The recent shooting of a health care magnate on the streets of New York furthers the argument that the Gilded Age is back—in full force.
Any 19th century anarchist would immediately recognize Brian Thompson’s killing as a case of what’s called “propaganda of the deed.” These were violent acts meant to show the broader public that, while the prevailing political and economic systems might have been powerful and omnipresent, they were not omnipotent.
A greater goal for these attacks was to spark a widespread insurrection; their consistent failure to achieve that end no doubt helps to account for their gradual decline.
Until recently, anyway. It’s a far cry from ripping up cobblestones to build barricades in the street, but when Colin Jost uttered the name “Luigi Mangione” last Saturday night, his audience erupted with exuberant whoops.
Alexander Berkman would have been jealous. In the summer of 1892, Henry Clay Frick, Andrew Carnegie’s partner in the Homestead Steel works, locked out workers in an attempt to break the union. After reading about this in the paper, Berkman and his lover Emma Goldman closed their Worcester, Mass. lunch counter and set out to assassinate Frick. Berkman barged into Frick’s office, shot him twice in the neck, and stabbed him in the leg. It was all in vain. Frick survived, Berkman spent a harrowing fourteen years in prison.
The revolution failed to materialize. In fact, Berkman’s rash action undercut what had been widespread support for the strikers. Even so, an unmistakable current of hostility towards robber barons remained.
Five months after the assassination attempt, the death of Fisk’s contemporary, Jay Gould, gave evidence that anger over economic conditions continued unabated. In our paper of December 13th, we quoted our predecessor, W. Scott Smith—a Republican—bringing up Gould’s death to argue in favor of a robust income tax on the rich.
This heresy, it seems, was among the milder reactions to the demise of the infamous railroad baron. Recently we chanced upon* a few choice excerpts from other papers of the time, which show Smith to have been the very model of restraint.
The New York Herald: “[Gould] played the game of life for keeps, and he regarded the possible ruin of thousands as a matter in which he had no concern.”
The New York Times editorialized, “Gould’s fortune was based on his skill at intercepting the earnings of other people and diverting them from their original destination.”
The World wrote, “Ten thousand ruined men will curse the dead man’s memory. Convicts will wonder what mental defect robbed them of such a career as Gould’s. The public has no great interest in the death of Jay Gould because Jay Gould, in his life, never showed any interest in the public. This is not a death that will cause any public sorrow. … The bane of the social, intellectual, and spiritual life of America today is the idolatrous homage to the Golden Calf. Nothing else has contributed so much to promote this evil condition as the worldly success of Jay Gould.”
* BookTV, on CSPAN 2, June 28, 2005: Edward Renehan, Jr. on his book, Dark Genius of Wall Street: the Misunderstood Life of Jay Gould, King of the Robber Barons.