ashercsb's review
Read for information, not enjoyment, and as such no star rating.
That having been said, I didn't love this, or even like it much of the time. Whereas Marx was old but timeless, still relevant today, this felt old and dated.
There were certainly interesting points in this book, especially those bits that talked about the philosophy of what might be called partial reform - for example, how women at the time had gotten some rights, but were still bound by some parts of society. Goldman generally argues against acceptance of anything short of full liberation, and I liked a lot of her points. That having been said, I felt any number of her points regarding fundamental natures of women among those arguments were hopelessly outdated and fundamentally unhelpful.
At its base, this is a book of invective against the status quo, and I found it severely lacking in theoretical rigour. There was no explicit discussion of or underpinning to Goldman's argument for revolution over reform, and so all the conversation I was able to have about this philosophical divide was at its heart drawn from the knowledge of those present. There was no view of how an anarchist society might function or address any structural challenges, just invective against the society of the time, and as someone who was already onboard for why that was less desirable, I found that rather useless.
In short, this is not a book of praxis or theory, and I think more modern authors have articulated all of these points more eloquently. I have no intention to reread this or find more of Goldman's writings.
That having been said, I didn't love this, or even like it much of the time. Whereas Marx was old but timeless, still relevant today, this felt old and dated.
There were certainly interesting points in this book, especially those bits that talked about the philosophy of what might be called partial reform - for example, how women at the time had gotten some rights, but were still bound by some parts of society. Goldman generally argues against acceptance of anything short of full liberation, and I liked a lot of her points. That having been said, I felt any number of her points regarding fundamental natures of women among those arguments were hopelessly outdated and fundamentally unhelpful.
At its base, this is a book of invective against the status quo, and I found it severely lacking in theoretical rigour. There was no explicit discussion of or underpinning to Goldman's argument for revolution over reform, and so all the conversation I was able to have about this philosophical divide was at its heart drawn from the knowledge of those present. There was no view of how an anarchist society might function or address any structural challenges, just invective against the society of the time, and as someone who was already onboard for why that was less desirable, I found that rather useless.
In short, this is not a book of praxis or theory, and I think more modern authors have articulated all of these points more eloquently. I have no intention to reread this or find more of Goldman's writings.
noodlespark's review
4.0
It's amazing and disheartening how relevant most of Emma's critiques remain, well over a century since this work's first publication.
ladyfriday's review
reflective
1.0
It's hard to summarize my critique of these essays because there are a lot of specific ideas to respond to with counter points, but my broad criticisms are:
1. The first essay "Anarchism: What it really stands for" did not enlighten me as to what anarchy does stand for - rather it appears to be an argument for revolting against capitalism and what system should replace it depends on the needs of the place and clime? It's easy enough to agree with the criticisms of Capitalism, but being completely vague on how or what to replace it with feels useless to me.
2. Her writing is extremely hyperbolic and emotional. This is more a matter of preference, but I don't find insulting your potential audience with grand statements ("That marriage is a failure none but the very stupid will deny") to be very convincing or arguing in good faith. These essays only serve as confirmation bias if you already agree with her outlook. I find it hard to believe she's very convincing to those who don't start out with the same sentiments as her.
3. There's a lot of internalized misogyny in these essays. Granted, she has a lot of forward thinking ideas on gender for the time, but brings a lot of "I'm not like those other silly, stupid women" energy to the discussions. And I will never understand her position AGAINST voting rights for women because she thinks no one should vote. Regardless of the political ideas she puts forth in that essay, she completely ignores the idea that women should have the right to vote because of equality (its only fair that women have an equal say in representation) not outcome (that women voting will make the country better).
1. The first essay "Anarchism: What it really stands for" did not enlighten me as to what anarchy does stand for - rather it appears to be an argument for revolting against capitalism and what system should replace it depends on the needs of the place and clime? It's easy enough to agree with the criticisms of Capitalism, but being completely vague on how or what to replace it with feels useless to me.
