Anarchism and Other Essays

by Emma Goldman

A true classic of radical literature, in its first scholarly, annotated edition.

Emma Goldman, the “notorious anarchist” deported from the United States in 1919 for “seditious activities,” was a leading figure of American anarchism for almost thirty years. She continued to write and speak on anarchism for the rest of her life in exile, first in Soviet Russia and then in Europe—including Spain during the Spanish Revolution—and, finally, Canada.

Goldman played a pivotal role in the development of anarchism in America and Europe in the first half of the twentieth century. This collection, first published in 1910 by her press, Mother Earth Publishing Association, illustrates her wide-reaching mind and ability to bring together strands of American and European individualism, anarchist communism, and early feminist thinking to develop a body of work that continues to influence the theory and practice of anarchism today. Essays include " What It Really Stands For," "The Psychology of Political Violence," " A Social Crime and Failure," "The Hypocrisy of Puritanism," "The Tragedy of Woman's Emancipation," and "Marriage and Love," among others.

A new introduction by Moran and Pateman situates Goldman's thinking in the movement of her day but also makes clear why her essays are still vital. Annotations throughout bring to light individuals and events that enrich our understanding of Goldman's writings. 

The Working Classics Series revives lineages of radical thought from the history of the anarchist movement.

Genres: Politics, Nonfiction, Philosophy, Feminism, Essays, History, Theory

227 pages, Kindle Edition

First published January 1, 1910

About the author

Emma Goldman was a feminist anarchist known for her political activism, writing and speeches. She played a pivotal role in the development of anarchist political philosophy in North America and Europe in the first half of the twentieth century.

Born in Kovno in the Russian Empire (present-day Kaunas, Lithuania), Goldman emigrated to the US in 1885 and lived in New York City, where she joined the burgeoning anarchist movement.Attracted to anarchism after the Haymarket affair, Goldman became a writer and a renowned lecturer on anarchist philosophy, women's rights, and social issues, attracting crowds of thousands.

She and anarchist writer Alexander Berkman, her lover and lifelong friend, planned to assassinate Henry Clay Frick as an act of propaganda of the deed. Although Frick survived the attempt on his life, Berkman was sentenced to twenty-two years in prison. Goldman was imprisoned several times in the years that followed, for "inciting to riot" and illegally distributing information about birth control. In 1906, Goldman founded the anarchist journal Mother Earth.

In 1917, Goldman and Berkman were sentenced to two years in jail for conspiring to "induce persons not to register" for the newly instated draft. After their release from prison, they were arrested—along with hundreds of others—and deported to Russia.

Initially supportive of that country's Bolshevik revolution, Goldman quickly voiced her opposition to the Soviet use of violence and the repression of independent voices. In 1923, she wrote a book about her experiences, My Disillusionment in Russia. While living in England, Canada, and France, she wrote an autobiography called Living My Life. After the outbreak of the Spanish Civil War, she traveled to Spain to support the anarchist revolution there. She died in Toronto on May 14, 1940, aged 70.

During her life, Goldman was lionized as a free-thinking "rebel woman" by admirers, and derided by critics as an advocate of politically motivated murder and violent revolution.Her writing and lectures spanned a wide variety of issues, including prisons, atheism, freedom of speech, militarism, capitalism, marriage, free love, and homosexuality. Although she distanced herself from first-wave feminism and its efforts toward women's suffrage, she developed new ways of incorporating gender politics into anarchism. After decades of obscurity, Goldman's iconic status was revived in the 1970s, when feminist and anarchist scholars rekindled popular interest in her life.

Reviews

[Nathan "N.R." Gaddis]

I have been an anarchist for twenty years. Twenty years ago I came to understand that I had been raised as an anarchist, under the banner “Anabaptist”, of which group you might be familiar with the Amish. Other words I like to use instead of “anarchist” include ; anarcho-syndicalist, libertarian socialist, anarcho-communist, left libertarian. I understand that you might have difficulty conceiving of that political orientation, but it consists of nothing more than a synthesis of those two great western political traditions, liberalism and socialism. One thing to note -- at one time, ‘libertarian’ was a word synonymous with ‘anarchist’ ; until randians and other fascists appropriated it ; you might recall that The Libertarian Labor Review had to change its name to The Anarcho-Syndicalist Review due to this mis-use of a hallowed word which once meant freedom but has come to mean slavery to property and other masters. Emma Goldman is my kind of anarchist; she is my kind of feminist.

This collection of essays, not quite as much required reading as is her autobiography, Living My Life, which, were we an educated population, would be more popular and widely read than the current biographies of our corporate lords and masters (fuck them one and all!) ; this collection covers many of the topics which have been always at the forefront of the anarchists’ concerns :: the herd (ie, the ‘majority’ rule problem), political violence and whence it comes, prisons, militarism and patriotism (“a menace to liberty”), education, a woman’s rights over her own body including her free expression of sexuality, prostitution and marriage, the fetish of the ballot box, direct action v. parliamentarianism, religion & property & the state, equality, work, love, drama -- and the latter essays leave the impression that her essays may be even more important for those engaged with feminism than those interested in anarchism ; ie, some rather harsh words for the liberal positions regarding suffrage and emancipation. What appeals to me in Goldman’s feminism is that she refuses to divorce feminist issues from questions of economic equality.

The essays, initially published in 1910, do carry with them a certain datedness ; which makes them relevant ;; and too you will quickly discover that we are still dealing with the same problems and inequalities and injustices she was dealing with. Datedness or no, Emma Goldman’s heart should be kept close by all of us.

The ToC ::
Biographic Sketch [skippable]
Preface
Anarchism: What it Really Stands For
Minorities versus Majorities
The Psychology of Political Violence
Prisons: A Social Crime and Failure
Patriotism: A Menace to Liberty
Francisco Ferrer and the Modern School
The Hypocrisy of Puritanism
Woman Suffrage
The Tragedy of Woman’s Emancipation
Marriage and Love
The Drama: A Powerful Disseminator of Radical Thought

Anarchism and Other Essays, Goldman’s autobiography, Living My Life, and a few more of her writings are available for download, free :: HERE.

[Prerna · Rating 4 out of 5]

Although I identify as an anarcho-communist, I've been leaning towards anarchism a lot lately and re-reading this book has been a part of my attempt to understand the anarchist movement better.

While Emma Goldman is one of the pivotal figures of American anarchism, some of her ideas have been, and still are, controversial - mainly for their insurrectionary undertones.

Dubbed as the most dangerous woman in America during her lifetime by the mainstream media, Emma Goldman was famously anti-state, anti-military and anti-imperialist. Her particular brand of anarchism has been difficult for me to grasp, because although her ideas were clearly influenced by a collectivist voluntary view of socialism, Goldman also stood for a very individual driven anarchism.

Religion, the dominion of the human mind; Property, the dominion of human needs; and Government, the dominion of human conduct, represent the stronghold of man’s enslavement and all the horrors it entails.

This collection of essays is perhaps the most famous of Goldman's written works and rightfully so. It deals with a myriad of topics including marriage, patriotism, women's suffrage, political violence - all with anarchism as its base. Emma Goldman makes compelling arguments against the state machinery and posits that social harmony cannot exist in a society driven by a profit seeking heirarchical structure that leaves no place for solidarity of interests.

She also speaks against accusations of political violence made in an attempt to suppress anarchists by asserting that political acts of violence are miniscule when compared with the wholesale violence of capital and government.

Goldman argues against patriotism by calling it an inexorable superstition. She is also very scornful of the industrial military complex. (Oh, if only she were alive now!) She was a proponent of free love and spoke for the abolition of marriage which she considered to be another institution of heirarchy and control.

While she was a staunch supporter of first wave feminism, she thought of the whole women's suffrage movement as absurd because she believed that no egalitarian progress could be achieved in a society that relies on the government as a control exerting institution and therefore rallied for a more radical feminism that could exist outside the state machinery.

Needless to say, I am not opposed to woman suffrage on the conventional ground that she is not equal to it. I see neither physical, psychological, nor mental reasons why woman should not have the equal right to vote with man. But that can not possibly blind me to the absurd notion that woman will accomplish that wherein man has failed. If she would not make things worse, she certainly could not make them better. To assume, therefore, that she would succeed in purifying something which is not susceptible of purification, is to credit her with supernatural powers. Since woman’s greatest misfortune has been that she was looked upon as either angel or devil, her true salvation lies in being placed on earth; namely, in being considered human, and therefore subject to all human follies and mistakes. Are we, then, to believe that two errors will make a right? Are we to assume that the poison already inherent in politics will be decreased, if women were to enter the political arena? The most ardent suffragists would hardly maintain such a folly.

