Production is needed. 70% of our economy is consumption/service based. We did not need the progressive movement. Standard Oil had shrunk 60% in the 20 years prior to the Anti Trust. After the break up John D Rockefeller became the Wealthest man ever, not prior.
Emma Goldman praised Capitalism in the sense of a Classical Liberal form.
Please read Henry C Carey's "Harmony of Interest" published in 1851 to better understand the Gilded Age
@Nasdaq7 - Nothing wrong with mom & pop stores and businesses. Large Corporations & the politicians ("government") are in bed together. They do nothing for us. They pollute our world, and do not spend a single dollar cleaning up. They take all our resources with little or no compensation, they and their owners get tax breaks on enormous profits taken from the people, through monopolies that give people little choice and always squeezes small private alternative companies out of business.
@radiohogan you are right the industrial revolution was evil i long for the agrarian standards of living of the early 1800's... why do i even try? you are a boomer nut job you'll be gone soon. How much acid did you do in the 60's? I do like the music of the 70's we probably have that in common.
she believed that each and every individual is entitled to the necessities of survival. she was very explicit in her opinions, and very clear about this one. i can't imagine that you read her entire biography and missed the most fundamental aspect of her entire philosophy. however, unlike marxists, fascists, and contemporary liberals, she did not understand that the state is the ONLY institution able to enforce positive rights.
I read my autobiography twice; the last time was within this past year. Yes, Emma advocated an equal distribution of income and wealth. However, she did not advocate the state do this. The state in all Liberal Democracies does redistribute income and wealth from the poor to the rich.
Jean Jacques Rousseau wrote the rich create governments to steal from the poor.
You do not quote or paraphrase Goldman. You project what you want to believe onto Goldman. You are inauthentic & disingenuous.
ah! finally you at least acknowledge that you have read one of my comments. "she does not advocate the state to do this." exactly. she does not propose any method by which it can be done. she assumes that each and every individual would be perfectly willing to voluntary relinquish ownership of his labor and work for the sake of others. if this was in fact the case, then we would have positive rights already, as charity organizations would have proven sufficient to guarentee them. not the case.
If Goldman does not propose any methods, why do you kept imputing all sorts of beliefs to Goldman. You claim to know what Goldman assumes. You have lost my interest. I am not interested in your obtuse views. You act as a disingenuous prosecutor.
universal positive rights, in order to exist, MUST necessarily be enforced by a welfare state capable of monopolizing resources through taxation and distributing them. marxists recognized this. fascists recognize this. contemporary liberals recognize this. the catholic church recognizes this. it is the truth. her anarchism is utopian and out of touch with reality. anarchists of her sort want the state's monopoly powers of resource distribution, but they do not want the state. it's senseless.
There is no point in continuing our conversation. You don't understand the anarchist sense of solidarity. Yours is a bourgeois mentality. You can't conceive of non hierarchical flat group organization.
i have never contested that the state exists to steal and benefit a priviledged class. although various methods other than ourtight theft are employed. indeed, my definition of state capitalism has always been, "business and the state working in collaboration to concentrate wealth and influence into the hands of a minority." obviously, this is immoral. the state serves no function but to serve as a parasite on society. it is evil and should be abolished.
I agree with all you have written here. However, you believe the abolishion of the state will be replaced by individual voluntary contracts. This is well beyond utopian. It's unreal and has never happened, to my knowledge.
Can you give a single example of when and how your American style anarchism of wealthy men was successfully implemented in the 19th or 20th Century? Goldman's anarchism was implemented in Spain and Israel. In addition, anarchosyndicalism was implemented in Poland and Argentina.
free market anarchism has functioned successfully in 17th century pennsylvania and medieval iceland. those are the only two examples i have. although, it has never been given much of an opportunity to flourish given the inevitability of government annexation of territories and monopolization of resources.
i'm aware of a brand of anarchism other than free market anarchism temporarily existing in spain, but i am not familiar with the details of how society and production functioned, so i am not going to comment. the other examples i am unaware of.
the author of "Red Emma Speaks" IS Emma Goldman herself! it is simply a compilation of her essays! only Emma Goldman's words are contained in the book. the aspect of her anarchist philosophy i have been contesting is the notion that positive rights can be enforced in the absence of coercion. i am not a G-Man as i am a voluntaryist. i believe that all interractions between human beings should be voluntary. that is anarchy.
