Maria Estrella Victoria J.

Sumulong

Professor Aurora Roxas-Lim

BA Literature Literature 121 ______________________________________________________________________________ Anarchism

What had been the foundation of Anarchy, the very seed in which this misunderstood ideal had stemmed from? Emma Goldmans essay, Anarchism: What It Really Stands For, brought out the good-natured aspect of Anarchy in which most people had failed to recognize. Her life, both in Russia and the United States, revealed her constant struggle as a person and as an icon of Anarchism. She pursued the liberation of the self and the laboring class through this very movement. Goldman was born in the year 1869 in Kovno, Russia. At a very young age, she became aware of the injustices around her. Servants, who were impregnated and sexually harassed by the Russian elite were taken into her home and cared for. The upperclassmen at that time were not subject to military service. Instead, the poor were being thrown into the battlefield, sacrificed by their own government and their own countrymen. At the age of thirteen, Goldman had witnessed the clash of the autocrats and the Russian intellectuals in St. Petersburg, the city in which her family had moved to. Promptly after the death of the Russian martyrs, the spirit of revolt swept the nation, including the young Emma Goldman. A few years after, Emma emigrated to America with her older sister, Helene. Emma, seventeen at that time, was filled with the idea of equality and freedom. It was America, the land of the free. Her expectations failed her yet again. She found herself in a country wherein instead

of one tsar ruled, there were countless of them. The factory workers, considered as sexual commodities, were constantly being exploited and dehumanized. There was a loss of selfownership in the laboring class which led to massive strikes. Emma, being a factory worker, was exposed to these movements. Later on that year, strikers were massacred and the judicial murder of labor leaders triggered Emmas interest in Socialism and Anarchism. Emma studied these socio-political ideals and attended Anarchist seminars. By 1889, she became the German and Yidding speaker at Anarchist meetings at the age of twenty. The following year, she was given the privilege to become the delegate to an Anarchist conference in New York. She was active in the strikes and advocated the idea of Anarchism. In 1893, Emma was apprehended for inciting riot and was sent to prison for a year. She was the first woman to be arrested for a political offense. Her life in prison only intensified her idealistic view of Anarchism. She became more active than ever and was eagerly welcomed by her fellow Anarchists. Leaders of prominent movements began to woo her, wanting her to endorse their cause. In 1897, Emma had her great lecture and toured America. She became the key speaker, not only in her second home, but also in parts of Europe such as France and Italy. Emma lived her life fighting for Anarchism. Many were inspired by her enthusiasm and idealism. Emma passed away in 1940, a few days after enduring her second stroke.

What would come into ones mind when one heard of the word, Anarchy? It was ruthless and chaotic. It was an ideal in which all political, economic and social institutions were

considered as irrelevant. It was in the manifestation of this concept that one could witness immense acts of defiance and civil disobedience. Most people would turn their heads away in revulsion with the thought of such a primitive social orderor disorder, a more befitting word for the foes of Anarchy. Unfortunately, I was not most people. My prior impression of anarchy was not much different from the majority who believed that human progress would most likely be achieved through protecting and preserving all peoples in the form of a State. Long after Emma Goldmans time, the champions of Anarchy had distorted and maimed the very essence of the movement. Just recently, CNN correspondent, Frederik Pleitgen reported in an article (Dec. 2011), that a bomb from the Italian anarchist group, Federazione Anarchica Informale (FAI) was intercepted by the New York Police. The target was said to be Deutsche Bank CEO Josef Ackermann. It also included a note which said, three explosions against banks, bankers, ticks and blood suckers. Reports like these about anarchists had become uncommon. Anarchy had become synonymous to violence and radicalism. It was only natural for the public to be skeptical and aggravated by this political ideal. In the essay, Anarchism: What It Really Stands For, Goldman discussed the two major arguments of those who opposed anarchy. The first was that Anarchism was a beautiful ideal but was impractical. The second one, I had already mentioned, it stood for violence and destruction. In the practicality argument, Goldman said that what was in question was that, whether the scheme has vitality enough to leave the stagnant waters of the old, and build, as well as