Famous today for her insurrectionary ways, Emma Goldman was a bulwark against inequality, oppression and heirarchy. Anarchism and Other Essays stands as a testament to that

[Lynne King · Rating 4 out of 5]

Emma Goldman (1869-1940) expressed it all with the following:

“Poor America, of what avail is all her wealth, if the individuals comprising the nation are wretchedly poor? If they live in squalor, in filth, in crime, with hope and joy gone, a homeless, soilless army of human prey.”

And to think these words were written by a woman, and a young woman at that in the latter part of the nineteenth century.

What do you think you would do, if as an individual in the 21st century, you found yourself in a similar desperate situation? Would you stand up and fight or would you lose all hope and succumb to the unfairness and futility of life? I certainly know what I would do.

To me Emma (I’ve personalised her as through her essays in this book I feel that I have come across a comrade) is like a breath of fresh air. She brings forth the “go for it” attitude – be brave and get what you want out of life, regardless of the consequences due to her inherent anarchical beliefs, socialist ideals, and hope for a better society for all and that to me is formidable and admirable.

One of her essays I found particularly inspiring was: “Patriotism: A Menace to Liberty”. She questions patriotism and brings into play individuals such as Dr Johnson “Patriotism, sir, is the last resort of scoundrels” and Leo Tolstoy “the greatest anti-patriot of our times”.

Emma thought widely on labour and sexual issues, especially in the factories. When you think that she lived in Russia and then moved to the United States towards the latter part of the 19th century (in the hope of a better life – sometimes the grass is not greener on the other side) and what she then achieved in a male dominated society. Examples are shown of American employers who abused women in factories knowing if their sexual advances were refused, other girls or women were more than willing to make themselves available.

I always was under the impression that anarchy was at the root of violence in its pursuit of change but I see here with Emma that she as a very unique individual soon realised that the written word was far more effective than the spoken form, even though she did resort to the latter. She was in every respect a woman ahead of her time, a modernist and many of her views still exist today.

I have to add some of her many admirable quotes:

“The right to vote, or equal civil rights, may be good demands, but true emancipation begins neither at the polls nor in courts. It begins in woman's soul.”

“... if the production of any commodity necessitates the sacrifice of human life, society should do without that commodity, but it cannot do without that life.”

“As to a thorough eradication of prostitution, nothing can accomplish that save a complete transvaluation of all accepted values—especially the moral ones—coupled with the abolition of industrial slavery.”

“The right to vote, or equal civil rights, may be good demands, but true emancipation begins neither at the polls nor in courts. It begins in woman's soul.”

“To the moralist prostitution does not consist so much in the fact that the woman sells her body, but rather that she sells it out of wedlock.”

“The American suffrage movement has been, until very recently, altogether a parlour affair, absolutely detached from the economic needs of the people.”

I puzzled somewhat over this quotation though:

“... woman's narrow and purist attitude toward life makes her a greater danger to liberty wherever she has political power. Man has long overcome the superstitions that still engulf women.”

It was thanks to Nathan’s review that I read this excellent book. Some of her views I did not agree with but on the whole this is a literary accomplishment and I’m delighted that I read it. Emma is indeed a woman after my own heart.

[Ian "Marvin" Graye · Rating 3 out of 5]

What Anarchism Really Stands For

This is a summary of Emma Goldman's views on Anarchism in her own words.

Anarchism

The philosophy of a new social order based on liberty unrestricted by man-made law; the theory that all forms of government rest on violence, and are therefore wrong and harmful, as well as unnecessary.

Materialism

The new social order rests, of course, on the materialistic basis of life; but while all Anarchists agree that the main evil today is an economic one, they maintain that the solution of that evil can be brought about only through the consideration of every phase of life, — individual, as well as the collective; the internal, as well as the external phases.

Harmony of Individual and Society

Anarchism is therefore the teacher of the unity of life; not merely in nature, but in man.

There is no conflict between the individual and the social instincts, any more than there is between the heart and the lungs: the one the receptacle of a precious life essence, the other the repository of the element that keeps the essence pure and strong.

The individual and social instincts, — the one a most potent factor for individual endeavor, for growth, aspiration, self-realization; the other an equally potent factor for mutual helpfulness and social well-being.

It is the philosophy of the sovereignty of the individual. It is the theory of social harmony.

Subordination

Anarchism is the only philosophy which brings to man the consciousness of himself; which maintains that God, the State, and society are non-existent, that their promises are null and void, since they can be fulfilled only through man’s subordination.

Anarchism is the great liberator of man from the phantoms that have held him captive; it is the arbiter and pacifier of the two forces for individual and social harmony.

To accomplish that unity, Anarchism has declared war on the pernicious influences which have so far prevented the harmonious blending of individual and social instincts, the individual and society.

Religion

Religion! How it dominates man’s mind, how it humiliates and degrades his soul.

God is everything, man is nothing, says religion. But out of that nothing God has created a kingdom so despotic, so tyrannical, so cruel, so terribly exacting that naught but gloom and tears and blood have ruled the world since gods began. Anarchism rouses man to rebellion against this black monster.

Break your mental fetters, says Anarchism to man, for not until you think and judge for yourself will you get rid of the dominion of darkness, the greatest obstacle to all progress.

Property

Property, the dominion of man’s needs, the denial of the right to satisfy his needs.

Man is being robbed not merely of the products of his labor, but of the power of free initiative, of originality, and the interest in, or desire for, the things he is making.

Anarchism cannot but repudiate such a method of production: its goal is the freest possible expression of all the latent powers of the individual.

Real wealth consists in things of utility and beauty, in things that help to create strong, beautiful bodies and surroundings inspiring to live in.

Oscar Wilde defines a perfect personality as "one who develops under perfect conditions, who is not wounded, maimed, or in danger."

A perfect personality, then, is only possible in a state of society where man is free to choose the mode of work, the conditions of work, and the freedom to work.

The State

Anarchism, however, also recognizes the right of the individual, or numbers of individuals, to arrange at all times for other forms of work, in harmony with their tastes and desires.

Such free display of human energy being possible only under complete individual and social freedom, Anarchism directs its forces against the third and greatest foe of all social equality; namely, the State, organized authority, or statutory law, — the dominion of human conduct.

Just as religion has fettered the human mind, and as property, or the monopoly of things, has subdued and stifled man’s needs, so has the State enslaved his spirit, dictating every phase of conduct.

"All government in essence," says Emerson, "is tyranny."

It matters not whether it is government by divine right or majority rule. In every instance its aim is the absolute subordination of the individual.

Therefore Bakunin repudiates the State as synonymous with the surrender of the liberty of the individual or small minorities, — the destruction of social relationship, the curtailment, or complete denial even, of life itself, for its own aggrandizement.

The State is the altar of political freedom and, like the religious altar; it is maintained for the purpose of human sacrifice.

In destroying government and statutory laws, Anarchism proposes to rescue the self-respect and independence of the individual from all restraint and invasion by authority.

Only in freedom can man grow to his full stature. Only in freedom will he learn to think and move, and give the very best in him. Only in freedom will he realize the true force of the social bonds which knit men together, and which are the true foundation of a normal social life.

Work

Anarchism aims to strip labor of its deadening, dulling aspect, of its gloom and compulsion. It aims to make work an instrument of joy, of strength, of color, of real harmony, so that the poorest sort of a man should find in work both recreation and hope.

Human Nature

But what about human nature? Can it be changed? And if not, will it endure under Anarchism?

Freedom, expansion, opportunity, and, above all, peace and repose, alone can teach us the real dominant factors of human nature and all its wonderful possibilities.

Anarchism, then, really stands for the liberation of the human mind from the dominion of religion; the liberation of the human body from the dominion of property; liberation from the shackles and restraint of government.

Anarchism stands for a social order based on the free grouping of individuals for the purpose of producing real social wealth; an order that will guarantee to every human being free access to the earth and full enjoyment of the necessities of life, according to individual desires, tastes, and inclinations.

Practicality Objection

Objection: Anarchism is impractical, though a beautiful ideal.

A practical scheme, says Oscar Wilde, is either one already in existence, or a scheme that could be carried out under the existing conditions; but it is exactly the existing conditions that one objects to, and any scheme that could accept these conditions is wrong and foolish.

The true criterion of the practical, therefore, is not whether the latter can keep intact the wrong or foolish; rather is it whether the scheme has vitality enough to leave the stagnant waters of the old, and build, as well as sustain, new life.

Violence and Destruction Objection

Objection: Anarchism stands for violence and destruction, hence it must be repudiated as vile and dangerous.

