A brief history of Emma’s life and how that impacted her political thought on Anarchism
Emma Goldman was a Jew in Russia, born in the year 1869. Her home was in an area called Kovno but they later went to St Petersburg. While growing up, Emma Goldman witnessed the social injustices brought on by the powerful leadership of the Tsar. The latter authority controlled economic activities in the country. They were able to stay and enjoy this domination through the creation of highly bureaucratic systems.
The Tsars also utilized the support of the Russian Orthodox Church as well as the secret police at that time. These unchecked and unpredictable powers contributed to the amassing of wealth by this authority and the continual suffering of the Russian peasant class. Eventually, revolutionary tendencies started cropping up from various parts of society and certain intellectuals started advocating for some kind of socialism that would dismantle the oppressive government authorities in this country and eventually lead to the empowerment of the individual.
Goldman came across this forbidden literature and this is where her consciousness and radical ideas on anarchism started emerging. It should be noted that some of those writers even believed in organized terrorism against government leaders (Wexler, 123).
As Goldman continued growing up, the seeds of rebellion were planted in her through her experience with her father who consistently stereotyped women. He believed that women’s value was related to nothing more than having children and taking care of their families. Goldman quickly realized that there was little she could achieve in such an environment especially after her father told her of his intention to marry her off. Her rebellious spirit was soon manifested when she ran away from Russia at 16 with her older sister to the United States. Coming from a highly bureaucratic and repressive country, Emma believed that she would find all her answers in the land of freedom i.e. the United States.
Nothing could have been further from the truth. Goldman soon found herself in the ghettos of New York City at a place called Rochester (Wexler, 201). It was at this point when the latter individual found out that although the economic systems were different, the repression of the masses was still rife. In the United States, the environment was dominated by the laissez fair principle which advocated for freedom to compete and participate in the economy.
These people believed in survival for the fittest where businessmen would compete and win depending on their might or their level of preparedness. The government intended to do little to interfere in these activities. However, the intentions of laissez-faire were very different from the actual depictions of the principle. Instead of minimizing interference, the government began utilizing loans and subsidies. The effect of this was that only the select few could be wealthy. Monopoly was rife and the government justified this by asserting that the select few held those positions because of their inherent wisdom.
Eventually, this led to the concentration of wealth in the hands of the minorities who eventually started garnering political clout. These limitations of the so-called free economic systems in the US-led to the victimization of the working class who were now regarded as nothing more than mere tools in the process of production. Goldman soon realized that to the holders of the wealth-the minorities, workers were to be treated as costs of production.
This implied that they needed to be obtained in the cheapest way possible. As a result, there was continual suffering, poverty, and inequality in America just like Russia. All these factors combined caused an internal rebellion against government authority, property as well as other social structures. To Goldman, Anarchism was the ultimate solution to these problems of repression.
How American political theory then differed from how Emma would view American political theory today
At the time of her activism, Goldman understood American political theory in terms of the new economic institutions prevalent at that time. She soon realized that nothing good would ever come out of government authorities no matter how good their ideologies or intentions appeared to be (Carrol and Noble, 23). At that time, much like today, people would engage in elections and essentially elect a member of parliament who would represent them.
Goldman felt that elections and political participation were an enemy to the emancipation of the masses because it was through this process that the people would transfer their rights of control to a representative. She felt that American political theory was inherently unsatisfactory because it failed to account for the masses. In today’s world, American society has rapidly evolved. It is now possible to find that a vast number of individuals have become part of the political scene.
This is because citizens are more aware of their rights and their entitlements. Furthermore, a lot of changes have occurred between then and now especially about trade unionism and the effects of politics at the workplace. The rebellions that occurred during Emma’s time could not be compared to the circumstances existing now since people are currently more educated. At that time, Goldman advocated for education as well as agitation.
She felt that once people fully understood the principles at work around them then they would be in a position to effectively apply them in their lives without having to depend on the ballot box. However, it can be stated that the masses today are much more informed than they were at that time, but they have still not been able to put in place some of the arguments that were being advocated by this activist.
Analysis of argument that anarchism leads to individual freedom
In her essay “The psychology of political violence”, Goldman argues that homicidal outrages are often misconceived. Society tends to think of them as the methods of savages or persons from the underclasses who have no sense of morality. This was the reason why Anarchism was quite often misunderstood. Goldman (562) argues that violence is never the first weapon of choice for those who choose it but it is often their last result.
The Anarchists were pushed to a point of outrage and they felt as though society now lacked life in it. Goldman further uses the examples of the terrorist of Russia to emphasize this point. She believed that it was utter desperation that drove the terrorists to their violent deeds. She claims that violence is against human instinct and people would naturally be able to oppose such notions if there was another way out.
