Topic: Liberalism
Why I gave up 'my' 19th-century anarchism: Emma Goldman speaks. Emma Goldman, a modern day individualist-feminist, reveals why she dumped the 19th-century anarchist notions of her namesake's past.by Emma Goldman
(Libertarian)
Friday, July 18, 2008
In the 19th century, 'I', Emma Goldman, defined anarchism as:
"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. . . . [Anarchism] stands for the liberation of the human mind from the dominion of religion; the liberation of the human body from the dominion of property; . . . 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." Reference here.
Others have written thus about 'me' :
* "Goldman's definition revealed a particular anarchist agenda. It was as much a vehicle for promoting a positive expression of human values as it was a political orientation."
* "Goldman believed that people were essentially good."
* "She attributed the ills of the world--poverty, violence, inequality, even lack of imagination--to the constraints of a government whose power rested on coercion."
Why I, Emma Goldman, gave up this 19th-century anarchist notion.
Notion #1 : "A new social order based on liberty unrestricted by man made law."
The Reality : 'liberty unrestricted' means that individuals would be at liberty to claw their way atop each other to position themselves at the top of the implied 'social order'. The biggest guns and biggest brutes always win such battles. 'social order' implies social hierarchies, which was in direct contradiction to the very model of society 'my' namesake was publicly seeking.
Notion #2 : "all forms of government rest on violence, and are therefore wrong and harmful, as well as unnecessary"
The Reality : Man's life requires violence, at the very least, to capture and kill animals necessary for his healthy survival. Proper governments rest on retaliatory force, and improper / wrong / harmful governments rely on initiatory force. A person only need be made aware of the immorality of initiating force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. Then they need be made aware of the morality of defending against those who initiate such use of force. Such a society of individuals who understand the two moral laws would result in a minimum size government, but one still granted the moral use of retaliatory force. Force will always be necessary to defend an individual against those who violate his rights -- the rights of man.
Notion #3 : "the liberation of the human body from the dominion of property"
The Reality : We are not and will never be disembodied spirits. So long as we exist on earth, as men, we must have the right to earn and dispose of property according to our own desires. Any system of government that does not recognize property rights does not recognize an individual's right to live his life according to his own standards, judgment, and actions.
Notion #4 : "free access to the earth and full enjoyment of the necessities of life"
The Reality : Most people today would not know what to do with the earth if you granted them 1000 square miles of it. That's why societies with division of labor, with science, industry, money, and the businessman have historically been those that best provided individuals with the opportunity to enjoy living, to escape starvation, to escape animal jungles and tribal violence, to escape pestilence and disease, and to escape fear of each other. Nothing is more necessary to living one's life joyously than eliminating fear among men. Only civilization based on laws makes it possible. 19th-century anarchism would not.
In summary:
I do still believe as 'I' believed then, that individuals are basically good. Otherwise, mankind could not exist. We would've torn each other apart long ago, and that last man standing would've committed suicide.
I agree with 'my' view then, that the ills of the world rest primarily on governments whose power is via coercion... but now we understand this to mean governments that initiate force against individuals. The definition is clearer: the immoral government is exposed in opposition to what a moral government would be.
I now go deeper than to simply lay blame for world ills on government, because a government is nothing but a group of individuals from the society in which they attempt to govern. This means then that 'world ills caused by governments' are in reality caused by certain individuals in those governments... we must root out of governments anyone who advocates use of initiatory force, threat of force, or fraud against individuals in a society. The ills of the world then, are reflected in certain psychologies, as well as certain politics.
The criminal psychology is revealed then as being that which proclaims: "others owe me a living". The psychotic psychology is revealed as being that which proclaims "I want to destroy what others have," or "I want to destory others."
I, Emma Goldman, the 21st century American loving Radical for Anarchy, hereby proclaims: "We must root out the criminals and psychotics in all governments. Be they politicians, bureacrats, lobbyists, or the electorate."
NOTES:
1: Emma Goldman, Anarchism and Other Essays, (1910; New York, Dover Publications, 1969), 50, 62.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 1 thumb so far
2008 Emma Goldman, all rights reserved.
Published: Friday, July 18, 2008
Last modified: Friday, July 18, 2008
The views expressed in this
article are those of Emma Goldman only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Emma Goldman is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Please don't misuse the name of Emma Goldman in this way. This is a complete misinterpretation of Goldman's words and philosophy. If you must spout individualist "feminist" diatribes, please do it under another nom de plume.
Posted By: John Artukovich
Date: 2008-07-30 01:49:12
Wow this entire analysis entirely consisted apart of picking apart a few lines of Emma Goldman with absolutely no regards for CONTEXT.
Notion #1 : "A new social order based on liberty unrestricted by man made law."
“The Reality : 'liberty unrestricted' means that individuals would be at liberty to claw their way atop each other to position themselves at the top of the implied 'social order'. The biggest guns and biggest brutes always win such battles. 'social order' implies social hierarchies, which was in direct contradiction to the very model of society 'my' namesake was publicly seeking.”