Destruction and violence! How is the ordinary man to know that the most violent element in society is ignorance; that its power of destruction is the very thing Anarchism is combating?

Methods

As to methods. Anarchism is not, as some may suppose, a theory of the future to be realized through divine inspiration. It is a living force in the affairs of our life, constantly creating new conditions.

The methods of Anarchism therefore do not comprise an iron-clad program to be carried out under all circumstances.

Methods must grow out of the economic needs of each place and clime, and of the intellectual and temperamental requirements of the individual.

Spirit of Revolt

Anarchism does not stand for military drill and uniformity; it does, however, stand for the spirit of revolt, in whatever form, against everything that hinders human growth.

What does the history of parliamentarism show? Nothing but failure and defeat, not even a single reform to ameliorate the economic and social stress of the people.

Direct Action

Anarchism therefore stands for direct action, the open defiance of, and resistance to, all laws and restrictions, economic, social, and moral. But defiance and resistance are illegal. Therein lies the salvation of man.

Everything illegal necessitates integrity, self-reliance, and courage. In short, it calls for free, independent spirits, for "men who are men, and who have a bone in their backs which you cannot pass your hand through."

Universal suffrage itself owes its existence to direct action. If not for the spirit of rebellion, of the defiance on the part of the American revolutionary fathers, their posterity would still wear the King’s coat.

Direct action, having proven effective along economic lines, is equally potent in the environment of the individual. There a hundred forces encroach upon his being, and only persistent resistance to them will finally set him free.

Direct action against the authority in the shop, direct action against the authority of the law, direct action against the invasive, meddlesome authority of our moral code, is the logical, consistent method of Anarchism.

Revolution

Will it not lead to a revolution? Indeed, it will.

No real social change has ever come about without a revolution.

[Theo Logos · Rating 4 out of 5]

It struck me recently that all my greatest heroes are history’s losers - those whose causes and ideas have been rejected by main stream society and government. Tom Paine, Eugene Debs, Emma Goldman (among the greatest of them), were forsaken, imprisoned, exiled. They didn’t get happy endings, where after years of struggle they finally prevailed, but rather died as history’s rejects, their ideas still widely opposed.

Yet, thanks to Herr Gutenberg, their ideas still live, and have a chance to change the world long after they are dust. This book of Goldman’s essays is full of her radical thinking on government, freedom, militarism, incarceration, women’s rights, love and marriage, even drama. These ideas remain as dynamic now as they were when written over one hundred years ago. Sadly, the status quo has barely changed since the time when Goldman wrote, and her words are nearly as relevant to our own time as they were to hers. So join me, in the celebration of history’s losers; read Emma’s words and pass her ideas to a new generation.

[Mehrsa · Rating 5 out of 5]

Man this was a fun read! It was so refreshing to hear her just tear down everything and throw it in the trash and spit on it and not give a crap. I mean, womens suffrage? Garbage. Marriage? Oppressive! Government? Who needs it? I think it would have been fun to be alive during this time when the industrial revolution was changing everything and all these visionaries were just proposing different utopias. She's not wrong on most things. In fact, she's more right now than ever. But I am not convinced about her distrust of majorities nor am I convinced that anarchism would be possible. I think she's right that we live out of our natural element and thus, actual human nature would and could resist domination. But I sort of feel like the genie has left the bottle on that front. There are too many of us. I would LOVE to hear her talk about the environmental disaster we created. I just think now, if you pushed for anarchism, some political party would call itself anarchism and then they would just grab the reigns of power and dominate in a different way. So the book made me totally hopeless for anything we can achieve politically. Not that that's far from where I already was. My favorite essay was her essay on love and how transformative it can be to base relationships and parenting on love. She's clearly an idealist and it would have been nice to live in an era where utopias of the people were possible. But I guess they arrested and killed people like her. Now, they're just drowned out by soundbites and all the frivolities and distractions of the media. Sigh

[The Conspiracy is Capitalism · Rating 3 out of 5]

What to make of “anarchism”?:

Goldman opens the door:
--My old review said this was the first “anarchist” text I read, a collection of essays by an infamous anarchist/feminist whose activism caused enough rabble during the capitalist crises of early 1900's in the US to get her deported to Russia.
--Even back then I felt the text was more poetic/personal than rigourous in unpacking material conditions/social issues/contradictions, which tends to be the case with biographical essays. I’ll give Goldman another try in My Disillusionment in Russia (the complete edition), where I intend to keep “disillusionment” constructive rather than permanent by synthesizing with (rather than completely dismissing) the real-world contradictions of developing socialism (or even reforms) among real-world (not utopian) people and a hostile capitalist/contradictory world.

Chomsky, with a sprinkle of Bakunin:
--Despite my early reliance on Noam Chomsky (whose anti-imperialist geopolitics in Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance burst my manufactured consent), the only particularly “anarchist” “theory” I can recall from him is:
a) Power must be questioned and justifiable (ex. parenting babies)
b) Polling the public on social needs/issues directly reveals we are actually more socialist in our stated desires than the divisive scare-media/political theatre portrays, the implication being people can generally work things out nonviolently without violent regulation; indeed, A Paradise Built in Hell: The Extraordinary Communities That Arise in Disaster pushes this ability in even extreme conditions.
--Besides these, I’m wary of Chomsky's juxtaposition of:
a) Romanticized “classical liberalism” (I sense this goes beyond simply trying to connect to his audience, similar to referring back to “our Founding Fathers”)
b) “Authoritarian” real-world socialism, with “the USSR was a dungeon” cherry on top.
...Quips (like memes) sacrifice nuance, so should be deployed with caution. This felt on the level of Hitchen’s God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. There sometimes followed acknowledgements of what Michael Parenti would call “siege socialism”/“war communism”, but the damage would already be done when delivered to US audiences raised on Red Scare/American Exceptionalism. If we narrow the audience to academia, were there really enough dogmatic “Stalinists” left after the McCarthyite purges to warrant this?
--Chomsky would always bring up Mikhail Bakunin as some alternative to Karl Marx and especially to Vladimir Lenin/“vanguard party”; however, Bakunin’s God and the State only scratches the surface and I’m not sure his essays on anarchism goes much further.

Graeber flipping the script:
--David Graeber, on the other hand, playfully transformed “anarchism” to something breathing and imaginative. This started with The Democracy Project: A History, a Crisis, a Movement, which apparently he wanted to be titled “Acting as if one is Already Free” in the spirit of direct action, prefiguration (living the revolution instead of waiting for it to occur first) and real-world communism/mutual aid (“from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs”).
--This was still early on in my readings, and I’ve since read more of Marx’s Capital project as well as heterodox Marxists synthesizing imperialism/finance/ecology/social reproduction etc.
--Graeber's background in anthropology seems to offer more creativity in unpacking the diversity of real-world contradictions: “baseline communism” as the basis of existing sociality, “inequality from below” domestic patriarchy, societal experiments that do not easily fit into our current conceptions of “inequality”, “anarchism”, “communism” etc.).
--While I appreciate Graeber's use of anthropology (mixed with some Murray Bookchin, Gerda Lerner, heterodox Marxist Michael Hudson, Immanuel Wallerstein... yes, an “anarchist” synthesizing World Systems analysis!), Graeber does drift to portraying a rudimentary Marxism to contrast with his views. This opens the door to (mostly rhetorical) “narcissism of small differences” political labels battles (which ironically his post-humous The Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity identifies as a key barrier for social change!). I'm now re-reading Graeber to see what can be synthesized...
--Vijay Prashad on radical infighting:
-https://youtu.be/Jo4kXQ4St7Q?t=3274
-https://youtu.be/9ZxNEifEVU8?t=1391

[Sajjad thaier · Rating 3 out of 5]

“Ask for work. If they do not give you work, ask for bread. If they do not give you work or bread, then take bread.”


عن المؤلفة :

إيما غولدمان هي ناشطة سياسية ومفكرة لاسلطوية مشهورة في أمريكا وخصوصا في بدايات القرن العشرين. ولدت إيما غولدمان في روسيا لعائلة يهودية محافظة ثم هاجرت بعد ذلك لأمريكا وهناك بدأت بالتعرف على الفكر اللاسلطوي. أن كون غولدمان متحدثة بارعة وخطيبة قوية ومحبة للأدب قد وفر لها محصلة معرفية قوية لكي تساعدها في المناقشات والتعبير عن أفكارها وقد كان لها تأثير كبير في الوسط السياسي واللاسلطوي إلى أن تم اتهامها باغتيال الرئيس الأمريكي ويليام ماكينلي ورغم عدم وجود دليل يربطها بالجريمة ألا أن سمعتها قد تدهورت منذ ذلك الوقت وعانت الكثير كي تستعيدها.

