Anarchist Emma Goldman (1 of 2)

ANARCHISM: WHAT IT REALLY STANDS FOR (Excerpts)
Emma Goldman

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.

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. 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, 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. 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 is robbery," said the great French Anarchist Proudhon. Yes, but without risk and danger to the robber. Monopolizing the accumulated efforts of man, property has robbed him of his birthright, and has turned him loose a pauper and an outcast. Property has not even the time-worn excuse that man does not create enough to satisfy all needs. The A B C student of economics knows that the productivity of labor within the last few decades far exceeds normal demand. But what are normal demands to an abnormal institution? The only demand that property recognizes is its own gluttonous appetite for greater wealth, because wealth means power; the power to subdue, to crush, to exploit, the power to enslave, to outrage, to degrade.

Real wealth consists in things of utility and beauty, in things that help to create strong, beautiful bodies and surroundings inspiring to live in. But if man is doomed to wind cotton around a spool, or dig coal, or build roads for thirty years of his life, there can be no talk of wealth. What he gives to the world is only gray and hideous things, reflecting a dull and hideous existence,--too weak to live, too cowardly to die. Strange to say, there are people who extol this deadening method of centralized production as the proudest achievement of our age. They fail utterly to realize that if we are to continue in machine subserviency, our slavery is more complete than was our bondage to the King. They do not want to know that centralization is not only the death-knell of liberty, but also of health and beauty, of art and science, all these being impossible in a clock-like, mechanical atmosphere.

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

In fact, there is hardly a modern thinker who does not agree that government, organized authority, or the State, is necessary only to maintain or protect property and monopoly. It has proven efficient in that function only....

Continued in Anarchist Emma Goldman (part 2)

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Anarchy
• Anarchist
• Revolution
• Russian
• Politics
• History
• Feminist

[TheAdamTheory]

As an anarchist, I can't stand it when my fellow anarchists fight. It's pretty counter-productive. The fact is that all forms of anarchy are voluntary. Since individualist anarchy is the rawest form of anarchy, in a truely free-market individuals are free to form societies under the principle that no one has the right to rule.

Forcing or preventing people from form such collectives on the basis that they are not practicing true anarchy is a statist mentality in and of itself.

[zzanzak]

Emma Goldman I love you

[blenog]

Emma Goldman was born in Lithuania, within the Russian Empire, but she was both ethnically and culturally Lithuanian not Russia as mentioned in this video.

[dumbassbeat15]

Maybe Anarchism could be achieved by a growing number simply ignoring the state and the law. I think that it's called agorism. So people won't give anymore power to the state and the power of the state over us would vanish through an evolutionary process. I welcome responses, I'm trying to understand anarchy and ways to achive it.

[scienceatheism]

There is no set leader. How does a grassroot movement usually start? with an idea, inspiration from an individual, they usually arnt the leader but we find inspiration from the actions taken from a person who we admire.

[kotkee]

Someone link of pamphlet she wrote; Emma Goldman - The Modern Phase of Anarchy, can't find would appreciate some help.

[HybridD91]

@MissSavannahJ Why not have that "leader" follow the people rather than the people follow that leader? Voila, the people are the government.

[MissSavannahJ]

@4500jas How does an anarchist fight for democracy?!? That is completely against their values. If they are fighting for democracy, they are revolutionaries, not anarchists.



[MissSavannahJ]

If anarchy is the absence of government and authority, how does an anarchist movement get started? With a leader, and people to follow that leader. And voila, you have a basic form of government.

I would like to know why you anarchists believe what you do. Have you seen evidence in history that anarchy has made life better for people? Do you see this in Somalia? Cambodia? No, you do not.

Anarchy will never survive on its own, it can only fight an established government.

I welcome your responses.

[rayexcellente]

fucken hell this is so ground-breakingly informative and the top video on the suggestion list is revolution of hair colour. Go world

[carovski]

@carovski the basic principles of anarchism are present in a lot more political thought other than Nietzschen, and is practiced by many different societies who run successfully, take a look at the zapatistas for example. :)

[carovski]

@MrDrewboggess yes well the two ideas don't necessarily counterpose. in fact anarchism did succeed. the spanish civil war is a great example. i would argue that existentialism is a pillar in capitalist ideology as it embraces the 'individual' which is not what anarchism is all about, especially anarcho-syndicalism. so its not a Nietzschen philosophy as you have termed it, and im not sure what you meant by it not having enough merit?