
Was My Life Worth Living? (1934) - t0dd
http://ucblibrary3.berkeley.edu/goldman/Writings/Essays/lifework.html
======
ahultgren
I've never understood (even after reading this article) how anyone who's anti-
authoritarian can honestly believe that removing a government is a good idea.
The author claims that it's human nature to abuse power as an argument in
favor of anarchism. But to me it seems very obvious that that is exactly what
will happen if people are left without constraints. Those who can get some
power will get more, and there's nothing to stop them.

So, is there anyone who sympathise with the author who would like to explain
how a society could become more equal/fair/anything positive without a
government?

~~~
jahaja
I do sympathise with the author and I think that on the countrary, if people
were more involved in their society, which is a major part of anarchism and
the decentralisation it promotes, such people would have a much harder time
aquiring such power than today. Today, those kind of people have whole
instutions adjusted to such aims, the government and capitalism.

Thus, the aim is to build a society that people want to defend by themselves,
not just a paid subgroup - e.g the police or military.

Regarding fairness and equality there's a lot of things that anarchism
promotes, here's a few controversial:

* Socialism

* Decentralisation and organisation from the bottom up.

* Abolishment of the ownership of land and private property.

And no, the last point does not mean that someone will steal your toothbrush,
rather that someone should not be able to amass the tools of explotation, such
as more industry/machines than one can use by oneselve or acquire land that
one cannot possibly culativate by their own.

~~~
Nursie
>>if people were more involved in their society

I think I see the flaw in your plan...

Most folks would rather delegate AFAICT.

~~~
unicornporn
And that might be because politics seem distant, irrelevant, unalterable and
(maybe as a result of this) plain boring. If politics and power became more
decentralized, perhaps it would become more relevant and engaging to people.

~~~
sliverstorm
Or maybe it could just be that we've had a taste of politics in our private
lives, and decided we would much rather spend our time coding.

------
marmaduke
Reading this essay gives the impression that this person was singular, and her
time singular as well.

I was always told anarchism implied violence and generally other bad things,
but after reading Graeber's "Debt: the first 5000 years", I chanced upon
"Anarchy works"

[http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-gelderloos-
anar...](http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-gelderloos-anarchy-
works)

which is interesting to read, for at least the depictions of how anarchism has
played out in several previous situations, socially and economically.

~~~
rubidium
That was a nice read. Thanks for the link.

I also read Graeber's Debt, and then his Democracy Project. The one thing I
can't shake in all of the anarchist literature is what seems to be a
fundamental assumption that an individualist altruism can be the foundation of
all societies worldwide. It may work sometimes and in certain societies (with
certain natural economies), but the abuse and indifference so often found in
human society makes a strong case against such human governance possible on
any large scale.

"If men were angels, no government would be necessary."

~~~
thenerdfiles
How can we know if we are not angels with a handful of milleniums of
governments and religious institutions actively engaged in telling us we are
not?

Structural Oppression is a real thing.

~~~
rubidium
Because it didn't start that way. Because _nearly_ every society shows signs
of warfare, banding together, governance and structuring society in some sort
of hierarchical way. Because even when there is absolutely no reason for
someone to _not_ help someone they see in need, they sometimes don't.

Now, this doesn't say we can't make it better, and that anarchists experiments
aren't worth trying. But to assert that all hierarchical structuring of
society is necessarily bad seems completely unfounded, and misses what good
things hierarchical structure brings to human society.

~~~
thenerdfiles
Example: Einstein. This is an example of someone escaping hierarchical society
to give us an unquestionable good. Giordano Bruno, Baruch Spinoza, Galileo,
the nominalist Peter Abelard; goods that had to circumnavigate hierarchical
society.

If I say "a handful of millenniums" I am pointing to the evidence of history.
Splinter groups and revolutionaries both of thought and action resisting
governments have given us the goods we receive. To say that hierarchical
society is the backdrop behindwhich they do good works is begging the
question.

Moreover, simply because hierarchical society has done good for us, on the
average, does not meant it MUST continue to do so. As I stated earlier,
Chomksy, etc. have argued for why anarchism MUST work, not that it works more
often than non-anarchisms.

~~~
lmm
Bruno and Galileo are more memorable than their contemporaries who worked more
closely within the hierarchy, but achieved less if you assess their
contributions objectively.

>Moreover, simply because hierarchical society has done good for us, on the
average, does not meant it MUST continue to do so.

Sure. But extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

~~~
thenerdfiles
Extraordinary means require extraordinary measures.