الكتاب عبارة عن عدة مقالات كتبتها غولدمان تتنوع من التكلم عن الفكر اللاسلطوي والتعصب إلى حقوق المرأة والدعارة وتجارة البشر والأدب:

Chapter 1: Anarchism: What It Really Stands for

تناولت غولدمان في هذه المقالة التعريف بالحركة اللاسلطوية وأهدافها وكيف أنها تدعو إلى نبذ جميع أنواع الحكومات والمؤسسات والعيش بصورة مستقلة ومفردة مع أمكانية التجمع بصورة طوعية لانجاز أفعال معينة. لقد كان الجزء الأكبر من المقالة هو محاولة للدفاع عن التعريفات الخاطئة ووجهات النظر المظللة التي يملكها الناس ضد هذا الفكر السياسي. فاللاسلطوية يمكن تشبيه وضعها بالإسلام في الوقت الحاضر فكل شيء سيء يحدث بالغرب وكل عمل إرهابي يتم ربطه بالتطرف الإسلامي بشكل مباشر أو غير مباشر. فكون الفكر اللاسلطوي يعارض التنظيمات السياسية جميعها فلم تتوانى تلك التنظيمات السياسية والحكومات عن إلقاء كل سوء على اللاسلطوية. فقد وصل الحد إن أحد جنود البحرية قد تم حكمه بثلاث سنوات لأنه حضر أحدى محاضرات غولدمان وقام بكل وقاحة وقلة أدب وعدم اهتمام بمصافحة يدها.

"The women of the street showed more refinement of feeling and sincere sympathy than the priests of the Church"

Chapter 2: Minorities Versus Majorities

في هذه المقالة القصيرة تكلمت ما يسمى بالأغلبية أو المجتمع ككل. تدعي غولدمان أن المجتمع لا يهتم بالنوعية و الكفاءة بقدر اهتمامه بالكمية- الكمية بكل شيء بعدد الطلاب أو عدد الناخبين-. فليس المهم أن كان التعليم جيداً ما دام يُخًرِج أعداداً كثيرة وليس المهم نزاهة السياسي ما دام يملك قاعدة جماهيرية عريضة. أن الشيء الاسوء في الجموع أو الأغلبية هو أن العامل الأقوى الذي يسيطر عليهم هو الجهل.

“The most dangerous enemies of truth and justice in our
midst are the compact majorities, the damned compact majority.”

Chapter 3: The Psychology of Political Violence

في هذه المقالة تحاول غولدمان الدفاع من جديد عن سمعة الحركة اللاسلطوية بتحليل الأسباب التي تدفع المواطنين إلى القيام بهجمات ذات توجهات سياسية -أشياء نطلق عليها الآن إرهاب- .ترى غولدمان أن الأفعال ذات التوجهات السياسية ليست نتيجة الفكر اللاسلطوي بقدر ما هو توليفة من الروح الحساسة تجاه الآلام البشرية من جانب المهاجم والقسوة السياسية من جانب السلطات السياسية. وتعرضت غولدمان لعدد من الأمثلة في هذا المثال ومنها اغتيال الرئيس الفرنسي سعدي كارنو على يد اللاسلطوي كاسيريو وذلك بسبب سياسات الرئيس الإجرامية بحق الشعب والفلاحين. غولدمان تجادل بأن هذه الاغتيالات ليست ألا عملية عنيفة عن التعبير عن السخط والألم أو صرخة عدم تحمل من قبل الطبقة الدنيا من المجتمع وهم الفلاحون والفقراء واللاسلطوين وبما أن الأخيرين يملكون مقدار طبيعي من الوعي السياسي وازدراء كبير للنظم السياسية.
الآن ضع هذا الشاب\ة الحساس\ة المثقف\ة والمملوء\ة بأحلام العظمة والقيم العليا والمثاليات وقم باغتيال عدد من الفلاحين أو النساء أمامه\ا كيف تتوقع من هذا شخص أن لا يغتالك أو ي\تضع قنبلة داخل بيتك!.

"Someone has said that it requires less mental effort to condemn than to think"

Chapter 4: Prisons: A Social Crime and Failure

في هذه المقالة تصف الكاتبة الحالة المتردية للسجون الأمريكية والمعاملة المهينة التي يتلقاها السجين هناك. غولدمان باعتبارها أول امرأة تسجن لأسباب سياسية في أمريكا قد نالت حصتها العادلة من السجن على مدى سنوات طويلة. تروي غولدمان قصتها ومعاناتها ومعاناة باقي المساجين الذين معها. ترى غولدمان أن السجن هو عبارة عن مؤسسة تقوم بكسر روح الإنسان العادي وتسلبه من كل الفرص لعيش حياة طبيعية فلا يملك السجين أي خيار عند خروجه إلا اللجوء إلى الحياة الإجرامية التي سجن بسببها.


“I believed in God; but when I saw so great an inequality between men, I acknowledged that it was not God who created man, but man who created God. And I discovered that those who want their property to be respected, have an interest in preaching the existence of paradise and hell, and in keeping the people in ignorance."

Chapter 5: Patriotism: A Menace to Liberty

ترى غولدمان أن الوطنية أو الشوفينية هي عدو الحرية والتقدم فالاعتقاد أننا قد ولدنا في أفضل البلدان وأكثرها عدلاً ليس أكثر من وهم علينا استئصاله فمواطن اليوم يشعر بالتفوق فوق أخوانه البشر فقط لأنه ولد في الجهة الأخرى على(شريط الحدود السياسية) فالوطنية تولد التعصب والأيمان الأعمى. بالتأكيد أن الأماكن التي عشنا فيها وترعرعنا فيها لها قيمة خاصة في ذكرياتنا وكذلك في بناء شخصياتنا لكن هذا لا يعني تفضيلنا الأشخاص الآخرين الذين ولدوا في نفس هذه البقعة حتى لو كانوا على خطأ بحجة الوطنية. فهذه الحجة –الوطنية- هي الحجة التي يدفع بها الشباب في محارق الموت لأجل تحقيق مأرب سياسية بحتة ليس لها أي علاقة بالوطن.

“Religion is a fraud, but it must be maintained for the masses.”

Chapter 6: Francisco Ferrer and the Modern School

فرانسيسكو فيرير كان مفكر لاسلطوي ومدرس مات وقد خلف وراءه ما يقارب 120 مدرسة قام بتأسيسها وآلاف الطلاب الذي كانوا يعتبره أباً روحياً لهم.
لقد أننشئ فيرمير ما يسمى بالمدرسة العصرية في أسبانيا وهي نوع من المدارس الثورية التي ابتعدت عن أساليب التدريس التقليدية بل تبنت الأسس العلمية والنفسية الحديثة في تدريسها كما أدخلت الرسم والموسيقى وغيرها من مهارات التفكير النقدي كما عارضت في مناهجها الفكر الديني والمسيحي خاصة فكانت مدارس علمانية كما أنها قد كانت مفتوحة لذكور والإناث معاً وهذا شيء غير مسبوق في بداية القرن العشرين في أسبانيا الكاثوليكية المحافظة. لقد كان فيرمير عبقريا ومحسن وذو ثقافة عالية لكن للأسف تم تلفيق تهمة له وهي المشاركة في تنظيم المظاهرات ضد التجنيد الإلزامي التي تحولت إلى مواجهات دامية أسفرت عن مجازر في شوارع كاتالونيا وبسبب هذه التهمة تم إعدامه في 1909 ولم يقم هذا الإعدام إلى بتخليد فيرمير ومدارسه العلمانية وتم تأسيس عدد كبير من المدارس على هذا النمط في أنحاء أوربا وأمريكا تخليداً لذكرى هذا المدرس الثوري.

"the most violent element in society is ignorance

Chapter 7: The Hypocrisy of Puritanism

الحزب المحافظ والأشخاص المحافظين أولئك الأشخاص الذين اخذوا على عاتقهم أبقاء البشرية في جهل مطبق وحاربوا كل حديث وغريب بحجة الأخلاق, الدين والناموس مسميات وضعوها فقط ليحاربوا الأشياء التي لا يفهموها ولا يرغبون برؤيتها.تجادل غولدمان بأن المجتمع المحافظ الذي يعترض على تعليم المرأة أي شيء عن الجنس بل أن من المحرمات التي قد تنهي الحياة الاجتماعية لفتاة غير متزوجة أن سمعها أحدهم تتكلم عن الجنس هو نفسه الذي يجرد المرأة من كل مصادر القوة والسلطة ولا يترك لها ألا الجنس كمصدر قوة في الحياة فالمرأة ليست ألا أداة للإنجاب وللفراش وبما أنها لم تحظ بحياتها بأي تعليم مناسب في حياتها بهذا الخصوص فهي عندما تتزوج تدخل وهي جاهلة باستخدام السلاح الوحيد الذي تركه المجتمع في حوزتها.كذلك تناولت غولدمان نظرة المجتمع للمرأة التي تقيم علاقة قبل الزواج وكذلك التقنين الثقافي للكتب للتعليمة والتثقيفية بحجة أنها تخالف الآداب العامة.