"There is no hierarchy in anarchism. Without hierarchy there is no coercion." exactly my point! that is why positive rights can NOT be enforced in an anarchist society. the enforcement of positive rights requires the coercive intervention of a state. period! universal healthcare. universal housing. universal food, water, and clothing. these are all potential state functions, but ONLY state functions as they can only be provided through extortionary policies. i feel like a parrot.
You are a parrot, parroting a mantra you have learned. There is no relation to what I wrote and your interpretation of what I wrote. There is no state activity in anarchism. How can you claim to be an anarchist.
Study how anarchists operated in Catalonia during the Spanish civil war.
Emma Goldman represented the Spaniards to the world while living in London.
i was unaware that her biography was so long. in light of this information, then yes, you have read more emma goldman than i have. but i have demonstrated an understanding of emma goldman's opinions in everysingle post. anybody who knows anything about emma goldman understands that first and foremost, she was an avid supporter of postive rights.
6. we denounce "state capitalism" just as aggressively as socialist anarchists, and agree that it is a system designed to concentrate wealth and influence into the hands of a minority.
5. there are however nonviolent anarchists who recognize this glaring contradiction in socialist anarchist theory. "anarcho-capitalists", "free market anarchists", or "voluntaryists" are all terms used to describe the same brand of anarchism. they are the only anarchists who believe that the individual owns his body, is entitled to the fruits of his labor, and all interractions between humans should be voluntary and nonviolent.
I have read: "Native American Anarchism" and understand the American 19th Century idea of anarchism very well. I am familiar with the leading figures in the experiments. It never became popular or workable. It was utopian in the extreme.
4. for whatever reason, emma goldman was not able to understand the very simple fact that in order to have economic equality, there must be a coercive entity able to monopolize and distribute the resources of society. people will NOT relinquish ownership of their bodies or their labor voluntarily. extortion is necessary. the bolshevicks understood this, and, to some extent, achieved it. although the fullest expression of positive rights did not manifest until the stalin regime.
and again, i do know at least something about emma goldman. i have read several of her essays from topics ranging to her stances on atheism, marriage, anarchism, prisons, crime, poverty, feminism, the bolshevicks, and more. i know who emma goldman is. i understand her brand of anarchism. the idea of positive rights is only applicable within a statist construct. it is incompatible with a society absent of coercion because positive rights can only exist through extortionary methods. period.
Please explain a single topic you mentioned and give us Goldman's position. Explain how an anarchist favors coercion and slavery as your propaganda asserts. You blacken the dear lady's name to advance your cause.
The author of Red Emma Speaks was an anti Goldman propagandist judging by the title he chose.
3. Red Emma Speaks is a compilation of Emma Goldman essays. Emma Goldman wrote it, but it was not published in her lifetime. emma goldman's persistent criticism of the bolshevicks was ironic, because, ultimately, both emma goldman and the bolshevicks had the exact same goal in mind, positive rights.
she advocates positive rights. positive rights can only be attained through extortionary measures. she does not directly advocate coercion, which lies the contradiction in her philosophy. universal healthcare, housing, education, food, etc. must be extorted coercively because not everybody will voluntarily relinquish ownership of their labor without the presence of coercion. peaceful voluntary exchange of goods and services exists only in a market atmosphere.
I asked you several times to describe any of Goldman's positions, yet you do not. Why not describe one of the many Goldman essays you have read on any topic? You fail to understand Goldman's anarchism because, as a middle class person, you do not understand solidarity. When people are in solidarity (harmony) there is no coercion.
