Commonplace 134 George & Role Models PART TWO.
We saw in the last post that George made some interesting political acquaintances when he was in America. Through association with feminist and political activist Marie Elizabeth Zakrzewska he met Karl Heinzen, a larger than life cove whose name is largely forgotten except in 'revolutionary' circles. He was already an old man when George met him, and the editor of the revolutionary publication 'Der Pionier'. After success with the Abolitionist Movement, Heinzen moved on to feminism, and women's suffrage at a time when German-speaking peers thought suffrage for women would undermine and ultimately destroy, all forms of culture. His advocacy of violent means of attack to settle political matters was not original, having formed part of a new wave of revolution that worked covertly with maximum impact and minimal resources. Nowadays, we refer to that sort of malarkey as terrorism, and Heinzen is now best known for his advocacy of terrorist means to achieve political ends.
The late nineteenth century was a time of worldwide political strife, and though change for the better seemed inevitable, it was very slow in coming. Vast wealth had been made off the backs of the underprivileged and poor, and workers at the bottom of the social pile were exploited and abused. Greed then, as now, ruled supreme. The slow pace of change was down to the controllers refusing to give up their power and control, and the workers hamstrung with no means of standing up to their oppressors. Karl Heinzen had started out wanting to be a poet, but settled for a small voice in European politics as a pamphleteer who published works arguing for better parity between rich and poor. He took his political zeal with him when he emigrated to America. He spoke against slavery, and for the emancipation of the working person, largely via publications and pamphlets. By the time George met him, he had been advocating terrorism for some time click.
Here is an abstract of blurb for the article 'Karl Heinzen and the Intellectual Origins of Modern Terrorism' by Daniel Bessner and Michael Stauch click:
Scholars have long recognized the importance of Karl Heinzen's Mord und Freiheit in the history of terrorist thought. Yet the translation most scholars have relied on—1881's Murder and Liberty—is incomplete. Our new translation reveals four elements omitted from the 1881 translation. First, Heinzen conceived of terrorism as a transnational phenomenon. Second, he provided a material justification for terrorist tactics. Third, Heinzen viewed terrorism as both a tool to impel human society to progress and as a “progressive” tool of violence. Finally, he argued in favour of the primary modern tactic of terrorism—the indiscriminate bombing of civilians.
In December 2015, we know a thing or two about terrorism and the 'indiscriminate bombing of civilians'. In George's day, revolution was, if not an everyday occurrence, still a reality, when there was the IRA bombings in London, there were attempts to assassinate Queen Victoria, and the murders in Phoenix Park, Dublin click show how violence was seen as a justifiable means to an end. If you haven't already done so, take a look at Joseph Conrad's 'The Secret Agent' for a ripping yarn about Victorian terrorism click.
Democracy, of course, is the best way to prevent despotism, and the reason terrorism can never serve or represent democracy is that acts of terror are essentially fascistic and undemocratic.
If you are going to be noticed by any of the nineteenth century revolutionaries, they don't come much better than Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Heinzen met the former, and fell out with the latter. Here is a little bit of history click which sheds a lot of light on Heinzen and his beliefs and methods and is written by Engels. It is a excoriating critique of Heinzen's woolly thinking (see below on Women!). Having read the Woman book, I am apt to agree with Friedrich. Here is a neat summing up in one paragraph that seems to nail him:
With Herr Heinzen, they have neither sense nor reason, because they take the form of quite arbitrarily conceived, obtusely bourgeois visions of putting the world to rights; because there is no mention of a connection between these measures and historical development; because Herr Heinzen is not in the least concerned about the material feasibility of his proposals; because it is not his aim to formulate industrial necessities but on the contrary to overturn them by decree.
The preface to this edition of 1891 click mentions Ms Zakrzewska and her 1860 work 'Practical Illustration of Woman's Right to Labor' (sic), click which was, and I quote 'A book that ought to be read by anybody interested in the solution to the woman question'. The solution to the woman question reminds me of the old feminist joke that goes something like: If they can put a man on the moon, why can't they put them all there?'.