“Patriotism, sir, is the last resort of scoundrels,” said Dr. Johnson

Chapter 8: The Traffic in Women

تناولت غودمان في هذه المقالة تجارة البشر وشبكات الدعارة المنتشرة في أمريكا وقد أبدت تعجبها وسخريتها من الأصوات المناهضة لتجارة البشر الذين يتصرفون كما لو أنهم لم يسمعوا بتجارة البشر من قبل ألا في هذا الفترة. غولدمان تنادي بأن الأسباب الرئيسية لتجارة البشر والدعارة هي الظروف الصعبة التي يفرضها الاقتصاد فالفتاة العاملة يتم التحرش بها وأهانتها في المصنع لكنها تسكت لكي تحافظ على العمل وحتى هذا العمل لا يكفيها لسد رمقها لذلك تلجئ لأنشطة ثانوية للحصول على المال. غولدمان تنادي أن الدعارة والزواج هما الشيء نفسه ما عدا أن الأخير ملزم لمدى الحياة فكلاهما برأي غولدمان مبنيان على نفس الأسس من أن الرجل يقدم المال للمرأة والمرأة تقدم له الجنس في مقابل ذلك المال ما عدا أن العاهرة يمكنها أن ترفض متى ما أرادت والزوجة لا. كما أن المجتمع يقدس الزوجة ويحتقر العاهرة رغم أن الوضع الاجتماعي والاقتصادي لذلك المجتمع هو الذي يصنع هذه العاهرة.

ملاحظة :الكاتبة نفسها اضطرت ل��عمل كعاهرة في فترة من فترات حياتها.

"Prostitution, although hounded, imprisoned, and chained, is nevertheless the greatest triumph of Puritanism."

Chapter 9: Woman Suffrage

ربما تكون هذه المقالة غريبة بمعاييرنا الحديثة فباعتبار غولدمان امرأة ثورية تهدف للدفاع عن حقوق الإنسان والمرأة فمن الغريب أن تهاجم حق المرأة في التصويت في هذه المقالة. فمع بدأ بعض الولايات والدول بمنح المرأة الحق للتصويت نجد غولدمان تعارض هذا الحق بقوة. وتبريرها لهذا الرأي أنها ترى أن المرأة والعمال والأطفال هم المتضررين من السياسات الرأسمالية الحالية ومشاركة المرأة في التصويت لن يحل أي مشكلة ولن يغير العملية السياسية بل فقط سيجعل النساء مشاركات في جرائم الحكومة وسياساتها المشينة.

"It is much more profitable to play the Pharisee, to pretend an outraged morality, than to go to the bottom of things."

Chapter 10: The Tragedy of Woman’s Emancipation

تسير هذه المقالة على نفس النفس في سابقتها فهي تتناول حقوق المرأة في المجتمع وهنا تنادي غولدمان بأن علينا أن نكون ذواتنا ونتفهم الأخر في نفس الوقت. فعلى المرأة أن تكون امرأة والرجل رجل من دون أن يكون أحدهما أعلى أو أدنى من الأخر بل فقط مختلفين فعلينا أن نتفهم اختلافاتنا ونتعايش معها فليس على الجميع أن يصبحوا مثلنا لكي يكونوا جيدين.

"The problem that confronts us today, and which the nearest future is to solve, is how to be one’s self and yet in oneness with others, to feel deeply with all human beings and still retain one’s own characteristic qualities. "

Chapter 11: Marriage and Love

تهاجم غولدمان في هذه ��لمقالة الزواج باعتباره عدو الحب ومعاكسه فرغم اعترافها أن بعض حالات الحب تؤدي إلى الزواج ألا أنها تصر على أن الزواج ليس ألا اتفاقية اقتصادية بين الزوج والزوجة يقومان بها على الأغلب لأجل الحصول على القبول المجتمعي.وكذلك تتناول الكثير من المواضيع بخصوص الدعارة والجنس خارج الزواج.

"Thus Dante’s motto over Inferno applies with equal force to marriage: 'Ye who enter here leave all hope behind'."

Chapter 12: The Modern Drama: A Powerful Disseminator of Radical Thought

لقد كانت هذه المقالة الأدبية الطويلة نوعا ما مختلفة قليلا في بعض النواحي فهنا نطلع على شخصية غولدمان المثقفة والقارئة. في هذا مقالة تستعرض غولدمان بعض أهم الأعمال الأدبية المعاصرة في تلك الفترة مثل هنريك ابسن والكتاب الروس لتلك الفترة الذين نقلوا الوضع الاجتماعي لتلك الفترة بشفافية كاملة ونقدوا ذلك الوضع بطريقة فنية رائعة.

"too weak to live, too cowardly to die."


لقد كانت هذه المقالات تجربة رائعة في عالم السياسة رغم أني أختلف معها في بعض النقاط وفي فلسفتها ككل لكن هذه المرأة لديها طريقة رائعة بطرح وجهة نظرها والدفاع عنها. أعتقد أني سأقرأ سيرة حياتها أن حصلت عليها في يوم ما. شكرا لبول أوستر وروايته 4321 لأنه عرفني على هذه الكاتبة.

“‘Take off your silken clothes,’ said the devil to the priest, ‘put on your ankles heavy chains such as these unfortunates wear; lie down on the cold and filthy floor — and then talk to them about a hell that still awaits them!’"


“Pope Clement II. issued a bull that prostitutes would be tolerated if they pay a certain amount of their earnings to the Church."

“Pope Sixtus IV. was more practical; from one single brothel, which he himself had built, he received an income of 20,000 ducats.”

لتحميل الكتاب:
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/libra...

[Meg · Rating 3 out of 5]

Many of these essays are interesting more for historical perspective than for anything else. Her final essay on the importance of dramatic works for educating and disseminating radical thought is very interesting to read in our age of constant streaming media.

The pieces that felt the most relevant to me are those on women and women's emancipation. Goldman was unpopular with the first-wave feminists of her day because she felt their focus on suffrage was misplaced; that they entrenched class differences and ignored the issues faced by working women; and that likewise, they failed to see the bigger picture in which the norms encouraged by Church and State often hurt woman rather than helped. Hence the emphasis on woman as 'pure, reforming' characters who could 'aid the nation' through their votes seemed harmful in that it did nothing to address the daily circumstances of most woman nor the imbalance of capital and state power against labor.

However, even as many of the essays felt dated, that quality arose almost from the fact that many of the issues are almost exactly the same: the prison system is anything but just; patriotism is used to deny the value of people across the globe rather than to help people actually better the places in which they live. It's the simplicity with which such problems are explained that makes these pieces feel old, and not that the problems are gone. In this way, despite the century between their original publication and now, we definitely still live in the same era as Goldman, in which the social and political problems are not new, but only continuing from much earlier.

[CivilWar · Rating 1 out of 5]

Easily one of the worst books on politics by a respected so-called theorist I have ever read, Emma Goldman represents everything that's wrong with anarchism, and boy is anarchism wrong about everything.

First of all, according to Goldman, anarchism is not a goal to be achieved, a new society, but a vague value about "freedom". Anarchism is what leads man away from the yoke of tradition or whatever, and into "love for liberty". What this means, essentially, is that anarchism is not an actual thing but a set of ideas that exist purely inside of the head. For Miss Goldman, ideas free us from material reality - it is not production that enslaves us, it's ideas. The production that does enslave us, capitalism, is itself the product not of class, but of ideas.

Speaking of class, boy is Emma Goldman ever hateful towards the working class. Despite supposedly being an "anarcho-communist", as everyone will tell you about it, Goldman has nothing but bad things to say about the working class: that they're sheep, they're idiotic, they're infantile, incapable of thought, etc. It is not class action that changes history for Goldman but, drum roll please... Great Men. Yes, the old stupid reactionary cliché is here repeated constantly, even having a whole essay dedicated to it - the masses are stupid and incapable of action, it's only Great Men that move history. And the people that worship this woman will call vanguardists "middle class elitists"! As if that has anything to do with it!