The last anarchist reality was in Catalonia during the Spanish civil war. Try reading George Orwell's book "Homage to Catalonia" to understand solidarity.
i know what liberal democracy is. however, only the state is able to conduct violent systematic extortion, a.k.a taxation, from its subjects in order to parasitically steal from the productive aspects of society and redistribute to the nonproductive aspects. this is the glaring contradiction in all socialist anarchist theory. since coercion is the most critical component of socialism, their theory falls apart in the absence of a coercive authority able to monopolize all the resources of society.
coercion is necessary in all democracies. democracy is simply "majority rule." coercion is necessary in ALL political constructs as well, whether they be capitalist or socialist or communist or whatever. only voluntaryists advocate a system absent of coercion in which humans interract nonviolently and contractually.
There is no hierarchy in anarchism. Without hierarchy there is no coercion. Again, you know nothing about the many flavors of socialism or anarchism. You know about the 19th century American anarchism that was never successful on a large or small scale. It was the theories of wealthy men.
1. positive rights is the idea that the individual is not entitled to his body, the fruits of his labor, or freedom, but is entitled to that which is needed for survival. positive rights are necessarily extorted coercively through involuntary servitude and taxation. a commie nutjob is anyone who accepts the premise of positive rights.
if the only piece of emma goldman literature you have read is "living my life" then i have read significantly more of her essays than you have. i am familiar with emma goldman and her brand of anarchism.
The edition of "Living My Life" I read is 993 pages. You are a propagandist seeking to intentionally distort Goldman and blacken her name without explaining a single one of her beliefs.
i've read emma goldman. she is a communist nutjob. anarchism is not necessarily socialism. i am an anarchist and proponent of free market capitalism. anarchism is the belief that all goods and services should be provided on a contractual basis in a market atmosphere. we believe that all social interractions and all financial transactions should be voluntary and nonviolent.
Please read "Homage to Catalonia" by George Orwell for an alternative view of Anarchchism. You might also read Emma Goldman's autobiography "Living My Life."
i've read most of it, as various sections of it appeared in her compilation, "Red Emma Speaks." i still maintain that emma goldman was a commie nutjob whos opinions were very impractical and really nonapplicable. don't ask Emma Goldman how the demand for personal defense, courts, and roads will be met in her system. how is production to function? "there will be collective ownership, and the workers will control everything."
Part I - How can anyone enter into a conversation with someone who attacks another as a "commie nutjob." what is a "commie nutjob." I am not familiar with the phrase. Please remember Goldman was exiled to Communist Russia by the USA against her will as part of the American fascist Palmer raids. She soon left after observing the horrors of Bolshevism.
Part II - Your questions about how defense, courts, roads & production would function in an anarchist society are answered in George Orwell's "Homage to Catalonia." Orwell fought in the Spanish Civil War and had an opportunity to report on how anarchists functioned. The bourgeois mind cannot imagine a flat organization of equals, without hierarchy, because solidarity is unimaginable by the bourgeoisie. In any case, you are welcome to read Orwell to understand.
attempts at "Collective ownership" always lead to state control and operation of industry. she also fails to explain how positive rights will be enforced in her anarchist utopia, as positive rights are necessarily extorted coercively. the only institution capable of such is the state. it's silly and ridiculous. anarchists of her sort reason, "police, courts, roads, production; who needs em!?" that is obviously a recipe for chaos.
Part III - Liberal Democracy (the current popular paradigm) is, in fact, state control of people and industry thru the ever present bureaucracy described by Max Weber as an "iiron cage."
It is the Anarchists who sought to eliminate the state, but encountered the state's legalized force. According to Weber, the state is the only institution allowed to use force in it's domain. So, you have the cart before the horse. Liberal Democracy is state control.Please don't lay it at the Anarchists door.
Part IV - What are "positive rights?" Post Moderns are unable to imagine Solidarity. In a society with Solidarity coercion is unnecessary.