------
confluence
Great essay in its early stages, where she talked about how we should always
fight for freedom and equality. But she lost me on the second half. Anarchy is
the same as having a government, except instead of having one entity
terrorizing the population, you get thousands of psychopaths terrorizing the
population. People are fundamentally shitty organisms. Giving them free rein,
either as a dictator of one government, or as the leader of a band of
marauding anarchists, is never a good idea. Monopolizing violence and creating
protections against the corruption of government by the strong at the expense
of the weak should be the goal.

Democratic balanced government with strong individual protections is a good
thing if it is protected from corruption. If not, you just end up with a
kleptocracy.

Government is just another tool. It can be used for good or evil. It's up to
us to make it stay on the right side of the line.

~~~
CamperBob2
Also, it's not useful to refer to "government" as the thing being opposed by
anarchism. What they are really opposing is hierarchical organization in
general.

I used to be more sympathetic to that point of view, but I eventually realized
that too many nifty things (such as the computer I'm typing on) could not
possibly have come into existence without a disciplined, well-managed
hierarchy of some sort. Somebody has to be the boss, or we might as well all
go climb back into the trees.

------
daviddaviddavid
I am as taken by the form as I am by the content. What beautiful writing.
While there's something to be said for concision, an essay like this shows
that medium-to-large sentences can be deployed to great effect. It almost
feels like she's establishing a cadence at points.

~~~
t0dd
I'm happy to hear you've had the same reaction to it I've always had. The
words flow with some supernatural precision. I always return to it, for the
beautiful writing, for reminders of her lifelong commitment to an ideal. If
you want to read more from her, check out her autobiography: "Living My Life"
[http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/emma-goldman-
living-m...](http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/emma-goldman-living-my-
life)

------
tomcam
We do get that she was an admitted terrorist and conspired to murder a man,
right?
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emma_Goldman#Homestead_plot](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emma_Goldman#Homestead_plot)

~~~
camdez
Allow me to play devil's advocate for a moment...

Most of us, for fairly obvious reasons, decry the use of violence by
individuals, yet we are all complicit in the use of violence by the state. Our
democratic governments imprison and kill in our names both in war and for the
enforcement of our laws. Sometimes (often?) wrongfully.

Why is our collective violence de rigueur but individual violence is
immediately presumed to be evil and wrong?

Presumably use of violence by the state is intended to be "justified"; i.e. it
is not random, emotional, or for gain (except, perhaps a societal gain of
increased safety), but either for the cause of "justice", or for safety--and
these calculated, functional properties with an aim of public good make the
action acceptable.

The obvious difficulty of individual violence is the tendency for it to be
emotional or for personal gain, or for a lack of rigor in establishment of
guilt in the presumed crime of the victim. But _if_ guilt has been firmly
established, if the target of violence has, beyond a shadow of a doubt,
committed heinous acts, then what is the fundamental difference? Isn't the
elimination of a destructive force by an individual precisely the same in
outcome as the elimination of the same force by a collection of individuals?

And in a thoroughly corrupt system which promotes, protects, and encourages
these destructive forces--or a system which feigns to protect and represent
its citizens (but doesn't actually do so)--mustn't the responsibilities of
protecting and shepherding _at some point_ eventually fall to the citizens
themselves? Surely evil carrying your banner is still evil?

Now don't get me wrong, I'm no proponent of violence. I think (even) our
government should commit considerably less violence. I think we generally
_need_ to scorn violence by the individual because of the likelihood that it
be unrigorous, emotional, or selfish. But I don't know that the difference in
emotional weight between "kill" and "murder"\--that is to say " _unlawfully_
kill"\--should be so great. It seems to me that the philosophical basis for
the two should be the same, rather than scorning one and supporting the other
because it carries a badge.