The hypocrisy and stupidity of Goldman, and by proxy, everyone who repeats her points, who call this a good book, etc, is really quite remarkable. I read this with the intent of critique, however, I really was not expecting how abysmal this book actually is. Per example, in Anarchism: What It Really Stands for, we have this paragraph (brackets are my own commentary):

"A thorough perusal [Goldman has not done as much as a glance] of the history of human development will disclose two elements in bitter conflict with each other; elements that are only now beginning to be understood, not as foreign to each other, but as closely related and truly harmonious, if only placed in proper environment: the individual and social instincts. The individual and society have waged a relentless and bloody battle for ages, each striving for supremacy, because each was blind to the value and importance of the other. The individual and social instincts,—the one a most potent factor for individual endeavor, for growth, aspiration, self-realization; the other an equally potent factor for mutual helpfulness and social well-being."

And then, very shortly after:

"Anarchism is the only philosophy which brings to man the consciousness of himself [It is the biggest "philosophy" which distracts working people from consciousness with middle class delusions]; which maintains that God, the State, and society [Agreeing with Miss Thatcher, are we? Now that's radical!] are non-existent, that their promises are null and void, since they can be fulfilled only through man's subordination. Anarchism is therefore t1he teacher of the unity of life; not merely in nature, but in man. There is no conflict between the individual and the social instincts, any more than there is between the heart and the lungs: the one the receptacle of a precious life essence, the other the repository of the element that keeps the essence pure and strong. The individual is the heart of society, conserving the essence of social life; society is the lungs which are distributing the element to keep the life essence—that is, the individual—pure and strong."

To this, I just wrote in my notes:

Again, Goldman's claims that her glorious intellect, above the ignorant masses, goes "to the bottom of things", are dashed when it's clear that she doesn't even go to the bottom of her own essays. The ridiculous suggestion that "society [is] non-existent", does this not contradict that"[t]he individual and society have waged a relentless and bloody battle for ages, each striving for supremacy, because each was blind to the value and importance of the other"? If Society is "non-existent", then please let me ask: what has the individual been fighting all this time? And how can something that does not exist "strive for supremacy" over something else that does exist?

Another example is how the book, like all anarchist literature, is pure nonstop moralizing. However, Goldman, because she has no self-awareness whatsoever, repeatedly uses "moralists" as an insult, and most hilariously of all, she writes at some point:

"Moralists are ever ready to sacrifice one-half of the human race for the sake of some miserable institution which they can not outgrow."

What, anarchists with their stupid, petit-bourgeois ideal wouldn't sacrifice half of the human race for the sake of freedom in the case of a pandemic like, say, COVID-19? For the sake of Freedom? Unbelievably idiotic, the way only leftoids can be.

I could go on forever - Goldman writes nothing worthwhile here, it's just a stupid, smug, pretentious mess, the worst of petit-bourgeois leftism I have yet seen. So instead of wasting my time with any further criticism, I will simply go through each one of the essays here, and give alternatives to it.

Anarchism: What It Really Stands For - I can't say that it's a wrong definition of anarchism, but it is very stupid, because anarchism is very stupid. To see why, I recommend The Fundamentals of Revolutionary Communism by Amadeo Bordiga and the ICP.

Minorities Versus Majorities - an essay simply espousing Great Men rhetoric, pure nonsense. Read The Guignol in History by Bordiga and the ICP or The Role of the Individual in History by Georgi Plekhanov to see why.

The Psychology of Political Violence - total throwaway essay that turns the terrorist (in the classical sense of the word) into a Beautiful Soul who simply cannot bear the terrible surroundings around him and thus rightfully lashes out. Unironically blames the masses for the individualist bomb attacks some anarchists did around this time period. See Violence by Slavoj Zizek by a much more in-depth and actually insightful look on the subject.

Prisons: A Social Crime and Failure - Simply read Are Prisons Obsolete? by Angela Davis. I am not a big fan of Miss Davis, but her work on the topic is much more insightful than this obsolete moralizing could ever hope to be.

Patriotism: A Menace to Liberty - One of the most infuriating essays on the whole thing - the problem of nationalism for Goldman is not, say, "the nation is an artificial, bourgeois concept made to make foreign workers seem like our enemies and local capitalists seem like our allies", but rather that it impedes freedom. Infantile ideology. The best read on the topic is, of course, The National Question by Rose Luxemburg.

Francisco Ferrer and The Modern School - essay making a martyr out of Ferrer and exalting the Modern School as the best thing there is. For a better work on pedagogy, I recommend Paulo Freire's Pedagogy of the Oppressed.

The Hypocrisy of Puritanism - Trivially covered by Marx and Engels in the Communist Manifesto.

The Traffic in Women (1910) - See Marx on slavery in the US.

Woman Suffrage - For the single worthwhile point (and handled by her, still wrong) that voting doesn't make women that much more empowered, see Amadeo Bordiga's The Democratic Principle.

The Tragedy of Woman's Emancipation - See Marx's Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 for an explanation of alienation rather than the pathetic, essentialist, misogynist trash that Goldman spews here.

Marriage and Love - See Friedrich Engels' The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, specifically "The Family". Marx and Engels touch on the same concept much better than Goldman could even hope to accomplish on a variety of workers.

The Drama: A Powerful Disseminator of Radical Thought - Worthless literary "criticism", legitimately below the average 5th grade essay for literature class. Read Literature and Revolution by Leon Trotsky instead for a read about the place of literature in revolution and dissemination of ideology.

[Caroline Carlisle · Rating 4 out of 5]

overall super cool passionate book that brings up important things like um, how to live your life. her language is pretty crass and maybe exaggerated at times. like referring to the catholic church as a heinous black hydra-monster or something. emma goldmans got a revolutionary philosophy even by todays standards. i'd be interested to see what she would have to say about the current shit today, like anarchism as an integral part of the punk scene, the role of women in a globalized world etc. halfway through the book i wanted to take away her soapbox, but most of the time i spent bathing in her defiance and passionate moral integrity.

[Anisia · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not great, not terrible. I quite enjoyed three of her essays. I certainly appreciated the frankness and passion of her writing. Some of her claims are questionable and I felt she didn't provide enough reasoning to back them up. For an anarchist, she had a rather contemptuous attitude towards the working class. She didn't seem to be very happy about women gaining the right to vote. She thought there was no reason to assume that women would be helped by the ballot box. A rather naive approach. Gaining the right to vote was a big step in the process of women's emancipation. Now they can elect their representatives, vote for policies they believe in etc. I also think Goldman was displaying an ill-founded skepticism towards democracy. Of all forms of government we have seen so far, democracy has proven to be the most efficacious. I found that rather odd, given that anarchists support (direct) democracy. Sure, implemented in a non-hierarchical, stateless society. I didn't necessarily agree with her approach to patriotism, but I understood her position knowing that anarchists are not the biggest fans of borders. Overall, it's an interesting book which deals with a variety of issues that remain relevant today. And it's certainly a good introduction to anarchism.

[~*~Princess Nya Vasiliev~*~]

Pre-read note:

The fact this was originally published in 1910, and the fact that it's free on Kindle version, makes me giddy to have my hands on this woman's work.. I can't wait for hubby and I to dive into this together.. Though he's read some of these essays already. This is like my birthday and Christmas morning all rolled into one, me having this in my possession now. (Giggles)

[muthuvel · Rating 4 out of 5]

"The problem that confronts us today, and which the nearest future is to solve, is how to be one's self and yet in oneness with others, to feel deeply with all human beings and still retain one's own characteristic qualities."

Familiar as the highly influential feminist, 'notorious' Anarchists from the 20th Century, Emma Goldman gives here powerful political essays on the notions of Anarchism, Majoritarianism, critical views on feminism, civil rights and suffrage movements.

She goes on to attack the notions of Patriotism as something emergent and people holding it absolute and rationalizing the means of military budgets and arms race. There are essays which are context specific, mind you this was written more than a century ago, like the notions and influence and poisoning of Puritanism, Gradualism in the women's emancipation movements.

There are few powerful quotes in the ending essays where she quotes on Prostitution as something evil and puts the economic and moral structure for making it institutionalized (although the practice was there from time immemorial) 

There are certain passages people could disagree but in context to the contemporary normalization with the sex work and most existing structures like Pornography all having top down structures & segregations it's mostly women who engage (I might be wrong here with the assumption though) and if so, powerful questions can be put forth with the gender hegemony under the structures of patriarchy?

More like questioning the validity of 'sex work is real work' as a mere justification for normalizing the status quo and to fit along with the existing neoliberal economic setup. I may have to read more works on Sex work for any progress from my side.

Having said all these, its a powerful work and very relevant even still way ahead of our times despite having written more than a century ago.