The state is needed by the wealthy and the upper middle class to steal from the poor, working class and lower middle class. In a world of equal income and wealth distribution (with a fair tax system),there wouldn't be constant state sponsored theft to benefit the rich.
Goldman never said police, courts, roads & production are unneeded. No social hierarchy.
oh no! the evil robber barrons serving the consumer and driving down prices! like that asshole rockefeller! the price of oil dropped somewhere around fifty percent under his control. good thing the legislature broke up that asshole! oh how they spoiled the public.
through sheer hard work, determination, and innovative capacity, the robber barrons transformed the face of production, and gave the world technologies, efficiency, quality, low prices, and production unparalleled in history. they pushed out their competition by serving the consumer better than anyone else in their industries. there is no more valuable assett to society than a greedy capitalist.
There is tremendous activism now. The problem, however, is these activists aren't receiving any media attention. But I do agree with him that many Americans are so laiden down with debt that they are so afraid to protest, out of fear of losing their jobs and their benefits. This is why I think a lot of companies don't support universal healthcare because if the employees don't need them for health coverage, these workers could just walk off the job and still be covered, the power would shift.
But I am not sure if I understand yet. It seems you are saying that the basic ideal that social darwinism promoted has always been a part of our history, and now it's somewhat worse because no one is opposing this mentality that the rich have? The perpetuation of the status quo so to speak?
Anyway I plan on checking out some of these books. Thanks
It is not just the rich that have the mentality of Social Darwinism. The overwhelming majority of Americans accept this dismal view of themselves as inferior to the Power Elite: the poor, working class & lower midddle class.
Yeah, most people seems to be pretty comfortable or apathetic in their own caste... But when it comes down to it, there will always be the same struggle going on regardless. We are animals when it comes down to it and will always need an alpha leader to ease our most basic primal fears. Nevertheless we should hope to change it some day...
We need another Gilded Age.. and BAD!
Production is needed. 70% of our economy is consumption/service based. We did not need the progressive movement. Standard Oil had shrunk 60% in the 20 years prior to the Anti Trust. After the break up John D Rockefeller became the Wealthest man ever, not prior.
Emma Goldman praised Capitalism in the sense of a Classical Liberal form.
Please read Henry C Carey's "Harmony of Interest" published in 1851 to better understand the Gilded Age
Salvysahagun 4 months ago
I am interested to know what your thoughts are on the Baha'i perspective on Economics.
irajkhodadoost 1 year ago
@Nasdaq7 - Nothing wrong with mom & pop stores and businesses. Large Corporations & the politicians ("government") are in bed together. They do nothing for us. They pollute our world, and do not spend a single dollar cleaning up. They take all our resources with little or no compensation, they and their owners get tax breaks on enormous profits taken from the people, through monopolies that give people little choice and always squeezes small private alternative companies out of business.
gunthaarz 1 year ago
Please read America's premier historian, Richard Hofstadter's books:
"Social Darwinism In American Thought 1860-1915"
"Anti Intellectualism In American Life"
Please cite your source for your assertion that "--- corporations create 85% of the wealth for the people ---."
radiohogan 3 years ago
@radiohogan you are right the industrial revolution was evil i long for the agrarian standards of living of the early 1800's... why do i even try? you are a boomer nut job you'll be gone soon. How much acid did you do in the 60's? I do like the music of the 70's we probably have that in common.
ajgolfer1 3 months ago
she believed that each and every individual is entitled to the necessities of survival. she was very explicit in her opinions, and very clear about this one. i can't imagine that you read her entire biography and missed the most fundamental aspect of her entire philosophy. however, unlike marxists, fascists, and contemporary liberals, she did not understand that the state is the ONLY institution able to enforce positive rights.
ProprietorOfSelf 3 years ago
I read my autobiography twice; the last time was within this past year. Yes, Emma advocated an equal distribution of income and wealth. However, she did not advocate the state do this. The state in all Liberal Democracies does redistribute income and wealth from the poor to the rich.