sustain, new life. She added further that Anarchism embodied this characteristic and was, therefore, practical. With regard to the violent and destructive character of Anarchism, she argued, the most violent element in society is ignorance . . . that it requires less mental effort to condemn than to think . . . Anarchism urges man to think, to investigate, to analyze every proposition. With her line of reasoning in mind, it would be possible to conclude that Anarchism was not merely the realization of a socio-political theory but was in fact, a philosophy that dealt with the expansion of mans consciousness. Perhaps, my thoughts about the matter could be better justified by a few quotes from Neale Donald Walschs book, Conversations with God Book Two, (1997): Originally, governments had very limited functions. Their purpose was simply to preserve and protect. Then someone added provide. When governments began to be the peoples provider, as well as the peoples protector, governments started creating society, rather than preserving it. (p. 133)

You cannot legislate morality. You cannot mandate equality. What is needed is a shift of collective consciousness, not an enforcer of collective conscience. (p. 135)

Certain civil lawsrules and regulationsare required in your primitive society. (You understand that in non-primitive societies such laws are unnecessary. All beings regulate themselves.) (p. 167)

Goldman defined Anarchism as the philosophy of a new social order based on liberty unrestricted by man-made laws. Most likely, the abrupt abolition of laws would lead to chaos and confusion. It would not be enough to liberate man through this. Man, as a creative being, should be able to evolve simultaneously with the idea. It would not be sufficient to simply demand change. It would take developing ones self, mentally, physically and spiritually. Without the recognition of growth and compromise, Anarchism, as well as other socio-political theories, would always be vehicles for oppression and devastation. With regard to the essence of Anarchism, Goldman mentioned three institutions that according to her, had not only limited mans freedom but had taken it away completely: religion, property and government. The following statements from her essay had described the function of the three institutions in an anarchists perspective: Religion! How it dominates mans 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 terrible exacting that naught but gloom and tears and blood have ruled the world since gods began. (p. 3)

The only demand that property recognizes is its own gluttonous appetite for greater wealth, because wealth means power . . . Real wealth consists in things of utility and beauty, in things that help 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. (p. 3-4)

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. (p. 4) Religion, as a matter of fact, had divided people more than it had united them. Wars in the name of gods had been documented throughout history. Even today, in the 21st century, ideas and actions had been defended and attacked in the name of God, for the sake of Holy Scriptures. People had become blind because of religion. I had been a nonbeliever of religion for a long time now but I had always been a believer of spirituality. In Neale Donald Walshs Conversations with God Book One, the character of God stated: You have projected the role of parent unto God, and thus have come up with a God who judges and rewards or punishes, based on how good He feels about what youve been up to. But this is a simplistic view of God, based on your mythology. It has nothing to do with Who I Am. (p. 17) Through this parent-God analogy, I was able to produce my own theory about the structure of government. Greek mythology for instance, had many gods in which every one had been assigned roles: Ares, the god of war, Athena, the goddess of wisdom, Demeter, the goddess of agriculture, et cetera. Each one of these gods had been replaced by the government. In the Philippine setting for example, these gods had become the Department of National Defense, the

Department of Education and the Department of Agriculture. Thus, over time, man had become conscious of his own power. In Platos the Republic, he justified why the abolition of the family was important to his ideal society. He argued that this act would eliminate the possessive trait of man. Everyone would become children of the State. This included material possessions such as money and land. Therefore, wealth and ownership would no longer hinder mans judgment. Bearing all of these things in mind, the relationship of religion, property and the government had never been far apart. The complexity of each of their structures had been patterned after the smallest unit of society: family. A punishment-reward system had become too dominant in these institutions. Goldman, in her essay, quoted Peter Kropotkin with regard to this system. Kropotkin stated that punishing people through imprisonment had never been effective. This had only led to the degradation of wrong-doers in which self-respect was lost. If law and punishment were to be removed, would it then mean that man would truly be free, free in a sense that he would be allowed to do whatever he wished whether or not it led to the destruction of others or the self? The key to being free would require one to be conscious of his freedom. Consciousness would aid man in achieving a higher understanding of himself and his relationship to everything else. Friedrich Nietzsche claimed in his book, Beyond Good and Evil, that man alone had restricted himself through establishing morality, law, religion, et cetera. Before civilization was born, communities were built around collective understandings of conduct and reason. There was

