A review by ashercsb
Anarchism and Other Essays by Emma Goldman
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been said, I felt any number of her points regarding fundamental natures of women among those arguments were hopelessly outdated and fundamentally unhelpful.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been said, I felt any number of her points regarding fundamental natures of women among those arguments were hopelessly outdated and fundamentally unhelpful.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.