2. Her writing is extremely hyperbolic and emotional. This is more a matter of preference, but I don't find insulting your potential audience with grand statements ("That marriage is a failure none but the very stupid will deny") to be very convincing or arguing in good faith. These essays only serve as confirmation bias if you already agree with her outlook. I find it hard to believe she's very convincing to those who don't start out with the same sentiments as her.
3. There's a lot of internalized misogyny in these essays. Granted, she has a lot of forward thinking ideas on gender for the time, but brings a lot of "I'm not like those other silly, stupid women" energy to the discussions. And I will never understand her position AGAINST voting rights for women because she thinks no one should vote. Regardless of the political ideas she puts forth in that essay, she completely ignores the idea that women should have the right to vote because of equality (its only fair that women have an equal say in representation) not outcome (that women voting will make the country better).
aldoojeda's review against another edition
3.0
I really liked how Emma Goldman wrote, so full of passion and very lyrical. Most of the essays in this book have great insights, but without a doubt Anarchism: What It Really Stands For is the best one, it's a great introduction to the movement. But I can't help but wonder, Emma Goldman was very hopeful that things would change, more than a hundred years have passed and not much progress has been made to make her dream a living reality.
karis_dl's review
challenging
funny
slow-paced
3.75
This is a really interesting read. I had heard Goldman's name tossed around a couple times in academic settings and so I was intrigued to read the source material and see what she had to say. In case the title wasn't clear, this is a collection of essays on early 20th century anarchism. Goldman covers a range of topics from anarchism basics to nationalism, policing, the prison system, labour and wages, women's rights, marriage, and stage plays. I really enjoyed Goldman's definition of anarchy as a sort of collective commitment, its own kind of organization. This reading helped me clarify my understanding of anarchism which I think is super valuable. The chapters on policing and prisons were really interesting and I think unfortunately still remarkably relevant, they had me thinking about and wanting to re-read Angela Davis's work. In our current socio-political moment, I think the chapter on nationalism is also deeply important. Violent, (white supremacist) nationalism is a rising issue and we need to understand it in order to tackle it effectively. I also found the chapters on women's rights super fascinating. While Goldman does bring up some important and challenging ideas, she does at time seem to place too much onus on women for their own subjugation under patriarchy. I agree that looking inwards and pointing towards issues within our own communities is important but I think this could have been done with more nuance on Goldman's part. There are a couple of chapters that I found a little less engaging but I think that's because they are quite focused on Goldman's own temporal moment and so they perhaps don't translate as well if you are unfamiliar with some of the early 20th century figures she discusses. The chapter on plays and their role in spreading radical thought to the public was super cool, but felt sooooo out of place with the rest of the piece. Generally, I found her writing to be quite engaging and what struck me the most was just how funny Goldman manages to be. Her tone was so enjoyable and the humour is effective in making this content seem more down to earth.
angethology's review against another edition
informative
3.5
An essential read for comprehensive and passionate Anarchist ideas. Emma Goldman was ahead of her time in many ways and her works are justifiably angry yet inspiring, I particularly appreciate that she addresses the harmful aspects of "girl bossing" and an interesting outlook on women's emancipation for that time. That said, I still find that she often engages in gender essentialism in regard to "women's nature," and I find that part surprising given her understanding of how men and women are socialized.
Emma Goldman emphasizes the importance of liberating people's consciousness to their full potential as individuals, but also focus on their needs as a collective. People are inherently creative and willing to contribute to society, and capitalism hinders that, and at the same time, strains people's relationships due to wage slavery & the need to work constantly to meet ends meet. Her perspective regarding religion on an institutional level, specifically Puritanism is also salient in how the lack of freedom and capitalistic ideas are realized.
Some important quotes that stick with me:
-The individual is the heart of society, conserving the essence of social life; society is the lungs which are distributing the element to keep the life essence—that I, the individual—pure and strong.
- Anarchism is the great liberator it man from the phantoms that have held him captive; it is the arbiter and pacifier of the two forces for individual and social. harmony.
- Anarchism aims to strip labor of its deadening, dulling aspect of its gloom and compulsion. It aims to make work an instrument of joy, of strength, of color, of real harmony, so that the poorest sort of a man should find in work both recreation and hope.
- With human nature caged in a narrow space, whipped daily into submission, how can we speak if its potentialities?