no need to formally govern, control and enforce these laws. They were simply there and they were simply followed. The only difference between imperialism and democracy was that democracy was constitutional. It was allowed by the people. What if the public was merely indifferent or was kept ignorant by the government, could constitutionalism still justify its function? It would be in this very instance that Emersons claim would make sense: that all government was tyranny. Could the implementation of Anarchy aid man in his evolution? Goldman dubbed Anarchy as the teacher of the unity of life; not merely in nature, but in man. If this were to be the essence of the anarchist movement, perhaps it could. The most important part of all this would be the shift in consciousness, not only as an individual but as a race as well. To establish laws for the betterment of the community would be the steppingstone but to embody these laws without the need to enforce them would have to be the end goal. Each and every member of society would have to function according to identical levels of consciousness: a mutual understanding of himself and the world around him. If Anarchy had never been the solution to human conflict, would it be logical to conclude that the current forms of government had always been adequate? Most likely, not. In the Philippines for instance, authoritarianism nor democracy had the capacity to compensate for the countrys lack of socio-political and economic stability. What had been the cause of the Philippines inefficiency? It was brought about by its premature independence. The Philippines was not economically self-reliant when the United States granted its independence. In turn, the soci-political well-being of the country was compromised to compensate for that lack.

Goldman worded the method in which Anarchism should carry out its purpose so beautifully. She said, The new social order rests, of course, on the materialistic basis of life; but while all Anarchists agree that the main evil today is an economic one, they maintain that the solution of that evil can be brought about only through the consideration of every phase of life, individual, as well as the collective; the internal, as well as the external phases. She stated further that what hindered human growth was the friction between individual and social instincts. What man had done for the past decades was to pattern himself after the ideals and norms of the society in which he belonged to. What if this process was reversed? Would it be efficient if men created societies, instead of men being created out of them? Goldman stated that Anarachy, is a living force in the affairs of our life, constantly creating new conditions . . . Methods must grow out of the economic needs of each place and clime, and of the intellectual and temperamental requirements of the individual. Anarchy, therefore, had been founded on the right to love and live freely. Goldman continually emphasized that all peoples had to be free of the tyrannical rule of the majority and established governments, of the disharmony that was rooted in a one-sided economy and the continuous restraint of human thought. Anarchy, in Goldmans words, had been, the philosophy of the sovereignty of the individual. It is the theory of social harmony. It is the great, surging, living truth that is reconstructing the world, and that will usher us in the Dawn.

Sources:

Curtis, Michael (Ed.). (1981). The greeks. The great political theories (Vol. 1). New York, NY: Avon Books Goldman, Emma (1910). Anarchism: what it really stands for. Anarchism and other essays. Mother Earth Publishing Association Hamilton, Edith (1942). Mythology. New York, NY: Grand Central Publishing Nietzsche, Friedrich (1998). Beyond good and evil. (Marion Faber, Trans.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. (Original work published 1886) Pleitgen, Frederik (2011, December 8). Note from Italian anarchist group found with bank bomb. CNN. Retrieved from http://edition.cnn.com/2011/12/08/world/europe/germany-deutschebank-bomb/index.html?hpt=ieu_c2 Walsche, Neale Donald (1995). Conversations with god, book one. London, UK: Hodder Headline PLC Walsche, Neale Donald (1997). Conversations with god, book two. London, UK: Hodder Headline PLC