Emma Goldman’s Anarchism and Other Essays

What America’s most dangerous woman had to say

As someone interested in Marxist politics, it is not so often that I get a chance to go through anarchist literature. Anarchist literature seems to be harder to come by in used bookshops — unless you want to consider the works of Noam Chomsky as Anarchist in which case you will never fail to find something.

The rarity of Anarchist books may be taken as a barometer to the popularity of Anarchism, or, a simple reflection of the fact that Marxist authors wrote and published significantly more material than their anarchist counterparts (if Anarchists can be called counterparts) naturally leading to a greater circulation of their books.

It is for this reason that I was ecstatic when I spotted a copy of Emma Goldman’s Anarchism and other essays at my local used bookstore. Although written in 1910, this collection of essays continues to make for the perfect introduction for those curious about Anarchism and what it stands for and many of the topics discussed remain, sadly, relevant to this day.

The book, which stands at 270 pages is divided into 12 chapters, each tackling a slightly different topic making it a breeze to get through without ever becoming too overwhelming. Goldman covers topics from women's emancipation to Prisons, Patriotism, and Political Violence.

Not all the essays make for imperative reading. Mostly because Goldman leans on historic examples of the time which may appear as too far-flung from today's world and battles. Yet, they all present interesting context into how Goldman’s thoughts developed and grew.

An interesting theme in Goldman’s work is her emphasis on the individual's role of emancipating themselves. Sometimes this can come off as paradoxical, especially because a lot of her work is set to highlight the tremendous and crushing pressure that an individual is put under. Yet, Goldman insists that the first step to freedom is by freeing oneself from the chains of this pressure.

This is something we will touch on later in this review. For now, I will begin with the first theme Goldman tackles — organizing.

Organizing

Anarchism and other essays opens with an essay describing what Anarchism is or, in her words, what it really stands for. Her unflinching individualism is apparent from the get-go. She claims “Anarchism urges man to think, to investigate, to analyze every proposition”. These are the means by which anarchism is to be achieved whereas Anarchism is:

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.

The central goal of Anarchism, for Goldman, is the abolition of the state and the government that arises from capitalist organization. Goldman presents the state as the “Third and greatest foe” of equality following religion and property:

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.

This does not mean that Anarchism is against organizing or government altogether. In a speech she delivered to the second Anarchist Congress she elaborates on this idea saying that:

There is a mistaken notion that organization does not foster individual freedom; that, on the contrary, it means the decay of individuality. In reality, however, the true function of organization is to aid the development and growth of personality. Just as the animal cells, by mutual co-operation, express their latent powers in formation of the complete organism, so does the individual, by co-operative effort with other individuals, attain his highest form of development.

An organization, in the true sense, cannot result from the combination of mere nonentities. It must be composed of self-conscious, intelligent individualities. Indeed, the total of the possibilities and activities of an organization is represented in the expression of individual energies. It therefore logically follows that the greater the number of strong, self-conscious personalities in an organization, the less danger of stagnation, and the more intense its life element. Anarchism asserts the possibility of an organization without discipline, fear, or punishment, and without the pressure of poverty: a new social organism which will make an end to the terrible struggle for the means of existence, — the savage struggle which undermines the finest qualities in man, and ever widens the social abyss. In short, Anarchism strives towards a social organization which will establish well-being for all.

Goldman also says that Anarchism, in “its economic arrangements must consist of voluntary productive and distributive associations, gradually developing into free communism, as the best means of producing with the least waste of human energy.”

From the beginning, we see clearly the difference between Marxism and Anarchism. Where in the latter the abolition of the state is seen as the main goal, the first argues that the State cannot and should not be abolished through revolutionary struggle but it must be wielded to stabilize the revolution and crush its enemies.

Lenin, on the difference between Anarchists and Marxists, claims that:

The proletariat needs the state only temporarily. We do not after all differ with the anarchists on the question of the abolition of the state as the aim. We maintain that, to achieve this aim, we must temporarily make use of the instruments, resources, and methods of state power against the exploiters, just as the temporary dictatorship of the oppressed class is necessary for the abolition of classes.

It is interesting that by identifying the foe as the state, religion, and property, and emphasising the need for organization, Goldman drastically breaks away from Liberal philosophy that has pitted the individual against society.

Rather than presenting the two through juxtaposition, Goldman takes a dialectical view saying:

A thorough perusal 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. 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 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 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.

Nevertheless, even though the individual cannot be separated from society, or perhaps more accurately, because it is difficult to separate the two. A struggle between the Majority and Minority emerge.

Here, Goldman’s argument becomes a bit paradoxical. Is the juxtaposition of Minority vs Majority not just a simple rehashing of the juxtaposition between the Individual and Society?

Some may argue that this is not the case. The struggle between minority and majority is simply a result of the confines of the democratic process found under parliamentarianism. One that will disappear with the abolition of the state and the introduction of communist society.