“Man Made Laws” in the context the “Old” Goldman was using it, was intended to refer to Laws of the State, i.e. those backed by: An entity over a given territorial area, with a monopoly on the use of force.
Thus, it was the authoritarian and statist nature of the laws the Goldman objected to, not the existence of laws per-se. In fact all social anarchists (Goldman included) aren’t opposed to the existence of laws as long as: They aren’t state backed, are voluntary, and don’t violate liberty of others.
Thus, this domino argument you’ve set up, comparing Emma’s so-called opposition to laws to social Darwinism fails, and “big brutes clawing at each other” fails.
Notion #2 : "all forms of government rest on violence, and are therefore wrong and harmful, as well as unnecessary"
“The Reality : Man's life requires violence, at the very least, to capture and kill animals necessary for his healthy survival. Proper governments rest on retaliatory force, and improper / wrong / harmful governments rely on initiatory force. A person only need be made aware of the immorality of initiating force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. Then they need be made aware of the morality of defending against those who initiate such use of force. Such a society of individuals who understand the two moral laws would result in a minimum size government, but one still granted the moral use of retaliatory force. Force will always be necessary to defend an individual against those who violate his rights -- the rights of man.”
“Man’s *life* requires violence,” doesn’t that seem a bit oxymoronic to you? As to: “to capturing and killing animals necessary for his healthy survival”, this to has been proven wrong; I’m no vegan, but if one does a cost-benefit analysis on food production, its pretty readily understood that larger quantities of “healthy” food can be “grown” at greatly reduced cost (when compared to farming livestock).
“Proper governments rest on retaliatory force,”: this still entails a monopoly on force for whatever the state arbitrarily deems necessary, according to the laws it creates, which are indeed backed by violence.
“A person only need be made aware of the immorality of initiating force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. Then they need be made aware of the morality of defending against those who initiate such use of force.” State aside this is basically consistent with the philosophy of old Emma & Social anarchist principles.
“Force will always be necessary to defend an individual against those who violate his rights -- the rights of man.” Social-Anarchism doesn’t exclude the right of defensive force to defend individual liberty; it simply rejects the notion of a non-voluntary state police force for this purpose. However, supposing a voluntary defense force engaged in such defense, there would be no qualms with red Emma.
Notion #3 : "the liberation of the human body from the dominion of property"
The Reality : We are not and will never be disembodied spirits. So long as we exist on earth, as men, we must have the right to earn and dispose of property according to our own desires. Any system of government that does not recognize property rights does not recognize an individual's right to live his life according to his own standards, judgment, and actions.
Again, plagued misunderstandings. The 19th Century Goldman basically had a mutualist understanding of property rights; which essentially took the homesteaders principle one step further. It effectively entailed that “use” or “mixing labor with property” was the necessary criterion for determining ownership. Effectively, if one uses unused property he/she has a claim to ownership, if not, then the individual in question has no claim to deny others the use of that property. From this she recognized the illegitimacy of absentee ownership, and de-jure statist property. She also differentiated between “property” and “possessions,” possessions being essentially private and property being subject to the criterion of “use”. By the way Self ownership still applies here (I am alive, I am in possession of myself, therefore, I own myself), and I have the right to earn and dispose of property as I please. [This is the short version, I suggest you look this topic up]
Notion #4 : "free access to the earth and full enjoyment of the necessities of life"
The Reality : Most people today would not know what to do with the earth if you granted them 1000 square miles of it. That's why societies with division of labor, with science, industry, money, and the businessman have historically been those that best provided individuals with the opportunity to enjoy living, to escape starvation, to escape animal jungles and tribal violence, to escape pestilence and disease, and to escape fear of each other. Nothing is more necessary to living one's life joyously than eliminating fear among men. Only civilization based on laws makes it possible. 19th-century anarchism would not.
“Most people today would not know what to do with the earth if you granted them 1000 square miles of it” I must have missed the part where the Anarchism and other Essays where Emma advocated the sectioning off of 1000 acre land parcels. Ok, so I’m being a bit of an ass here, but you do realize that the “free-access to the earth and full enjoyment of the necessities of life” was referring to voluntarist social anarchist institutions/conception of positive liberty.
Additionally, it’s the bloody division of labor (with corporate managers at the head of the snake and government bureaucrats at the tail) and associating class antagonism that through the state, illegitimate institutions of property, and capital are able to exploit & dominate the 3rd world to the benefit of the first. 19th Century anarchism would be quite an improvement; and by the way, its been updated several times since then; you might look up Parecon.
I’m ranting at this point, but I suggest you do a little research on the topics at hand instead of deconstructing a few lines out of context; there’s considerable more going on behind the scenes then you seem to realize.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
2008 Emma Goldman, all rights reserved.