Jean Jacques Rousseau wrote the rich create governments to steal from the poor.
You do not quote or paraphrase Goldman. You project what you want to believe onto Goldman. You are inauthentic & disingenuous.
radiohogan 3 years ago
ah! finally you at least acknowledge that you have read one of my comments. "she does not advocate the state to do this." exactly. she does not propose any method by which it can be done. she assumes that each and every individual would be perfectly willing to voluntary relinquish ownership of his labor and work for the sake of others. if this was in fact the case, then we would have positive rights already, as charity organizations would have proven sufficient to guarentee them. not the case.
ProprietorOfSelf 3 years ago
If Goldman does not propose any methods, why do you kept imputing all sorts of beliefs to Goldman. You claim to know what Goldman assumes. You have lost my interest. I am not interested in your obtuse views. You act as a disingenuous prosecutor.
radiohogan 3 years ago
universal positive rights, in order to exist, MUST necessarily be enforced by a welfare state capable of monopolizing resources through taxation and distributing them. marxists recognized this. fascists recognize this. contemporary liberals recognize this. the catholic church recognizes this. it is the truth. her anarchism is utopian and out of touch with reality. anarchists of her sort want the state's monopoly powers of resource distribution, but they do not want the state. it's senseless.
ProprietorOfSelf 3 years ago
There is no point in continuing our conversation. You don't understand the anarchist sense of solidarity. Yours is a bourgeois mentality. You can't conceive of non hierarchical flat group organization.
To the bourgeois person all else is utopian.
radiohogan 3 years ago
i have never contested that the state exists to steal and benefit a priviledged class. although various methods other than ourtight theft are employed. indeed, my definition of state capitalism has always been, "business and the state working in collaboration to concentrate wealth and influence into the hands of a minority." obviously, this is immoral. the state serves no function but to serve as a parasite on society. it is evil and should be abolished.
ProprietorOfSelf 3 years ago
I agree with all you have written here. However, you believe the abolishion of the state will be replaced by individual voluntary contracts. This is well beyond utopian. It's unreal and has never happened, to my knowledge.
radiohogan 3 years ago
Can you give a single example of when and how your American style anarchism of wealthy men was successfully implemented in the 19th or 20th Century? Goldman's anarchism was implemented in Spain and Israel. In addition, anarchosyndicalism was implemented in Poland and Argentina.
radiohogan 3 years ago
free market anarchism has functioned successfully in 17th century pennsylvania and medieval iceland. those are the only two examples i have. although, it has never been given much of an opportunity to flourish given the inevitability of government annexation of territories and monopolization of resources.
ProprietorOfSelf 3 years ago
I admire your idealism, if not your willingness to denounce others more idealistic then yourself.
radiohogan 3 years ago
i'm aware of a brand of anarchism other than free market anarchism temporarily existing in spain, but i am not familiar with the details of how society and production functioned, so i am not going to comment. the other examples i am unaware of.
ProprietorOfSelf 3 years ago
Simply read George Orwell's "Homage to Catalonia." It is a thin book.
radiohogan 3 years ago
the author of "Red Emma Speaks" IS Emma Goldman herself! it is simply a compilation of her essays! only Emma Goldman's words are contained in the book. the aspect of her anarchist philosophy i have been contesting is the notion that positive rights can be enforced in the absence of coercion. i am not a G-Man as i am a voluntaryist. i believe that all interractions between human beings should be voluntary. that is anarchy.
ProprietorOfSelf 3 years ago
All anarchists act voluntarily. This is the essence of solidarity.
radiohogan 3 years ago
"There is no hierarchy in anarchism. Without hierarchy there is no coercion." exactly my point! that is why positive rights can NOT be enforced in an anarchist society. the enforcement of positive rights requires the coercive intervention of a state. period! universal healthcare. universal housing. universal food, water, and clothing. these are all potential state functions, but ONLY state functions as they can only be provided through extortionary policies. i feel like a parrot.