We saw in the last post that George made some interesting political acquaintances when he was in America. Through association with feminist and political activist Marie Elizabeth Zakrzewska he met Karl Heinzen, a larger than life cove whose name is largely forgotten except in 'revolutionary' circles. He was already an old man when George met him, and the editor of the revolutionary publication 'Der Pionier'. After success with the Abolitionist Movement, Heinzen moved on to feminism, and women's suffrage at a time when German-speaking peers thought suffrage for women would undermine and ultimately destroy, all forms of culture. His advocacy of violent means of attack to settle political matters was not original, having formed part of a new wave of revolution that worked covertly with maximum impact and minimal resources. Nowadays, we refer to that sort of malarkey as terrorism, and Heinzen is now best known for his advocacy of terrorist means to achieve political ends.
 |
| Portrait Of A Revolutionary by François Sablet. 1794 |
 |
| click |
Here is an abstract of blurb for the article 'Karl Heinzen and the Intellectual Origins of Modern Terrorism' by Daniel Bessner and Michael Stauch click:
Scholars have long recognized the importance of Karl Heinzen's Mord und Freiheit in the history of terrorist thought. Yet the translation most scholars have relied on—1881's Murder and Liberty—is incomplete. Our new translation reveals four elements omitted from the 1881 translation. First, Heinzen conceived of terrorism as a transnational phenomenon. Second, he provided a material justification for terrorist tactics. Third, Heinzen viewed terrorism as both a tool to impel human society to progress and as a “progressive” tool of violence. Finally, he argued in favour of the primary modern tactic of terrorism—the indiscriminate bombing of civilians.
In December 2015, we know a thing or two about terrorism and the 'indiscriminate bombing of civilians'. In George's day, revolution was, if not an everyday occurrence, still a reality, when there was the IRA bombings in London, there were attempts to assassinate Queen Victoria, and the murders in Phoenix Park, Dublin click show how violence was seen as a justifiable means to an end. If you haven't already done so, take a look at Joseph Conrad's 'The Secret Agent' for a ripping yarn about Victorian terrorism click.
Democracy, of course, is the best way to prevent despotism, and the reason terrorism can never serve or represent democracy is that acts of terror are essentially fascistic and undemocratic.
If you are going to be noticed by any of the nineteenth century revolutionaries, they don't come much better than Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Heinzen met the former, and fell out with the latter. Here is a little bit of history click which sheds a lot of light on Heinzen and his beliefs and methods and is written by Engels. It is a excoriating critique of Heinzen's woolly thinking (see below on Women!). Having read the Woman book, I am apt to agree with Friedrich. Here is a neat summing up in one paragraph that seems to nail him:
With Herr Heinzen, they have neither sense nor reason, because they take the form of quite arbitrarily conceived, obtusely bourgeois visions of putting the world to rights; because there is no mention of a connection between these measures and historical development; because Herr Heinzen is not in the least concerned about the material feasibility of his proposals; because it is not his aim to formulate industrial necessities but on the contrary to overturn them by decree.
 |
| Lenin speaking before the workers of the Putilov factory in Petrograd by Isaac Izrailevich Brodsky 1870 |
Apart from annoying genuine radicals and dabbling
in the promotion of violence, Heinzen hitched his horse to the wagon of
feminism. Uninvited, of course, and incompetently. He wrote the
wonderfully-titled 'The Rights of Women and the Sexual Relations', click which really
underestimated the struggle women have, and over-values gallantry as a male
default that will automatically kick in when the day comes for women to assume
their freedom/emancipation. Heinzen claims women can't be fully emancipated
while any man lives in bondage or oppression, whilst refusing to give a
timeline for the ending of this situation. He urges women to support men in
their struggle to win their rights, because then men will return the favour and
help women win their liberty from oppression. Like that would ever happen haha!
It is easy to mock the piece, as the author has what can only be described as misplaced well-meaning intentions. But these are still as sexist as any other form of alleged
feminist rhetoric of the time, because we still have the patronising suggestion
that women are natural home makers who 'love gee-gaws' and who do not make
natural murderers. Of course, it all depends on what you mean by 'natural'!
And what they've done to warrant homicide.
The preface to this edition of 1891 click mentions Ms Zakrzewska and her 1860 work 'Practical Illustration of Woman's Right to Labor' (sic), click which was, and I quote 'A book that ought to be read by anybody interested in the solution to the woman question'. The solution to the woman question reminds me of the old feminist joke that goes something like: If they can put a man on the moon, why can't they put them all there?'.
 |
| Neal Armstrong - the first of many?? |
When George came back to the UK and started mixing
with intellectuals who dabbled in politics, imagine how impressive it would
have sounded when he told them he knew the likes of Garrison, Zakrzewska and
Heinzen. Perhaps he laid it on thickly to create a buzz around his travels and
time in the wilderness, after bigging up his time on the mean streets of
Manchester, in the role of a Robin Hood figure redistributing wealth in his
own, small way. His time as a political activist was short and not particularly
influential. But he kept a copy of Heinzen's 'The Rights of Women' on his
bookshelf, probably catalogued under 'humour'. It resides with George's Pierre
Coustillas now, which somehow seems fitting.
No comments:
Post a Comment