Goldman's words here ring with Nietzsche's concept of “Slave Morality” as she continuously presents the ills of the “Majority”

the majority cannot reason; it has no judgment. Lacking utterly in originality and moral courage, the majority has always placed its destiny in the hands of others. Incapable of standing responsibilities, it has followed its leaders even unto destruction.

So long as this majority exists:

social and economic well-being will become a reality only through the zeal, courage, the non-compromising determination of intelligent minorities, and not through the mass.

This point is specifically interesting as it seems to agree with the Leninist notion of vanguardism. That, although the majority of the population suffers under the tyranny of the minority capital-holding class, it is a vanguardist element of the proletariat that will lead the rest into salvation.

This is a contentious argument especially because many Anarchists and Social Democrats hold that the creation of vanguardist movement or party will emerge as a defacto class after the revolution eventually becoming the bureaucrats of the state apparatus.

Of course, an Anarchist would counter here that Goldman is not asking that these minorities be organized in any way shape or form. However, one must ask the question that throughout revolutionary activity, will these ‘minorities’ not naturally gravitate towards each other and potentially congeal into a ‘party’?

Prisons: Mental and Real

The minorities that Goldman speaks off need to fight against the great foes of the individual. “Anarchism therefore” Says Goldman “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.””

There is no doubt that Goldman foresees the violence this defiance will bring. However. she sees that this violence is foremost brought about by the state itself which forces men into submission with twisted words such as “justice”. A word twisted to fit the purpose of the state in maintaining mass inequality and holding private property over man.

Indeed Goldman lived in violent times. She witnessed the repression of the state against labour strike and the death or imprisonment of several of her comrades including herself. She also saw the violence that can be committed by Anarchists or those who the state presents as Anarchists to discredit the Anarchist movement as a whole.

Goldman differentiates between these two forms of violence saying that one is intended to uphold a corrupt system which the other is a “violent recoil from violence …the last desperate struggle of outraged and exasperated human nature for breathing space and life”. She continues, “The man who flings his whole life into the attempt, at the cost of his own life, to protest against the wrongs of his fellow men, is a saint compared to the active and passive upholders of cruelty and injustice, even if his protest destroy other lives besides his own.”

In light of all of this, Goldman maintains that there is nothing inherently violent in Anarchism itself. Rather the violence that results from Anarchist struggle is defensive and is a violence that tries to defend the individual against the grinding of the state machine saying that “All Anarchists agree with Tolstoy in this fundamental truth: if the production of any commodity necessitates the sacrifice of human life, society should do without that commodity, but it can not do without that life.”

The suppression of life and of smaller rebellions can be easily seen in prisons. Goldman blows the idea that prison deters crime wide open with the simple observation that both the prison population and crime are on the rise in the US. So how can this great institution of deterrence be working if both are true? The source of crime then must be something that operates outside of the narrow moral interpretation of “justice” as presented by the state. This leads her to the conclusion that “every society has the criminals it deserves”.

Goldman calls the justice system as it stands primitive, saying that:

society has retained the primitive motive in dealing with the offender; that is, revenge. It has also adopted the theologic idea; namely, punishment; while the legal and “civilized” methods consist of deterrence or terror, and reform.

Patriotism, Goldman argues, is also a prison that the Anarchist must fight against, for it does nothing but reinforce the interest of capitalists and lead to war. Here she draws an example from the Spanish-American war where:

the lives, blood, and money of the American people were used to protect the interests of American capitalists, which were threatened by the Spanish government. That this is not an exaggeration, but is based on absolute facts and figures, is best proven by the attitude of the American government to Cuban labor. When Cuba was firmly in the clutches of the United States, the very soldiers sent to liberate Cuba were ordered to shoot Cuban workingmen during the great cigarmakers’ strike, which took place shortly after the war.

Goldman also describes the runaway military budget in the US, a budget growing in folds until today. She says:

We Americans claim to be a peace-loving people. We hate bloodshed; we are opposed to violence. Yet we go into spasms of joy over the possibility of projecting dynamite bombs from flying machines upon helpless citizens. We are ready to hang, electrocute, or lynch anyone, who, from economic necessity, will risk his own life in the attempt upon that of some industrial magnate. Yet our hearts swell with pride at the thought that America is becoming the most powerful nation on earth, and that it will eventually plant her iron foot on the necks of all other nations. Such is the logic of patriotism.

Women’s Emancipation

Goldman's most surprising statements are in relation to the third theme this collection of essays deals with — women’s emancipation.

In the defiant nature that all anarchists should aspire to, Goldman begins her discussion by applying the same rationale she used with prisons to the idea of Puritanism, a word no longer in common use but can be readily exchanged with morality.

Puritanism, with its religious connotation and its goal of ridding people from the devils inside, “has but driven the “devil” deeper into the human system”. Prohibition, morality around sexuality has but created more drunkards and prostitution or the trafficking of women.