~~~
vasilipupkin
when you conspire to kill another human being for whatever reason - it is a
decision that you alone are making and have the full power to stop at any
time, so you bear the full responsibility for it. When your state orders you
to nuke Hiroshima, for example, it's a much more complicated situation,
however horrific. So the two situations cannot be compared directly

~~~
camdez
Choosing to kill with non-governmental violence does not mean that the
decision is made alone. In fact, the particular assassination in question was
a plot involving multiple individuals. Killing via the government is a group
decision involving more individuals. What is the magic number of individuals
at which we no longer have to evaluate the morality of the situation? And, if
such a number exists, what defines it?

And yes, the individuals perpetrating the action bear responsibility. But if
the action is the correct one, then they bear responsibility for doing the
right thing, no? Surely _statehood_ is not an inherent justification for
violence; the underlying action always has to be the correct one, regardless
of the perpetrator.

I completely agree that state-ordered violence is complicated, but you’ve only
begged the question that it cannot be compared to individual (or smaller-
group) violence, not given a reason why it cannot.

------
donniefitz2
The article was interesting as I haven't had much exposure to anarchist
thought. But I'm bothered by one glaring assumption and that is, just what
does she mean by freedom or liberty?

Obviously she means freedom from external forces such as governments and other
institutions, but the way she refers to it, it's as if it's something more
than that. What she's referring to seems more comprehensive, idyllic or
transcendent even.

Anyone, any anarchists, care to elaborate on a rough definition of freedom
within that frame of thinking?

~~~
nutball
Good question. Early anarchists use the words 'freedom' and 'liberty' in a
vague manner. This is OK, because anarchy isn't a theory that needs to be
based on logical assumptions. It's not a theory at all, but a tendency and a
force against the existent. Goldman is using the words in a transcendent
fashion, so that when (old) anarchists say 'freedom,' they mean a vague
situation beyond the State, unknowable for now- a dream worth fighting for.

Present-day anarchists almost never use the two words in part because of their
vagueness and inherent liberalism and in part because of their modern co-
optation by neoliberalism and the right. Liberals use the words 'freedom' and
'liberty' to mean the agency of property owners to do what they will with
their property and the right to possess things so that others may not use
them. It's about markets and money. Freedom of speech, 'having your say,' is
important in the marketplace of ideas, where ideas are flattened and life is
exorcised.

The anarchist tendency views 'freedom' as the ability to live one's life in a
way of their own choosing. It's certainly freedom in the communist sense: the
ability to freely access the goods, food, housing, clothes, etc. necessary for
life. But anarchy is also freedom from the influences of the State,
patriarchy, civilization, white supremacy, all of the great forces which seek
to corral us and fuck with our lives and desires.

~~~
donniefitz2
Exactly what I was looking for. Thanks.

------
ljlolel
Where are today's anarchists?

~~~
moxie
See: [http://www.crimethinc.com](http://www.crimethinc.com)

Also, it looks like you're in the Bay Area. You can stop by Bound Together
Books in SF, The Long Haul Infoshop in Berkeley, or The Holdout in Oakland.

The East Bay Anarchist Conversation and Book Event is next Saturday at
Humanist Hall in Oakland: [http://eastbayanarchist.com/the-second-annual-east-
bay-anarc...](http://eastbayanarchist.com/the-second-annual-east-bay-
anarchist-conversation-book-event/)