ProprietorOfSelf 3 years ago
You are a parrot, parroting a mantra you have learned. There is no relation to what I wrote and your interpretation of what I wrote. There is no state activity in anarchism. How can you claim to be an anarchist.
Study how anarchists operated in Catalonia during the Spanish civil war.
Emma Goldman represented the Spaniards to the world while living in London.
radiohogan 3 years ago
i was unaware that her biography was so long. in light of this information, then yes, you have read more emma goldman than i have. but i have demonstrated an understanding of emma goldman's opinions in everysingle post. anybody who knows anything about emma goldman understands that first and foremost, she was an avid supporter of postive rights.
ProprietorOfSelf 3 years ago
Baloney.
radiohogan 3 years ago
6. we denounce "state capitalism" just as aggressively as socialist anarchists, and agree that it is a system designed to concentrate wealth and influence into the hands of a minority.
ProprietorOfSelf 3 years ago
We agree on our views of "state capitalism" ( aka Liberal Democracy).
Are you a G-man?
radiohogan 3 years ago
i don't know what a g-man is.
ProprietorOfSelf 3 years ago
A G-man is a Government Man.
radiohogan 3 years ago
5. there are however nonviolent anarchists who recognize this glaring contradiction in socialist anarchist theory. "anarcho-capitalists", "free market anarchists", or "voluntaryists" are all terms used to describe the same brand of anarchism. they are the only anarchists who believe that the individual owns his body, is entitled to the fruits of his labor, and all interractions between humans should be voluntary and nonviolent.
ProprietorOfSelf 3 years ago
I have read: "Native American Anarchism" and understand the American 19th Century idea of anarchism very well. I am familiar with the leading figures in the experiments. It never became popular or workable. It was utopian in the extreme.
Are you a G-man?
radiohogan 3 years ago
4. for whatever reason, emma goldman was not able to understand the very simple fact that in order to have economic equality, there must be a coercive entity able to monopolize and distribute the resources of society. people will NOT relinquish ownership of their bodies or their labor voluntarily. extortion is necessary. the bolshevicks understood this, and, to some extent, achieved it. although the fullest expression of positive rights did not manifest until the stalin regime.
ProprietorOfSelf 3 years ago
Again, you attack Goldman without having read her autobiography. You know nothing about Goldman. You are describing Liberal Democracies.
Are you a G-man?
radiohogan 3 years ago
and again, i do know at least something about emma goldman. i have read several of her essays from topics ranging to her stances on atheism, marriage, anarchism, prisons, crime, poverty, feminism, the bolshevicks, and more. i know who emma goldman is. i understand her brand of anarchism. the idea of positive rights is only applicable within a statist construct. it is incompatible with a society absent of coercion because positive rights can only exist through extortionary methods. period.
ProprietorOfSelf 3 years ago
Please explain a single topic you mentioned and give us Goldman's position. Explain how an anarchist favors coercion and slavery as your propaganda asserts. You blacken the dear lady's name to advance your cause.
The author of Red Emma Speaks was an anti Goldman propagandist judging by the title he chose.
radiohogan 3 years ago
3. Red Emma Speaks is a compilation of Emma Goldman essays. Emma Goldman wrote it, but it was not published in her lifetime. emma goldman's persistent criticism of the bolshevicks was ironic, because, ultimately, both emma goldman and the bolshevicks had the exact same goal in mind, positive rights.
ProprietorOfSelf 3 years ago
Please provide examples from "Red Emma Speaks," in which Goldman advocates coercion or slavery.
Are you a G-man?
radiohogan 3 years ago
she advocates positive rights. positive rights can only be attained through extortionary measures. she does not directly advocate coercion, which lies the contradiction in her philosophy. universal healthcare, housing, education, food, etc. must be extorted coercively because not everybody will voluntarily relinquish ownership of their labor without the presence of coercion. peaceful voluntary exchange of goods and services exists only in a market atmosphere.
