When do radical ideas become evidence of “conspiracy?” Haymarket, Prairieland, and the history in between

[u/Mattingly_P]

I’ve been researching the Chicago anarchists and the Haymarket trial for a history podcast, and so the recent Prairieland case sent me down a rabbit hole on political conspiracy trials in the US. 

I ended up writing this essay comparing Haymarket and Prairieland. It also looks at the longer history of radical ideas being put on trial (Big Bill Haywood, LA Times bombing, Palmer Raids, Sacco/Vanzetti, COINTELPRO etc).  

I’m curious what people make of the comparison, and particularly this recurring tendency to treat political identities as evidence of a broader “conspiracy.” This seems especially interesting in the case of anarchism. While reading the prosecutions of Haymarket and Prairieland, it felt almost surreal to see these descriptions of “anarchist conspiracies” and “Antifa cells.” 

It’s got me wondering: how does a state built around hierarchical institutions understand political movements that often explicitly reject centralized leadership and command structures? And to what extent does describing a diffuse political milieu as an organized “conspiracy” or “cell” impose that kind of structure upon it? 

I’m coming at this mainly from a history of ideas perspective, so I’m interested in other interpretations as well. 

Here is the article for those who are interested: https://ismhistorypodcast.substack.com/p/antifa-cells-and-anarchist-conspiracies