It’s a fight that crops up repeatedly on liberal blogs, and – if you’re like me – in discussions with your Democratic friends and neighbors, with potential volunteers, and with voters. How much do we compromise with people and movements who don’t support ideals that are important to us? To what degree do we support candidates who don’t stand for the same things we do, in order to get some of what we want? There are those who say that we progressives ought to stop supporting Democrats and form a third party. There are those discourage any political activity whatsoever outside of electing Democrats, on the grounds that it is self-sabotage.
The interesting thing about this debate is – no matter what pioneers we may think we are – we are not the first progressives or radicals or leftists or liberals to engage in it.
After the flip, I’ve copied excerpts from an exchange of letters between Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman, the early 20th century radical anarchists, on just this topic: to what extent should activists cooperate with other activists who have some goals in common, but not all?
Berkman to Goldman, March 21, 1936, Nice
By the way, dear. The enclosed from Spain came yesterday per Sanya [Shapiro]. Did you get such a letter also? Maybe they don’t know your address.I would reply: To question #1: yes, it is a principle of anarchism. To #2: no. To #3: Anarchists cannot participate in political activity for any reasons. Would in the long run be useless and defeating our true purposes.
But there is one question in my mind. In this last election in Spain the revolutionary syndicists (our people) seem to have voted with the other radicals and thereby gained a majority over the reactionary elements. If they had not, it is sure the fascists would be in power there now.
Now, I do not believe in the old stupidity that “the worse the better.” We need as much political liberty as possible even now, in order to propagate our ideas. During black reaction the revolutionary movements are simply destroyed, as in Russia, Germany, Italy, etc.
Now, then: The question arises, is it logical to oppose our people working politically in elections with the other revolutionary elements (revolutionary socialists and communists) against the common enemy of fascism?
I want to know what you think of it before I reply to Spain. Let me know soon as possible, dear. Just briefly, for I know you are busy – obviously, I am opposed to cooperating with the communists. But in Spain it seems that the presnt victory of the radical elements is due to our people having helped them with their votes.
Goldman to Berkman, March 24, 1936, London
Yesterday morning I got your letter of the 21st. I had to rush away to meet some people and attend to other matters. And also I wanted to think over the idea of anarchists participating in elections.…
No, I did not get anything from the Spanish comrades. I dare say they did not know my address. It does not matter. I agree with you in your replies to the three questions. So if you wish, you can sign my name to the reply you will send them. Or if they care to have my opinion, let them send me the questionnaire to your address. I will reply when I come.
Dearie, while I fully agree with you that it is stupid to maintain that conditions and situations much get worse before they get better, I cannot agree with the suggestion that anarchists should in grave times cooperate with communists in elections. You probably remember the controversy between [Errico] Malatesta and [Saverio] Merlino. Of course fascism wasn’t known then. But black reaction was. And it was Merlino who argued that anarchists by joining the socialists during elections would help defeat the reactionary gang. I don’t know if you remember Malatesta’s reply. It was to the effect that the anarchists would, as they had always done, merely get the chestnuts out of the fire for the socialists and liberals. And they would injure their ideas beyond repair.
Now, I do not mean to suggest that you and I must follow Malatesta’s ideas in the matter. But it happens that I myself consider it not only inconsistent with our views on vesting power to politicians by means of voting for them. I also consider it highly dangerous. We insist, do we not, dear, that the means must harmonize as far as possible with the end. And our end being anarchism, I do not see how we can very well unite with any political party. Especially with the communists, knowing as we do that their dictatorship is by no means different than that of the fascists. … [W]ith our past experience with socialists and communists, it seems folly to join them.
At first glance, the chief part of the dilemma Goldman points out would not seem to apply to us (those of us who are not anarchists at any rate). It is that not only supporting this or that side of things, but supporting any candidates at all for public office is a betrayal of anarchist principles, because they do not believe there ought to be nationalistic governments, elected or otherwise. Anarchists envision a new kind of world where people live in cooperation with one another and without the oppression of a central government.
However if you take a closer look, the argument advanced by progressives who advocated a third party is that neither of the two parties is capable of representing us because they have both sold out to corporate interests. We liberals and progressives envision a world where government works for the people – all the people – and advances their interests and improves their lives, rather than simply makes it easier for the very rich to obtain more money.
The Democratic Party does not stand for that ideal right now. Indeed it stands counter to it, in the main – certain individuals excepted, of course.
So, perhaps, given our past experience with Democrats, it seems folly to join them. This is not the conclusion I wanted to reach. I hope to see others put forth thoughts.
