Translated by Naomi Cohen
Edited and annotated by Robert P. Helms
Jointly published by
Wooden Shoe Books
&
Robert P. Helms
Philadelphia, 2007

Weinberg’s World: An Introduction

By Robert P. Helms

This story, told by one colorful figure among the anarchists of Philadelphia
does not tell the entire story of the city’s movement, nor does one man’s
experience with anarchism present the long and dramatic saga of the idea and its
believers. The memoirs of Chaim Leib Weinberg offer an interesting sliver of a
larger picture, holding to an exclusively working class, folkloric niche. The author
was an incredible orator and story teller: these were the talents that set him apart
from most of his contemporaries. Because he devoted half a century to practicing
his oral craft, he left a clear mark on the radical culture he lived within.
The Jewish anarchists were but one of several ethnic anarchist groups
that flourished in the US during Weinberg’s career. Some of the other groups
were the Germans, the Italians, the Spaniards, the Bohemians, Russians, and
the French. English-speaking anarchists, both American and immigrant, were
there in great number as well. Philadelphia had its share of each. During
Weinberg’s heyday, Jews accounted for the majority of Philadelphia’s anarchists.
In addition to the cases Weinberg will tell you about, many anarchists of
Philadelphia were leading intellectuals of the city. To cite a few examples,
Voltairine de Cleyre, Weinberg’s comrade, debated publicly on women’s issues
with the famous paleontologist Edward Drinker Cope in an anarchist club in
1893. The anarchists conveyed their ideas so well that they convinced Daniel
Garrison Brinton, the pre-eminent ethnologist who explored the religions and
languages of American Indians. A group of anarchist physicians, all friends of
Weinberg’s, founded Mount Sinai Dispensary (later Hospital) in 1899. [1] Thus not
only was the caricature of the drunken, terroristic anarchist that often appeared in
the mainstream press not accurate, but the true picture was often the polar
opposite. [2]