Reminds me of David Graeber who hinted often that all this practicality that we emphasize so much in everyday trivialities have pretty much susceptibility to get crumbled overnight. As they say, the human imagination stubbornly refuses to die.


"A wise man will not leave the right to the mercy of chance, nor wish it to prevail through the power of the majority."


"The State, society, and moral laws all sing the same refrain: Man can have all the glories of the earth, but he must not become conscious of himself."


"Anarchism is the only philosophy which brings to man the consciousness of himself; which maintains that God, the State, and society are non-existent, that their promises are null and void, since they can be fulfilled only through man's subordination."

[Daniel Lee · Rating 4 out of 5]

It was surprising that in this book towards the end Emma put such a pointed focus on Love. Not just in Love vs. Marriage in many of the essays towards the end of the book she speaks of love of humanity and romantic love as essential elements of the revolutionary mind. I've always thought that any true revolutionary is a romantic at heart. Towards the start of the more revealing and less shared elements of her discussion of Anarchism is her note about its fluidity, the inclusion of anarchist congress', reps and other notions that seem far removed from current perceptions of what Anarchism actually is...I think her focus on the fact that the structure of anarchy or groups that use anarchists forms of organization is not DOGMATIC is lost on a lot of modern interpretations and functioning versions. Lastly, the discussion of drama was profoundly satisfying. I have a huge bias because I often speak and have written about the transformative power of art but in particular theater, film and music. More focus should be put in the narrative parts of these artforms. As is to gain any reliability or street cred things must needs be real life or documentary. But, though some deem it propaganda narrative/fiction has a more powerful and lasting effect on the mind than the often cold depictions lent by a documentary approach.

[Christopher · Rating 2 out of 5]

Another one who would supplant one utopian monopoly with one of her choosing. "Anarchy" as a means to a glorious atheistic communism rather than as a philosophical underpinning of a life lived free. Infantile and selective reading of history to support her own cult of personality around herself. Short on any tangible answers except for the rote and populist communist dream of guiding the revolution to a vague paradise in the distant future. Some may find her treatments of marriage, love, prostitution, suffrage, etc. to be "empowering" but I find them shallow. A star added for some of her polemics against unrestrained American capitalism, police forces, and global militarization which sound like they could be written today.

[D. · Rating 5 out of 5]

"Anarchism urges man to think, to investigate, to analyze every proposition; but that the brain capacity of the average reader be not taxed too much, I also shall begin with a definition, and then elaborate on the latter...." ~E.G.

A fabulous introduction to Anarchism, especially for those of us who find reading and understanding political theory a bit daunting.

[Jenny Yates · Rating 3 out of 5]

I love Emma Goldman. I don’t always agree with her, and that figures, since these essays were written a century ago. So many attitudes have shifted since then. Emma’s statements about women’s nature, her horror of “perversion” – these are limiting beliefs that she didn’t know she had. At one point in her book, she claims that she’s overcome all prejudice.

But so much of what she says is right on, and so much is clarifying. And there’s so much that the world has yet to learn.

It’s sad that this passionate, idealistic woman was so demonized in her time. She was held responsible for every act of political violence, just because she dared to say that the murder of a political figure is not worse than the systematic oppression of hundreds of people – in prisons, in factories, in mines, every hour of every day.

And is the world still resting on the backs of these people? That hasn’t changed in 100 years. We could use Emma these days.

Quote from the book:
“The contention that a standing army and navy is the best security of peace is about as logical as the claim that the most peaceful citizen is he who goes about heavily armed.”

[Ethan]

It's a personal rule of mine that I don't rate non-fiction books with any stars on goodreads just because it would be hard to quantify in an aesthetic way the extent to which I agree or disagree with x thing, or like or dislike some prose or essays.

This collection makes me reconsider that rule. Take the absence of a single star in whatever way you want.

These essays are repetitive, imprecise; monotonous, boring. Most of what she says here is something about how the elite, the moralists, the bourgeoisie are all scummy and real bad. And sure, I guess in the early 20th century that's the case, but there needs to be a bit more than that.

In the preface to this she writes:

The relation between the writer and the reader is more intimate. True, books are only what we want them to be; rather, what we read into them. That we can do so demonstrates the importance of written as against oral expression. It is this certainty which has induced me to gather in one volume my ideas on various topics of individual and social importance. [...] I am not sanguine enough to hope that my readers will be as numerous as those who have heard me. But I prefer to reach the few who really want to learn, rather than the many who come to be amused.

Which would imply we would get serious tracts of theoretical musings, interrogations of economy and political order from her own Anarchist view. But we don't really. We get a series of empty polemics.

Her essays on anarchism are devoid of content. She has some contrarian views on women's suffrage and emancipation, and though she stumbles on okay ideas she doesn't seem to have the clarity of thought so as to bring them forward. And then the collection is capped off with a fairly mediocre text on drama in which she mainly just summarises plays, with the added commentary being that it's against the moralists, and bourgeoisie and so on and so forth.

I'm sure as a figure in life she was quite interesting, but as a writer she has very little importance. This isn't particularly useful for anything, even as a historical document it would be poor.

[Colleen · Rating 3 out of 5]

I was strangely dissapointed by how, 100+ years after their writing, how unradical many of these essays seem, to the point of their smacking of conservativism, particularly as they relate to gender issues and issues of sexuality. For example, while I understand that her opposition to suffrage for women was premised on an overall disagreement with democracy itself as practiced, still her discussion of "womens nature" is essentializing and misses the larger point that until anarchist revolutions are realized, women should be equal participants in Democracy. Her stinging comments about women seemed often like internalized misogyny. Her views on sexuality were also to my mind unradical. Yes, she says you don't need marriage to raise a happy child, and love can be found outside of marriage. But she never discusses sexual pleasure that may not need all the profound implications of Love. She also uses the terms sexual "perversion" to describe what goes on in military barracks, and makes all sex workers hapless victims.

Of the essays that resonated with me, her discussion of majorities versus minorities, patriotism, and political violence are worth a read. One definitely useful aspect of this book for me was showing how criminal justice reform has been a buzzword for over 100 years... To no avail.

In terms of style, the language was hyperbolic and impassioned but left me uninspired.

[Matija · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book surprised me with its relevance even today and maybe even more so with its measured tone. I'll admit it, in my prejudice against it I expected calls to violence and Molotov cocktail recipes, and accounts of arson wouldn't have surprised me. What I found instead was a deep, searing and multifaceted look at life and what makes it meaningful and worth fighting for, even unto its premature end. Probably not in small part thanks to this very book, the conditions of life for working women and men of America, Europe and elsewhere have obviously improved a lot since they kindled the fires of Anarchism in young Emma's soul. Still, these essays point to a lot of things that can be vastly improved still. They pull no punches when it comes to subjects of murder, prostitution, poverty and prison, yet the book as a whole manages to weave a meaningful narrative encompassing said subjects on the one hand, and passion, romantic love and literary art on the other. Indeed, some of its words on love are at the same time the most uplifting and most down to earth that I've ever read in a book. Emma Goldman's name is forever added to my list of heroes, and Anarchism, as it turns out, is not about violence and revolution - it is about life and what we can become if we stand up for what makes it worth living.

[El · Rating 5 out of 5]

Late 19th/early 20th-century radical, Emma Goldman was an early advocate of birth control, workers' unions and women's rights. Horrified by the outcome of the Haymarket Riots in Chicago, Emma helped a group of radicals change the way workers were treated, subsequently putting her on a political blacklist and treated as a criminal in any anarchist movement that occurred throughout the country. Outspoken and confident in her beliefs regarding birth control and free love, she was the target for many anti-anarchism groups (aren't they all?) and was incarcerated herself.

Self-educated and motivated, Emma later went on to write her autobiography, Living My Life, which turned into about 650+ pages of her history, beliefs, actions and relationships. Anarchism and Other Essays, at approximately 270 pages, is a collection of her some of her oral and printed arguments surrounding feminism and the rights of the common working men and women. Published in 1910 Emma has continued (even long after her death) to be misunderstood for her life's work (incorrectly believed to be an advocate of violence first and foremost) and often goes unread today.

Additional suggested reading:
Living My Life, Emma Goldman
Prison Memoirs of an Anarchist, Alexander Berkman

[Jerre · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5, interesting but not blown away by it.

[Mehrdad · Rating 3 out of 5]

After reading this book it seems totally unbelievable to me that Emma Goldman is still that popular. Her views on crime and prisons which represents early positivist criminology is considered to be wrong and outdated. Her fantasies about living in a natural and harmonious order without necessary institutions of human society like property is just dumb. There is absolutely no reference to any neutral sociological or anthropological studies, just to essayists and playwrights like Emerson and lIbsen.