Goldman (578) further believes that the negativities made out against political violence by the Anarchists were never really genuine since there were vested interests that needed to be protected. She believes that any new ideas are bound to create much opposition but this often became even much worse once it has been shown that the new ideology would tear down the old guard. These arguments may appear to hold water but at the end of the day, one must ask whether the Anarchists were able to achieve their desired outcomes. Resulting in violence is indeed one of the most extreme pathways an entity can choose to articulate his or her concerns.
However, if one hopes to instate change in society, then one must use a language that can be understood by those who need to be changed. Anarchists did not succeed at all in employing physical violence because this made them appear as though they were indulging in the same evils that they were rising against. In New York, they were isolated and eventually repulsed because of employing these methods. It is comprehensible why the public was repulsed by such violent actions. The anarchists claimed to be agents of social change. They hated the oppression and unfairness that property and government imposed upon them.
However, by resulting in violence then they were turning back to the same evil methods that started the movement in the first place. One would therefore wonder how it can be possible to radically object to certain principles and then use them again to achieve those aims. To this end, Goldman’s argument that anarchism is the best route to individual freedom can be debated because the means required to achieve these ends was contradictory to the very ideology behind it. This is one of the reasons why Goldman was never really able to witness the fruits of her actions as an active anarchist.
In her essay “anarchism”, Goldman (50) believed that crime was misdirected energy. She asserted that most poverty and the struggle for human survival were the things that led to the crime. Consequently, the government; which was supposed to prevent crime or at least reduce it was creating it. This Anarchist, therefore, felt that the government oppressed individual freedom by creating an atmosphere that would encourage crime.
However, such an argument may be debated because some people do not commit a crime for economic reasons; which is supposed to be the major reason why people may be pushed into crime. Conversely, others may not engage in crime as a conscious act against a bigger authority. They may simply do this because they are deviants by their very nature.
Goldman exonerated the individual over and above any other structures throughout her work; she was therefore trying to send the message that the individual is superior; capable of relying on himself without needing any external structures. However, she did not put in mind that the individual is flawed and that depending on that flawed entity may have its negative repercussions. In this regard, anarchism may not be the best route to freedom (Carrol and Nobel, 47).
Goldman’s argument that government and property produce tyranny as seen through her various essays
In her essay “Minorities versus majorities”, Goldman (245) believed that literal output was under threat because of the evils of property. Concern for economic gains was given more precedence than the qualities of work. Consequently, publishers would ask whether a piece of literature would appeal to the masses and hence bring in a quick sale rather than focus on the degree of quality that is inherent in that piece of art. The same things applied to theatre and other expressions of art.
Goldman claims that those few artists who dare to be different or those who exercise creative genius have no chance of survival because this would entail forfeiting economic gains. She, therefore, believes that the conceptions and executions of art in America are barbarous, to say the least. All these have been brought on by the excessive exaltation of property or economic value over and above anything else. Indeed, these arguments do hold water because one can get to understand this deep contradiction in society.
Individuals are held in high esteem only after their demise and are condemned to a life of misery when still alive. This argument brought forth by Goldman makes sense because one can easily relate artists’ need for economic survival with the need to perpetuate their talent. Through this argument, it is possible to understand why certain forms of art become so popular even when they may not appear to be original or creative at all. Therefore, one can see why property bounds humans and limits their ability to be free.
In her essay “a menace of liberty”, Goldman (443) criticizes the concept of patriotism by affirming that patriotism presupposes that one region of the world is more superior to the other in all kinds of ways i.e. intelligence, power, authority, and the like. Consequently, such persons should stop at nothing to protect this special interest or position that is tied to their conception of patriotisms. Individuals would therefore be willing to engage in brutal acts, die, kill or carry out any such actions under the umbrella of patriotism. To Goldman, this is a weapon created by the government to ensure the continual perpetuation and domination of other people.
This argument by the latter Anarchist does bring out some truths because these assertions are quite similar to an even older institution known as religion. Religion advocated for the submission of the individual through acceptance of certain doctrines. (Goldman, 45). It trained a man to believe that he was part of a bigger picture and that he needed to submit to these greater forces to ensure his happiness. However, religion tended to suppress individual freedom because it prevented individuals from questioning what they were told. It instead advocated for an acceptance of whatever ideologies that were brought on and this served to ‘keep the man in check’.
Similarly, patriotism as a concept creates the same effect that religion did. It served to restrict individual liberties to maintain the interests of a particular minority i.e. the government. This dominant pattern in the suppression of creativity and a ‘questioning’ mind illustrates that the motives behind certain government ideologies like patriotism are questionable. One can therefore understand why Goldman held that government limits the freedom or liberty of the individual.
Works Cited
Goldman, Emma. Anarchism and other essays. NY: Dover publications, 1917.
Wexler, Alice. Emma Goldman: An intimate life. London: Virago, 1984.
Carrol, Peter & Noble, David. The free and the unfree. Penguin: Harmondsworth, 1977.