On this point, Goldman says:

It is a conceded fact that woman is being reared as a sex commodity, and yet she is kept in absolute ignorance of the meaning and importance of sex. Everything dealing with that subject is suppressed, and persons who attempt to bring light into this terrible darkness are persecuted and thrown into prison. Yet it is nevertheless true that so long as a girl is not to know how to take care of herself, not to know the function of the most important part of her life, we need not be surprised if she becomes an easy prey to prostitution, or to any other form of a relationship which degrades her to the position of an object for mere sex gratification.

Goldman proceeds to point out the hypocrisy of it being considered honourable for a woman to marry to secure her economic wellbeing, this selling her body at once. While as a woman selling herself due to her own volition is looked at with sneers. She quotes the words of another writer saying:

“The wife who married for money, compared with the prostitute is the true scab. She is paid less, gives much more in return in labor and care, and is absolutely bound to her master. The prostitute never signs away the right over her own person, she retains her freedom and personal rights, nor is she always compelled to submit to man’s embrace.”

Indeed, marriage, for Goldman “condemns her [woman] to life-long dependency, to parasitism, to complete uselessness, individual as well as social.” It is true, she continues that at time marriage and love coincide, but most of the times love is brushed aside for the practical ability of a man to provide for a woman. Thus, love, outside of marriage is also shunned. This is especially advocated for by the church and state “simply because it is the one that necessitates the State and Church control of men and women.”

Interestingly, Goldman dedicates a full essay in the book to speak out against woman's suffrage. In a critique that rings eerily relevant to today's feminist struggles of equal representation at work, Goldman accuses women of fetishism.

Woman’s demand for equal suffrage is based largely on the contention that woman must have the equal right in all affairs of society. No one could, possibly, refute that, if suffrage were a right. Alas, for the ignorance of the human mind, which can see a right in an imposition. Or is it not the most brutal imposition for one set of people to make laws that another set is coerced by force to obey? Yet woman clamors for that “golden opportunity” that has wrought so much misery in the world, and robbed man of his integrity and self-reliance; an imposition which has thoroughly corrupted the people, and made them absolute prey in the hands of unscrupulous politicians…. 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.

Goldman points to the fact that countries that already allow women to vote have no better labour relations and women continue to be seen as sex commodities. She even goes as far as saying that women’s ability to vote will make matters even worse as women have, due to their subjugation to man, become the most ardent supporters of Puritanism “Her [woman’s] life-long economic parasitism has utterly blurred her conception of the meaning of equality”. She continues to decry the naivety of women saying “in their self-sufficiency and egotism they make themselves believe that they have but to pet the beast, and he will become as gentle as a lamb, sweet and pure.”

She continues to argue that instead of fighting for the vote women should be fighting for her independence:

First, by asserting herself as a personality, and not as a sex commodity. Second, by refusing the right to anyone over her body; by refusing to bear children, unless she wants them; by refusing to be a servant to God, the State, society, the husband, the family, etc., by making her life simpler, but deeper and richer. That is, by trying to learn the meaning and substance of life in all its complexities, by freeing herself from the fear of public opinion and public condemnation. Only that, and not the ballot, will set woman free, will make her a force hitherto unknown in the world, a force for real love, for peace, for harmony; a force of divine fire, of life-giving; a creator of free men and women.

Her reason for this is because

The history of the political activities of men proves that they have given him absolutely nothing that he could not have achieved in a more direct, less costly, and more lasting manner. As a matter of fact, every inch of ground he has gained has been through a constant fight, a ceaseless struggle for self-assertion, and not through suffrage. There is no reason whatever to assume that woman, in her climb to emancipation, has been, or will be, helped by the ballot.

Goldman warns against the dogmatism that this may create and that eventually women will need to emancipate herself from emancipation!

The narrowness of the existing conception of woman’s independence and emancipation; the dread of love for a man who is not her social equal; the fear that love will rob her of her freedom and independence; the horror that love or the joy of motherhood will only hinder her in the full exercise of her profession — all these together make of the emancipated modern woman a compulsory vestal, before whom life, with its great clarifying sorrows and its deep, entrancing joys, rolls on without touching or gripping her soul. Emancipation, as understood by the majority of its adherents and exponents, is of too narrow a scope to permit the boundless love and ecstasy contained in the deep emotion of the true woman, sweetheart, mother, in freedom. The tragedy of the self-supporting or economically free woman does not lie in too many, but in too few experiences. True, she surpasses her sister of past generations in knowledge of the world and human nature; it is just because of this that she feels deeply the lack of life’s essence, which alone can enrich the human soul, and without which the majority of women have become mere professional automatons.

Some Final Thoughts

Goldman presents a provocative and enlightening view of Anarchism, demystifying it from common misconceptions and its representation in popular culture as nothing more than a counter culture for maladjusted youth.

Her insight penetrates deep and illuminates contradictions found within emancipatory movements themselves raising questions that reverberate to today's world. This is all to be found in this book making it a definite must read.