Though she teaches us two important lessons we shouldn't ignore. First, violence is against human nature and it is still violence and therefore unjustified if it's done by an stablished order called law. Of course this is not new. Utilitarianists in Britain insisted on this maxim far before Red Emma or any other anarchist. The other good point Mrs Goldman made in her book is her comments on love and marriage. Though it might be obvious for people in developed countries and probably much more affected by economic progress that caused by Goldman enemies like McKinley, the institutions of family changed dramatically. This change grant women tremendous freedom and rights in the west but sadly this views are still unpopular and sometimes unknown to majority of people in developing world. For being courageous and questioning the authority and being against established morality which was -and in the third world still is- tyrannical I gave this three stars. But deep down, I know it doesn't deserve it.

[Nativeabuse · Rating 2 out of 5]

Actually not very good. Her ideas on politics and anarchism and even women are appallingly stupid.

I think this is a period piece that really has little use for people who are seriously considering anarchistic ideas today. It should really be read as nothing more than an interesting look at the history of the movement, since very little of her arguments and ideas are worth much of anything.

Here is an example to show my point, one of the major issues that is always brought up when arguing about anarchism is the idea of human nature, and that it is in our nature to be jerks to one another so anarchism can't work. Her arguments against this are that "psychology as a field is bogus, and that comparing human behavior to animals is stupid because they act totally different".

Or her arguments that say giving women rights to vote is stupid because they will just be bought out due to their womanly stupidity, I still don't understand why the hell she would say something like that.

[Velvetink]

Anyone interested in Goldman's articles in "Mother Earth 1906" onwards can find online versions below. I haven't been able to find downloadable versions of them yet.

Mother Earth

Mother Earth was the name of an anarchist magazine of the early 20th century.
Publication History

Mother Earth began in 1906. A new series, under the title "Mother Earth Bulletin", began in 1917. Publication ceased in 1918, after 7 issues of the new series.

Persistent Archives of Complete Issues

1906-1918: HathiTrust has page images all 12 volumes of both series, from a reprint edition.

http://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/...



1906-1907, 1910, 1917-1918: The Anarchy Archives has transcriptions of the new series, and of selected old series volumes.

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_...

[amsel · Rating 4 out of 5]

Emma = Queen. Das ist der benötigte Anarchismus! Tolle Frau mit einer tollen Sicht auf die Welt, kann das Buch nur empfehlen. Vor allem ihre Anarchismusdefinition und die Idee der Liebe sind so toll.
Update: Ich habe das Buch nun zum zweiten Mal durch und finds immer noch klasse, habe aber auch ein bisschen kritischer Lesen können, als vor zwei Jahren. Ich will jetzt auf jeden Fall nochmal mehr herausfinden, wie Kommunist*innen den Freiheitsbegriff bewerten (Emma hebt ihn ja, wie die Liebe, sehr hoch) und welches Menschenbild dem Marxismus im Gegensatz zu diesem hier zugrundeliegt.

[Judi · Rating 3 out of 5]

"If I can't dance it's not my revolution" Emma Goldman.

[Sennen Rose]

Feels weird to give this a rate-and-review, and even weirder still to give it a rate-and-review on an app owned by Amazon, but I’ll give it a go. Since the 2019 general election, I have felt more and more disillusioned with the concept of politics and electoralism (which is apparently not a word) in general. I had heard of Goldman because of the quote “If I can’t dance I don’t want any part of your revolution” which I don’t think is the exact quote, but it’s a vibe I love. My dad got me a book about Welsh anarchists called Bash The Rich when I was about fifteen but that’s as much anarchist writing that I’ve read before. This selection of Goldman’s essays was very interesting and gave me a lot to think about. I found it particularly depressing that a lot of what she says, and a lot of what she predicts particularly about the role of women in politics, has come true and is still true. The essay on prostitution, for example, reminded me a lot of what I read in Revolting Prostitutes. I was really struck by how Goldman writes about the futility of hoping for women to act as a purifying presence in politics (when women are just people, and will be as corrupt and evil as men in politics) and she says they’ll probably call me an enemy of womankind for this. Goldman was a midwife, she lived with sex workers and factory girls, and taught them sex education. What makes an enemy of womankind? I was also amused by her disdain for American suffragettes and her admiration for the English suffragettes - presumably because our suffragettes blew things up.
I don’t think I agree with everything Goldman writes, and if I do I was certainly frustrated by her refusal to think of what can replace the corrupt system. It’s easy to just go, shit sucks! But I think the bravest and perhaps most difficult part of revolutionary thinking and writing is to imagine what a world where shit doesn’t suck looks like in practise. What needs to be done to get there? I admire Goldman and her dedication to the cause very much, but I think I am maybe not quite an anarchist. In terms of how this book is written, it’s very easy to read and Goldman’s passion is evident. I will certainly be reading more of her work.

[Julie Rylie · Rating 5 out of 5]

Emma Goldman is definitely one of the most intelligent human beings that ever walked on earth, and not only she could rationalize her ideas, she would put them in action.

The main topics of this book are the following:

Emma believes the mass is less intelligent than a few individual minds.
"I know so well that as a compact mass it has never stood for justice or equality. It has suppressed the human voice, subdued the human spirit, chained the human body".

The government annuls individualism and the power to create (creativity).
______________

Men don't grow creatively when they aren't free.
The government - the greatest thief of all times imprisons the men that are only playing by the same rules they play. It's actually quite sad after a century we are still playing by the
same rules and letting the story repeat it self again and again.

"With all our boasted reforms, our great social changes and our far-reaching discoveries, human beings continue to be sent to the worst of hells, wherein they are outraged, degraded, and tortured, that society may be "protected" from the phantoms of it's own making"

______________

Religion threatens the poor with a hell after death but people live in hell already (hell on earth), in the factories, farms and their own homes, facing famine and lack of hygiene and comfort to live. She made the smart choice of telling a tale by Dostoyevsky to explain this.

Nietzsche had the same sort of idea, that religion wants to create fear, little scared human beings that won't oppose to tyranny out of fear, or simply accept their faith based on religious concepts.

_________________

Patriotism serves a cause: convincing people to fight for their wars in the name of their beloved country and their economical interests.

"The awful waste that patriotism necessitates ought to be sufficient to cure the man of even average intelligence from this disease. Yet patriotism demands still more. The people are urged to be patriotic and for that luxury they pay, not only by supporting their "defenders", but even by sacrificing their own children."

________________

Puritanism was made essentially to repress women with chastity for example, and women actually help to repress their ownselves, blinded by the conception of their "false roles" in society.

Suffragism doesn't make sense to Emma, not because women shouldn't be entitled to vote, but because their role in the political life won't help changing it, so instead of fighting for vote, they should be fighting for more important causes, which would be the end of social status or puritanism.

As an anarchist (or not being one whatsoever) it makes sense to be against elections, but that's not the point here. The point is that elections usually don't change much, it's just more of the same corrupt shit politicians and the same lobby of the same old parties.
That's a reality in latin countries, such as Portugal, Spain, Italy and Greece, go figure why everyone decided to riot this year with all their strength. People are fed up, people want equally, justice and comfort and instead of that, our lives are being ripped of.

And there goes again, the first topic Emma that is discussing at the beginning of this book: people don't work so well as masses, people work better in small groups of kindred souls (!), that's why elections don't mean anything, the voice of the people as a whole is not accurate and not, well, so smart.


"These internal tyrants, whether they be in the form of public opinion or what will mother say, brother, father, aunt, or relative of any sort (...) Until woman has learned to defy them all, to stand firmly on her own ground and to insist upon her own unrestricted freedom, to listen to the voice of her nature, whether it call for life's greatest treasure, love for a man, or her most glorious privilege, the right to give birth to a child, she cannot acknowledge that the voice of love is calling, wildly beating against their breasts, demanding to be heard, to be satisfied"

Prostitution can, not only be, when you sell your body for money but also when you sell your body to marriage. Such a smart analogy, especially coming from a women that lived at the end of the 19th century, beginning of the 19th. Prostitution is the most degrading state for woman. Emma claimed that women didn't have any choice when they had to face 16 hour shifts getting paid even less than men. There was only one way out: marriage for money or prostitution for the same purpose. Has anything changed already? I don't think so. We are still paid less than men, we are still facing discrimination, whether it comes from mild forms of puritanism or social dogmas, we are still having problems with prostitution, whether it's legal or not.

I was in need of some book like this, something to bright up your conscious, make you think, and revolt some more and act some more.