ProprietorOfSelf 3 years ago
I asked you several times to describe any of Goldman's positions, yet you do not. Why not describe one of the many Goldman essays you have read on any topic? You fail to understand Goldman's anarchism because, as a middle class person, you do not understand solidarity. When people are in solidarity (harmony) there is no coercion.
The last anarchist reality was in Catalonia during the Spanish civil war. Try reading George Orwell's book "Homage to Catalonia" to understand solidarity.
radiohogan 3 years ago
i know what liberal democracy is. however, only the state is able to conduct violent systematic extortion, a.k.a taxation, from its subjects in order to parasitically steal from the productive aspects of society and redistribute to the nonproductive aspects. this is the glaring contradiction in all socialist anarchist theory. since coercion is the most critical component of socialism, their theory falls apart in the absence of a coercive authority able to monopolize all the resources of society.
ProprietorOfSelf 3 years ago
You know nothing about socialism in Liberal Democracies or the history of socialism. The coercion you write about is the norm in Liberal Democracies.
Are you a G-man?
radiohogan 3 years ago
coercion is necessary in all democracies. democracy is simply "majority rule." coercion is necessary in ALL political constructs as well, whether they be capitalist or socialist or communist or whatever. only voluntaryists advocate a system absent of coercion in which humans interract nonviolently and contractually.
ProprietorOfSelf 3 years ago
There is no hierarchy in anarchism. Without hierarchy there is no coercion. Again, you know nothing about the many flavors of socialism or anarchism. You know about the 19th century American anarchism that was never successful on a large or small scale. It was the theories of wealthy men.
radiohogan 3 years ago
1. positive rights is the idea that the individual is not entitled to his body, the fruits of his labor, or freedom, but is entitled to that which is needed for survival. positive rights are necessarily extorted coercively through involuntary servitude and taxation. a commie nutjob is anyone who accepts the premise of positive rights.
ProprietorOfSelf 3 years ago
You know nothing about Emma Goldman. Are you a G-man?
radiohogan 3 years ago
if the only piece of emma goldman literature you have read is "living my life" then i have read significantly more of her essays than you have. i am familiar with emma goldman and her brand of anarchism.
ProprietorOfSelf 3 years ago
The edition of "Living My Life" I read is 993 pages. You are a propagandist seeking to intentionally distort Goldman and blacken her name without explaining a single one of her beliefs.
radiohogan 3 years ago
i've read emma goldman. she is a communist nutjob. anarchism is not necessarily socialism. i am an anarchist and proponent of free market capitalism. anarchism is the belief that all goods and services should be provided on a contractual basis in a market atmosphere. we believe that all social interractions and all financial transactions should be voluntary and nonviolent.
ProprietorOfSelf 3 years ago
Please read "Homage to Catalonia" by George Orwell for an alternative view of Anarchchism. You might also read Emma Goldman's autobiography "Living My Life."
radiohogan 3 years ago
i've read most of it, as various sections of it appeared in her compilation, "Red Emma Speaks." i still maintain that emma goldman was a commie nutjob whos opinions were very impractical and really nonapplicable. don't ask Emma Goldman how the demand for personal defense, courts, and roads will be met in her system. how is production to function? "there will be collective ownership, and the workers will control everything."
ProprietorOfSelf 3 years ago
Part I - How can anyone enter into a conversation with someone who attacks another as a "commie nutjob." what is a "commie nutjob." I am not familiar with the phrase. Please remember Goldman was exiled to Communist Russia by the USA against her will as part of the American fascist Palmer raids. She soon left after observing the horrors of Bolshevism.
