anarchism - article - 2011 - Anarchism's Appeal to German Workers, 1887-1914

Anarchism’s Appeal to German Workers, 1878-1914
Elun Gabriel
Journal for the Study of Radicalism
Vol 5, No 1: 2011
pp. 33-66
Michigan State University Press

Elun Gabriel is an associate professor at St. Lawrence University in Canton, New York, where he teaches courses on modern European history.  He has published a number of articles on anarchism in Europe (and more specifically, Germany) and his CV on the St. Lawrence U. website states that he has a soon-to-be-published book titled Anarchism, Social Democracy, and the Political Culture of Imperial Germany, 1871-1918.  His focus appears to be upon the influence of anarchist thought and practice on a left-wing population that preferred socialism.  His hypothesis is that, while Germany never developed an anarchist movement as other European nations did, there was still a significant degree of anarchistic pathos among that country’s socialist populace.

The above statements comprise the thesis of Gabriel’s article, Anarchism’s Appeal to German Workers, 1878-1914, published in an anarchism themed issue, Vol 5, No 1, of the Journal for the Study of Radicalism.  Gabriel discusses how late 19th to early 20th century Germany had a small number of anarchists but among them were individuals who were vocal and quite popular with the German working class.  Of particular interest to Gabriel was Johann Most, a Bavarian-born member of the Social Democratic party who was incredibly popular among Germany’s industrial workers and was, in 1874, elected to the Reichstag as a political representative.  While Most was a Social Democrat, he gravitated towards international socialism and then towards insurrectionist politics.  His advocacy for revolutionary violence and ‘propaganda by the deed’ actions lead to his expulsion from the Social Democratic Party in 1880.  Still, Most’s writings remained popular with workers who read his far-left paper, Freiheit, (the German word for ‘liberty’) without actually becoming anarchists.

Gabriel’s idea for why anarchism appealed to the German workers stems from a working class ethos of drinking and brawling.  The workers were, generally, socialists, but official socialism as represented by the Social Democratic Party looked down upon the ‘rough culture’ of their working class constituents.  An anarchism of incendiary rhetoric and calls for violent direct action held great appeal for workers whose culture was treated in a condescending manner by the political party that represented their ideals.  Furthermore, anarchism appealed to workers who understood and desired social change through violent confrontation rather than policy change via official channels.  Furthermore, according to Gabriel, the reading of anarchist texts helped workers articulate frustrations with Germany’s class system and with a Social Democratic Party who attributed the proletariat popularity of Most’s Freheit newspaper, to give an example of the degree of their condescension, with a political immaturity among workers.  In this, it sounds as though anarchist writings and rhetoric appealed to the hearts of German workers while socialism appealed to their minds.

Elun Gabriel’s article opens a new dimension for anarchist scholarship in which the influence of anarchism is studied beyond the boundaries of those historical movements that pledged allegiance to that ideology.  His heavy emphasis on Johann Most, an SDP party member whose fiery rhetoric exceeded the limits of mannered socialism demonstrates the nerve centre of this phenomena, as Most was not truly anarchist during the height of his popularity although he was a conduit for anarchist words and ideals.