Anna Louise Strong: Kick-Ass Woman of History

I want to introduce you to a fascinating woman : Anna Louise Strong.  She was a journalist and witness to much of the revolutionary history of the 20th century. I just read her autobiographical account of the Seattle general strike (novel research!) and Soviet Russia in the 1920’s, called I Change Worlds. I’ve had this book out from the library since January, late fees be damned. It is an eyewitness view into history that I knew way too little about, written by someone who is inside it all enough to be enthusiastic about revolution and communism and uncynically critical of capitalism — no 21st century apathy here — and yet analytical and articulate enough to voice the complexities of what she sees unfolding. More than that, it is a view into an independent, articulate woman’s mind, as she explores class issues, the logistics of post-revolution Russia, the mechanisms of social change, and her own progressive American childhood.

This lady can sum things up.

But today I would like to give you a long quote of hers, which is her description of the origins of American psychology and our attempts to evade class dynamics. She nails it like she was in the heads of my ancestors.

Neither their fortune nor their brains had made them masters and they disdained to be slaves. They chose the wilderness to conquer, finding it easier than man. They left the complex problem of human society to the men who served oppressors and the men who were oppressed. They chose the simpler task: to conquer the earth and hold it. Thus they held each new bit of earth for a generation, till human society arose with its struggles around them and drove them into the wilderness again….

From this life came their virtues and their weaknesses. They were proud of physical strength, of daring optimism, of resourceful invention, of quick adaptability to new conditions. They rejoiced in the power to survive in isolation which they called “independence,” and in agility to flee and change, which they called “freedom.” They were “practical men” with little use for “theory”; for they shrank from analyzing those social and economic forces by which other men from a distance controlled them, cast them into the wilderness and entangled them again. Having neither the shrewdness which serves oppressors, nor the guile that lawlessly outwits them, nor the solidarity that in the end destroys them, they lived by faith – and evasion. As they gave up old lands to tyrants, they dreamed always of new lands without slaves or masters. From the German tribes that overran imperial rotting Rome for the stronger, more imperial papacy, to the settlers who won the west for Jill Hill’s railroads, they were daring and free and equal – and easily deceived. For they substituted energy for thinking, and optimism for analysis. Cast forth by great struggles of classes, they refused to believe in classes, but had faith that somewhere “beyond the ranges” men might be free and equal still. But they never clearly analyzed how this might happen.

Thus came into being Americans – of all men strongest in subduing nature, most inventive in the use of machinery, most determined to optimism, most naïve and credulous in social relations…. 

I know this way of being. I was raised in it. That was what was behind my childhood full of Laura Ingalls Wilder, my teenage wilderness survival daydreams, my endless college conversations about utopias and collective farms. That’s why I like to live near Canada, which in my head is basically a big wilderness. That’s why I am an entrepreneur.

She comes back to that idea towards the end of the book, when she is visiting with Diego Rivera. (That’s the other thing — she got to hobnob with about a zillion notables, from Trotsky and Stalin to names we think of as corporations, like Morgan.)  He saw the wrongs of capitalism and the beauty of the future world of workers as I had seen it Seattle but he did not see a path. He admired peasants who withdrew into smaller and smaller lands yet maintained through art their independence of soul. Was that anything more than the old retreat if the independents before the triumphant march of the octopus? Was not his art a solace like that of religion, expressing dreams for which he saw no road of realization? 

Reading that leaves me with the uncomfortable feeling of looking at hard truths. It feels so much easier to see the far away mountains than to know how to get to them, both as a society and in my own life.

No answers here, not tonight, but let’s keep mulling. And walking. Being both passionately engaged and articulately analytical. And learning from kick-ass people of history.


2 thoughts on “Anna Louise Strong: Kick-Ass Woman of History

  1. Wow, Beccs. this has been my life, too. I much prefer solitary wilderness over the social complexities. You may have gotten that from me. She nailed the problem of not being able to actually find the road to real freedom that we are all seeking. With reference to oppressors, “lacking the solidarity that in the end destroys them”. Achieving that solidarity requires some tolerance for social complexity. I have real difficulty mustering the brains for it. The complexity of medicine itself is a piece of cake compared to the complexity of Insurance companies, the Medical Quality Assurance Commission, corporate involvement in the distribution of healthcare and such. Blah!! What are we going to do when we run out of wilderness? Love you!

  2. Still thinking about this myself, but here is another Anna Louise Strong quote that speaks on the subject (from a time in history when being hopeful about communism was easier, I think:

    The chief difference now between me and the communists seemed to be that they had the pleasure of knowing what they were doing. They analyzed the social classes from which they sprang and from which they derived their minds and impulses; then through analysis this instinct which I followed blindly became in them a conscious will. That was what one meant by “consciousness.”
    Why this, I said in growing wonder, this is freedom! Not that endless fleeing from tyrants through the wilderness of one’s soul, more and more alone in shrinking spaces. Not that endless finding and losing of editors who like my stuff till the editor changes his mind or the owner changes the editor. Not those scraps of life are freedom. But this conscious seeking and finding over wider and wider areas, for ever more complex creation, comrades with whom to consult and create.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s