- Puritanism is based on the Calvinistic idea that life is a curse, imposed upon man by the wrath of God.
-The motto should not be: forgive one another; rather, understand one another. To forgive one's fellow-being conveys the idea of pharaisaical superiority.
- What has she achieved through emancipation? Equal suffrage in a few states.
- The greatest shortcoming of the emanicaption of the present day lies in its artificial stiffness and its narrow respectabilities, which produce an emptiness in woman's soul that will not let her drink from the fountain of life.
- Love is free; it can dwell in no other atmosphere. In freedom it gives itself unreservedly, abundantly completely. All the laws on the statutes, all the courts in the universe, cannot tear it from the soil once love has taken root.
Emma Goldman emphasizes the importance of liberating people's consciousness to their full potential as individuals, but also focus on their needs as a collective. People are inherently creative and willing to contribute to society, and capitalism hinders that, and at the same time, strains people's relationships due to wage slavery & the need to work constantly to meet ends meet. Her perspective regarding religion on an institutional level, specifically Puritanism is also salient in how the lack of freedom and capitalistic ideas are realized.
Some important quotes that stick with me:
-The individual is the heart of society, conserving the essence of social life; society is the lungs which are distributing the element to keep the life essence—that I, the individual—pure and strong.
- Anarchism is the great liberator it man from the phantoms that have held him captive; it is the arbiter and pacifier of the two forces for individual and social. harmony.
- Anarchism aims to strip labor of its deadening, dulling aspect of its gloom and compulsion. It aims to make work an instrument of joy, of strength, of color, of real harmony, so that the poorest sort of a man should find in work both recreation and hope.
- With human nature caged in a narrow space, whipped daily into submission, how can we speak if its potentialities?
- Puritanism is based on the Calvinistic idea that life is a curse, imposed upon man by the wrath of God.
-The motto should not be: forgive one another; rather, understand one another. To forgive one's fellow-being conveys the idea of pharaisaical superiority.
- What has she achieved through emancipation? Equal suffrage in a few states.
- The greatest shortcoming of the emanicaption of the present day lies in its artificial stiffness and its narrow respectabilities, which produce an emptiness in woman's soul that will not let her drink from the fountain of life.
- Love is free; it can dwell in no other atmosphere. In freedom it gives itself unreservedly, abundantly completely. All the laws on the statutes, all the courts in the universe, cannot tear it from the soil once love has taken root.
eelokez's review
3.0
Absolutely silly to read what the 1800s were considering “the most dangerous woman in the world” and there’s a twenty page review of plays. Like this was very much platitudes>plotting. Victorian men were fr just scared of women thinking.
Anyway, thank you for being the namesake of my college town’s abortion clinic, Emma <3 I think it’s awesome that your thoughts were still underlinable in 2023, but I hope we move faster in the next century :)
Anyway, thank you for being the namesake of my college town’s abortion clinic, Emma <3 I think it’s awesome that your thoughts were still underlinable in 2023, but I hope we move faster in the next century :)
clovelatte's review
adventurous
challenging
hopeful
informative
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
5.0
I really enjoyed this book. It’s wild how much of what she was seeing in 1910 is still so relevant. Some good quotes:
“True social harmony grows naturally out of solidarity of interests. In a society where those who always work never have anything, while those who never work enjoy everything, solidarity of interests is nonexistent; hence social harmony is but a myth.”
“America is particularly boastful of her great power, her enormous, national wealth. Poor America, of what avail is all her wealth. If the individuals comprising the nation are wretchedly poor? If they live in squalor, in filth, in crime, with hope and joy gone, a homeless, soil-less, army of human prey.“
“True social harmony grows naturally out of solidarity of interests. In a society where those who always work never have anything, while those who never work enjoy everything, solidarity of interests is nonexistent; hence social harmony is but a myth.”
“America is particularly boastful of her great power, her enormous, national wealth. Poor America, of what avail is all her wealth. If the individuals comprising the nation are wretchedly poor? If they live in squalor, in filth, in crime, with hope and joy gone, a homeless, soil-less, army of human prey.“