What is Red Emma Speaks? Who wrote it?
radiohogan 3 years ago
Part II - Your questions about how defense, courts, roads & production would function in an anarchist society are answered in George Orwell's "Homage to Catalonia." Orwell fought in the Spanish Civil War and had an opportunity to report on how anarchists functioned. The bourgeois mind cannot imagine a flat organization of equals, without hierarchy, because solidarity is unimaginable by the bourgeoisie. In any case, you are welcome to read Orwell to understand.
radiohogan 3 years ago
attempts at "Collective ownership" always lead to state control and operation of industry. she also fails to explain how positive rights will be enforced in her anarchist utopia, as positive rights are necessarily extorted coercively. the only institution capable of such is the state. it's silly and ridiculous. anarchists of her sort reason, "police, courts, roads, production; who needs em!?" that is obviously a recipe for chaos.
ProprietorOfSelf 3 years ago
Part III - Liberal Democracy (the current popular paradigm) is, in fact, state control of people and industry thru the ever present bureaucracy described by Max Weber as an "iiron cage."
It is the Anarchists who sought to eliminate the state, but encountered the state's legalized force. According to Weber, the state is the only institution allowed to use force in it's domain. So, you have the cart before the horse. Liberal Democracy is state control.Please don't lay it at the Anarchists door.
radiohogan 3 years ago
Part IV - What are "positive rights?" Post Moderns are unable to imagine Solidarity. In a society with Solidarity coercion is unnecessary.
The state is needed by the wealthy and the upper middle class to steal from the poor, working class and lower middle class. In a world of equal income and wealth distribution (with a fair tax system),there wouldn't be constant state sponsored theft to benefit the rich.
Goldman never said police, courts, roads & production are unneeded. No social hierarchy.
radiohogan 3 years ago
oh no! the evil robber barrons serving the consumer and driving down prices! like that asshole rockefeller! the price of oil dropped somewhere around fifty percent under his control. good thing the legislature broke up that asshole! oh how they spoiled the public.
ProprietorOfSelf 3 years ago
Please read "Robber Barons" by Matthew Josephson.
All the Best
radiohogan 3 years ago
through sheer hard work, determination, and innovative capacity, the robber barrons transformed the face of production, and gave the world technologies, efficiency, quality, low prices, and production unparalleled in history. they pushed out their competition by serving the consumer better than anyone else in their industries. there is no more valuable assett to society than a greedy capitalist.
ProprietorOfSelf 3 years ago
The Robber Barons mass murdered employees on a par with Joseph Stalin.
radiohogan 3 years ago
Very interesting, and absolutely informative. The New Guilded Age is one subject that I will contunually explore.
charliestube1 3 years ago
There is tremendous activism now. The problem, however, is these activists aren't receiving any media attention. But I do agree with him that many Americans are so laiden down with debt that they are so afraid to protest, out of fear of losing their jobs and their benefits. This is why I think a lot of companies don't support universal healthcare because if the employees don't need them for health coverage, these workers could just walk off the job and still be covered, the power would shift.
cosmicviewer477 3 years ago
You have got it.
radiohogan 3 years ago
That helped.
But I am not sure if I understand yet. It seems you are saying that the basic ideal that social darwinism promoted has always been a part of our history, and now it's somewhat worse because no one is opposing this mentality that the rich have? The perpetuation of the status quo so to speak?
Anyway I plan on checking out some of these books. Thanks
ArtMusicRepeat 3 years ago
It is not just the rich that have the mentality of Social Darwinism. The overwhelming majority of Americans accept this dismal view of themselves as inferior to the Power Elite: the poor, working class & lower midddle class.
radiohogan 3 years ago
Yeah, most people seems to be pretty comfortable or apathetic in their own caste... But when it comes down to it, there will always be the same struggle going on regardless. We are animals when it comes down to it and will always need an alpha leader to ease our most basic primal fears. Nevertheless we should hope to change it some day...
ArtMusicRepeat 3 years ago
Check out my video Psycho;ogy 101 on YouTube for an analysis of the alpha leaders and why they act that way.
radiohogan 3 years ago