What Anarchism Really Stands For - Emma Goldman

[truthaddict11]

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archi.../anarchism.html (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/goldman/aando/anarchism.html)

edit: this post was too long

(Edited by truthaddict11 at 6:36 pm on July 2, 2003)

[sc4r]

Anarchists could do themselves a favour by not accepting this sort of thing -

There were a few thousand words in that post and you correctly identify the central concern of almost evrybody inside left wing circles about anarchism.

"is it whether the scheme has vitality enough to leave the stagnant waters of the old, and build, as well as sustain, new life

And of those thousands of words exactly 10 address that concern (if merely saying 'there is no valid concern' can be called addressing it).

In the light of this conception, Anarchism is indeed practical.

Thats theactual point that most needs answering and its the point that gets no attention at all.

[elijahcraig]

Emma Goldman is one of my heroes, I've read that numerous times.

[rAW DEaL bILL]

emma goldman fucking rules. i prefer peter kropotkins writings however. id say E.G.s my second favourite anarchist thinker.

[elijahcraig]

I've heard that Kropotkin supported WWI, I'm not sure. And that he said Medieval kingdoms were representative of anarchist societies.

[rAW DEaL bILL]

no fucking way he supported ww1 man. no fucking WAY. and i highly doubt he compared fuedalism and anarchism.

[Som]

I've heard that Kropotkin supported WWI, I'm not sure. And that he said Medieval kingdoms were representative of anarchist societies.

Kropotkin did support WWI, and argued for its continuation throughout, didn't seem too fond of germany. He seemed to think that there couldnt be much of a movement untill germany was stopped, or something along those lines.

Medieval kingdoms? no, what you might be thinking of was the old traditional russian fishing towns, which were very anarchist-communist in nature. He had a great respect for them, but didn't advocate the isolated commune sort of structure of them.

(Edited by Som at 2:03 am on July 7, 2003)

[redstar2000]

Quote: from sc4r on 11:33 am on July 2, 2003
Anarchists could do themselves a favour by not accepting this sort of thing -

There were a few thousand words in that post and you correctly identify the central concern of almost everybody inside left wing circles about anarchism.

"is it whether the scheme has vitality enough to leave the stagnant waters of the old, and build, as well as sustain, new life

And of those thousands of words exactly 10 address that concern (if merely saying 'there is no valid concern' can be called addressing it).

In the light of this conception, Anarchism is indeed practical.

That's the actual point that most needs answering and it's the point that gets no attention at all.


I take it from your other posts that you regard all talk of "revolution" (Marxist or anarchist) as impractical.

Fair enough. What then of the "practical anarchist" vision, the so-called "shadow economy" anarchists?

As I understand their views, they propose to build alternative economic entities (of all kinds) that will operate completely outside of existing capitalism...in fact, they are actually doing this. They are convinced that such "shadow enterprises" will, by virtue of their inherent superiority to the corporate alternative, steadily grow in importance until either capitalism simply withers away from lack of interest or the formal end of capitalism is a bloodless ceremonial transfer of power.

To me, of course, this is perhaps the most "wildly impractical" perspective of all the variants of anarchist theory...but it ought to appeal to you. It's something that can be done now.

I think you should check them out.

:cool: