The Veracity of Anarchist Historians?

It has always amazed me how Britain's great Marxist historians (E.P. Thompson, Eric Hobsbawm, Christopher Hill etc) could get it so right when looking at British history, yet at times be so wrong about what was going on elsewhere in the world, especially in Eastern Europe, in their own lifetimes. Two recent Anarchist publications have rather undermined my conception that Anarchists can 'do' history more honestly, and without the ideological baggage of Marxist historians.

Is It Because I Is Black?
1. The big article on Lucy Parsons in Black Flag issue 226. Great woman, not a bad article, but it fails to address to issues that devalue both it and the magazine. Firstly the issue around her race and colour - it seems quite likely that for whatever reason, she was not honest about her ethnic origins during her life. She certainly looks black/African American whatever term you want to say, but was arguably in denial about it. The most likely explanation is the extreme racism in the America she grew up in - but if so, why not say so?

2. She died, not as an Anarchist, but a member of the Communist Party USA. Again - why not mention it?

Generally the return of Black Flag was well received and got positive feedback. It is well produced, and there is clearly a lot of goodwill towards the project. I hope it goes forward, as there is room for a class struggle anarchist magazine that is independent of any of the existing Anarchist organisations out there.
It is ironic though, to see some people who so easily condemn the likes of Class War for 'being stuck in the 1980s' lapping up a magazine that contained only one contemporary article, on Sarkozy's France, and if anything appears more at ease, not in the 1980s, but the 1880s!

Our Daily Bread
Bread and Roses is the magazine of the International Workers of the World.
An article in the current Bread and Roses (issue 10) by the esteemed (in his own mind) Dr Trevor Bark, on Paul Robeson, tickled my fancy. I don't doubt doubt Robeson was a great man, but to see him declared him a libertarian and honourary Wobbly is stretching it to put it mildly. Robeson was after all rather keen on Uncle Joe Stalin.

Even though I have put this point to the good Doctor personally, on more than one occasion, it is simply conveniently ignored, as awkward truths so often are.
Just to remove any doubt, here is the text of Robeson's ode to Stalin "To You Beloved Comrade". Robeson's comment that "One reverently speaks of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin - the shapers of humanity's richest present and future" surely deserves a mention in any analysis of his life?

Selective amnesia anyone?

Comments

[Rob Ray]

I was mostly involved on the production side, so thanks for the compliment Paul. Yeah the historical focus was something which has had a lot of criticism, but was pretty much necessary to get the first magazine filled as we had no writers!

The next one is hopefully going to have a lot more contemporary stuff in it and while there’s some debate as to how the magazine should go forward within the (very small, it’s mostly me and Iain who are actively doing things for it atm and tbh I reckon we’d need input from individuals within all the Feds, including Class War, to make it really come alive) collective, that should happen to at least some extent in the next issue.

As for the Lucy Parsons stuff, I’d never really read about her before, but one problem with all these short histories is that often some of the readers will know more than the writers, particularly in specialist magazines (bearing in mind as well that it was a review piece, meaning inevitably, the criticism/back story will be limited by what’s included in the book being reviewed).

[Gangster]

You Paul have no understanding of historical conditions. Yes Robeson was around when Stalin was. Big deal. It must be borne in mind that the 'revalations' about how nasty Stalinism was really didn't become public knowledge till and starting after the Krushchev speech circa 1954/5/6 (i forget exactly which year).

The historically important features are Robesons contributions to the class struggles of the world, and how he was loved, and is still loved, by many around the world. Are you really going to argue with those class struggle photos in Bread and Roses? Sivanandan and others, all more clued in than you, all valued Robesons contributions.

You have a strange 'rationalist ahistorical political formulation' in your head, the political mix you hide so very well, it is changeable, unprincipled (eg. your Stalinist manipulation of organisation, or your willingness to betray 'a friend'), and I cannot see from where you derive your politics either... You are a good activist on occasion, but you are a pain in the arse too

[Stalin]

Shut up Gangster you testiculous cancerius! You right three paragraphs and say absolutely sweet f a!

[Paul Stott]

It is not just that he is long winded, he is wrong.

The crimes of Stalinism were well known before 1956 - the Ukranian famine and the Moscow trials being the two best known examples. And of course Anarchists had learnt long before those events the true nature of Soviet Communism.

Robeson choose to ignore all that.

Surely in any serious historical assessment of him, especially in an IWW magazine, (for fucks sake) it is worth a mention.

Instead the author chooses to confound the error. Instead of giving us serious writing, we receive only hagiography.

[Gangster]

Yo Stalin.

Just cos you can't understand what I wrote you come up with yet more laughable garbage...

When you get some serious politics let us all know eh. No, on second thoughts don't...

[Gangster]

The trouble is Paul you choose not to recognise when somebody was/is actually brilliant, which Robeson was. The point of that article is to stress what struggles he took part in, and also how they coincided with the IWW. It was not to present dry empirical rubbish like you specialise in or recommend. That is a greater flaw of your politics btw; empirical projection mixed with some holier than thou. That is how I characterise it btw because I cannot see from where it derives in the history of political thought otherwise.

Robeson was a singer/actor, you have lived through neo liberal economic structural changes/conditions but you know nothing of neo liberal economics. So do not be surprised that others did not realise the full ramifications of what was happening in other countries, especially when such news was repressed.

In sum that article was a historical presentation of Robesons real contribution and politics of his life. That they did not live up to your expectations is not the point.

[Gangster]

PAUL ROBESON: WORDS LIKE FREEDOM CD
Produced by Sele Nadel-Hayes and Patricia Hemphill

With these audio recordings, Freedom Archives introduces you to rare spoken words of the great Paul Robeson, illuminating a side of this amazing man's personality and politics that has too often been suppressed. Robeson saw it as his responsibility to speak the truth about conditions both domestic and abroad knowing that his fame would allow these messages to be more widely heard. He was also deeply aware of the consequences and faced the official repression against him with dignity and courage.

http://www.akpress.org/2008/items/paulrobesoncd