Scan barcode
A review by ladyfriday
Anarchism and Other Essays by Emma Goldman
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).