As an entrepreneur, you might also be interested to read about the anarchist
community's overlap with the creation of projects such as Twitter (see the
Institute for Applied Autonomy), as well as the early emphasis on self-
publishing through projects like Indymedia.

~~~
cinquemb
I just came across iSee[0]. Do you know if it has an API? It would be really
cool to try to automatically plot routes to places without surveillance
cameras.

[0]
[http://66.93.183.118:8080/isee/s1?zm=0&id=5876](http://66.93.183.118:8080/isee/s1?zm=0&id=5876)

------
javajosh
There is definitely a thick, deep, wide current of "gov love" in pop culture,
and it's good to question it. It's expressed in movies (and TV shows) where
government representatives solve problems for the common people. Those reps
can be cops, James Bond, S.H.I.E.L.D. agents, or what have you. They are the
heroes, the saviors. In these narratives, the government heroes swoop in to
protect the weak from being preyed on by the strong.

And yet there is no shortage of stories that highlight the incompetence,
corruption, and even out-right malicious intent of government, even popularly
elected ones. So it's not one-sided, at least.

In my view, what's missing from all such arguments is any kind of frame of
reference. The anarchist claim is unsatisfying, to say the least, that the
governments role is to maximize individual expression. To me, the best
possible world is not the one where people can express themselves.
Specifically, _the best possible world is the one which can colonize other
worlds_. And it could very well be that dictatorship would work for that
purpose (but I hope not).

Why is spreading life beyond earth so important? Because without doing that,
in the long run, life will end. And that is the closest I have come to having
an article of faith: that we humans are the stewards, and the hope, of all
life on earth. Unless we act, every living thing is doomed in the long run.
(Of course, the question arises: what if we colonize other worlds
successfully? What then? To which I answer: let's cross that bridge when we
get to it.)

With that frame, one can start to answer the question "Is Anarchy right?" The
answer that I come up with is: probably not. We have a lot of problems with
the way the US gov is structured, and particularly problems with how the
judicial branch oversees the executive and holds it accountable. That
important check seems to have degraded at virtually every level of society,
federal, state and local, and I believe represents the greatest societal
challenge we face. But is it a problem that is inherent to democracy, and
something only something like anarchy can fix?

Society is a lot like a life-raft, making high density human habitation
possible. Laws are the framework that any government provides and constitute
the lowest level interface you must support to participate in the maintenance
and growth of the life-raft. Basically: Don't speed. Don't kill people. Don't
steal stuff. Pay your taxes. If you do these things, you're mostly going to be
okay.

The real craziness starts with regulation, particularly when that regulation
doesn't fit the popular view of what that regulation is or what it's purpose
is. The three big national regulators that people think about when it comes to
"government interference" would be the FDA, the FCC, and the SEC. We find it
problematic when these organizations actively stop (and punish) small entities
looking to compete with larger ones, often for arbitrary and clearly corrupt
reasons. There is a revolving door between industry and government that is
difficult for non-specialists to penetrate. But it is my view that these
battles must be fought, and leadership (which starts with the President) must
pro-actively root out corruption and misapplication of the law. And the best
place to start with that, is simplicity. We need a profound reduction in the
size of the legal corpus. Adding a rule that, for the next 20 years, Congress
_must_ repeal 2 laws for every law pass would be a good start.

In any event, my point is that I don't think anarchy could lead us to the
highest goal of human society, the colonization of other worlds.
Authoritarianism, as distasteful as it is, is handy for large-scale, complex
tasks like that. I don't like it. But I don't see another option.

~~~
md224
> Why is spreading life beyond earth so important? Because without doing that,
> in the long run, life will end.

Why is that? Which existential threat are you referring to? Overpopulation?
The sun's transition into a red giant? (Not trying to be snarky, just looking
for clarification.)

I'm not sure I agree that prolonging the survival of life should be an
overriding goal that takes precedence over all other concerns. Firstly, there
is nothing _intrinsically_ good about life. It's a complex physical process,
one which has resulted in incredible emergent behaviors, but if all life were
to vanish tomorrow, the Universe wouldn't really be worse off. The Universe
has no goal, no desires (or at least none that we could claim to have
knowledge of at this point); it's simply a bunch of atoms interacting. So this
whole idea that "we must preserve the existence of life no matter what" has no
objective basis. It's more a result of our own struggle to find meaning in the
Universe, our own psychological need to believe that all of this isn't just
cosmic dust in the end.

My point: I don't think that human misery should be allowed in service of the
"greater goal" of keeping life around. Because why bother? What's the point of
sustaining life if misery is a prerequisite? If we can colonize other planets
and explore the Universe, that's great; I'm just saying that we shouldn't use
that as an _overriding_ goal above all other concerns. The "best possible
world" would be one in which everyone has the opportunity to pursue their
desires, as long as their desires don't conflict with the desires of other
living things (the feasibility of this scenario is another discussion
altogether).

And yes, I realize that if a giant asteroid were to strike the Earth tomorrow,
that would interfere with a lot of people's desires. I just think that "spread
at any cost" is a bad goal for humanity. If I had to choose between 100 more
years of life on Earth in which everyone lived peaceful, fulfilling lives vs.
one million more years of life spreading throughout the Universe at the cost
of significant anguish and poverty, I think I'd lean towards Option #1.

~~~
Houshalter
>The Universe has no goal, no desires (or at least none that we could claim to
have knowledge of at this point); it's simply a bunch of atoms interacting.

I don't think the universe has a goal but I wouldn't care if it did. I only
care about my own goals and I prefer the human race survive.

Just because the universe has no goal doesn't mean we shouldn't do or care
about anything.

~~~
md224
I agree completely; my nihilistic viewpoint was not meant to suggest inaction.
Rather, my point was that we cannot use "ensuring the continued existence of
life" as the sole justification for potentially oppressive structures of
power, as javajosh was suggesting.

In other words, don't try to sell me on Authoritarianism by saying "well, it
may suck for some people but it's our best way of getting off the planet, and
that's what matters most."

