breaks the chain of causality because he who “forgives” you---out of love---takes upon himself the consequences of what you have done.  Forgiveness, therefore, always entails a sacrifice.

“The price you must pay for your own liberation through another’s sacrifice is that you in turn must be willing to liberate in the same way, irrespective of the consequences to yourself.”

  

These comments offer, in my judgment, important insights into the character and persuasions of the man and inform us regarding the inner motivations that determined his actions.

Hammarskjold was born on July 29, 1905 in Jonkoping, Sweden.  His father, Hajmar Hammarskjold, was involved in Swedish politics; he served as a delegate to the negotiations that led to the dissolution of the Swedish union with Norway.  He was a severe man, fully entrenched in his principles.  His father ultimately became Prime Minister in 1914.  Over time, he became unpopular; his views were interpreted as essentially undemocratic and reactionary.  During the First World War he proclaimed Sweden’s neutrality.  In a joint note to both warring parties, Hajmar proposed that the Swedish government remain the guardian of international principles.  He was chosen as chairman of the League of Nations Committee for the Codification of International Law and delegate to the Disarmament Conference.  Hammarskjold felt that one of his father’s admirable qualities was that he believed in and actively sought justice.  His mother, Agnes, was described as having clarity of mind and a radically democratic view of her fellow humans.

Hammarskjold was obviously influenced by both his parents.  Given his upbringing, it is no surprise that he chose a life of public service.  Those who knew him found him to have a quick and astute mind, a sense of humor, boundless curiosity and to be highly disciplined.  These traits would serve him well as Secretary General of the UN.

 

At the time that Hammarskjold took over the Secretary General position at the UN, the international body was in disarray, especially in regards to its role in the Korean War in the midst of the Cold War.  He realized that the UN needed reorganization; he set about this task with remarkable energy.  The world community seemed to be pleased with his efforts and, more importantly, his results.

According to Brian Urquhart, author of Hammarskjold, “Hammarskjold saw as the primary function of the UN the day-to-day effort to control and moderate conflicts that were a threat to peace, through a system of mediation and conciliation developed on the basis of the sovereign equality of states.  This primary function went hand in hand with a long-term effort to attain wider social justice and equality both for individuals and, in the political, economic and social senses, for nations.  He believed that progress in this direction must be based on a growing respect for international law and on the emergence of a truly international civil service, free from all national pressure and influences and recognized as such by governments.”

He saw his role as Secretary General as a discreet, objective and relentless negotiator always acting with and through sovereign governments.  He visualized his role as an embodiment of the hopes of mankind and for peace and justice.  He felt that in this position, he should avoid pointing a finger of blame.  It is a position that only assumes any semblance of authority when the situation becomes so tenuous and dangerous that the UN becomes the last hope for a peaceful resolution.

During his tenure as Secretary General, Hammarskjold had to employ his talents and abilities on numerous occasions.  We will focus on one in particular regarding the issue of Palestine.  With the collapse of the Ottoman (Turkish) Empire during World War I, the colonial powers, especially Great Britain and France, filled the political vacuum left by the former empire.  The post war arrangements that were a direct result of this shift in power and influence created the environment for future upheavals, especially the Arab-Israeli conflict that persists even to this day.  When Hammarskjold arrived at the UN in 1953, an uneasy peace was maintained through armistice agreements and the Tripartite Declaration of France, Great Britain and the United States, signed in May 1950.  Its purpose was to maintain the status quo and prevent aggression by any governments in the region against their neighbors.  The inherent instability of the region came to a head in 1948 with the creation of the state of Israel.  There were many factors that contributed to the de-facto end of the Tripartite Declaration including the growth of Arab nationalism, the increased influence of the Soviet Union in the region and the decline of influence of the waning powers of Great Britain and France.  The failed Arab invasion of Palestine in 1948 exacerbated the underlying tensions.

To further exacerbate difficulties in the region, President Gamal Abdul Nasser of Egypt refused to allow ships to and from Israel to pass through the canal despite UN resolution issued in 1951 that called upon Egypt to allow all ships to pass through the canal.  In spite of his intransigence, Great Britain and France pulled their troops out of the canal.  The enmity between Israel and Egypt and other neighboring Arab states in the region quickly deteriorated.  Skirmishes and reprisals soon began to spiral out of control.  Israeli raids into Gaza and raids of Egyptian-trained Palestinian fedayeen became all too common place.  During this time, Hammarskjold made it quite clear that he would not intervene in any way; until, he was asked to do so.  It was not long before the situation became so grim that he was called upon to get the offending sides to negotiate with one another.  Despite the intense enmity and hatred, Hammarskjold managed to get Nasser and David Ben-Gurion of Israel to sit down with one another; this represented a significant first step in the negotiation process.  Eventually, all sides agreed upon a cease fire.  This was a truly amazing accomplishment.  In spite of this success, Hammarskjold was too much of a realist to believe the situation was resolved, for he knew only too well that he was but one man.  In fact, in just a few years the Suez Canal crisis would erupt, and, once again, he would be called upon to employ his remarkable skills.

Dag Hammarskjold had an illustrious career; until, his untimely death in a plane crash while trying to help bring peace to the troubled African Congo.  He was a person of great courage and inner strength, who believed strongly in the cause of peace and the rule of law.  He was driven by a strong sense of purpose, and an indefatigable willingness to serve.  He dedicated himself to a selfless life of service for what he understood to be the greater good.