💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › emma-goldman-what-i-believe.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 09:35:34. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
➡️ Next capture (2024-06-20)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: What I Believe Author: Emma Goldman Date: 1908 Language: en Topics: classical, introductory Source: Retrieved on March 15th, 2009 from http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/goldman/whatibelieve.html][dwardmac.pitzer.edu]]. Proofread online source [[http://www.revoltlib.com/?id=652, retrieved on July 5, 2020. Notes: From New York World, July 19, 1908.
“What I believe” has many times been the target of hack writers. Such
blood-curdling and incoherent stories have been circulated about me, it
is no wonder that the average human being has palpitation of the heart
at the very mention of the name Emma Goldman. It is too bad that we no
longer live in the times when witches were burned at the stake or
tortured to drive the evil spirit out of them. For, indeed, Emma Goldman
is a witch! True, she does not eat little children, but she does many
worse things. She manufactures bombs and gambles in crowned heads.
B-r-r-r!
Such is the impression the public has of myself and my beliefs. It is
therefore very much to the credit of The World that it gives its readers
at least an opportunity to learn what my beliefs really are.
The student of the history of progressive thought is well aware that
every idea in its early stages has been misrepresented, and the
adherents of such ideas have been maligned and persecuted. One need not
go back two thousand years to the time when those who believed in the
gospel of Jesus were thrown into the arena or hunted into dungeons to
realize how little great beliefs or earnest believers are understood.
The history of progress is written in the blood of men and women who
have dared to espouse an unpopular cause, as, for instance, the black
man’s right to his body, or woman’s right to her soul. If, then, from
time immemorial, the New has met with opposition and condemnation, why
should my beliefs be exempt from a crown of thorns?
“What I believe” is a process rather than a finality. Finalities are for
gods and governments, not for the human intellect. While it may be true
that Herbert Spencer’s formulation of liberty is the most important on
the subject, as a political basis of society, yet life is something more
than formulas. In the battle for freedom, as Ibsen has so well pointed
out, it is the struggle for, not so much the attainment of, liberty,
that develops all that is strongest, sturdiest and finest in human
character.
Anarchism is not only a process, however, that marches on with “sombre
steps,” coloring all that is positive and constructive in organic
development. It is a conspicuous protest of the most militant type. It
is so absolutely uncompromising, insisting and permeating a force as to
overcome the most stubborn assault and to withstand the criticism of
those who really constitute the last trumpets of a decaying age.
Anarchists are by no means passive spectators in the theatre of social
development; on the contrary, they have some very positive notions as
regards aims and methods.
That I may make myself as clear as possible without using too much
space, permit me to adopt the topical mode of treatment of “What I
Believe”:
“Property” means dominion over things and the denial to others of the
use of those things. So long as production was not equal to the normal
demand, institutional property may have had some raison d’être. One has
only to consult economics, however, to know that the productivity of
labor within the last few decades has increased so tremendously as to
exceed normal demand a hundred-fold, and to make property not only a
hindrance to human well-being, but an obstacle, a deadly barrier, to all
progress. It is the private dominion over things that condemns millions
of people to be mere nonentities, living corpses without originality or
power of initiative, human machines of flesh and blood, who pile up
mountains of wealth for others and pay for it with a gray, dull and
wretched existence for themselves. I believe that there can be no real
wealth, social wealth, so long as it rests on human lives — young lives,
old lives and lives in the making.
It is conceded by all radical thinkers that the fundamental cause of
this terrible state of affairs is
master.
Anarchism is the only philosophy that can and will do away with this
humiliating and degrading situation. It differs from all other theories
inasmuch as it points out that man’s development, his physical
well-being, his latent qualities and innate disposition alone must
determine the character and conditions of his work. Similarly will one’s
physical and mental appreciations and his soul cravings decide how much
he shall consume. To make this a reality will, I believe, be possible
only in a society based on voluntary cooperation of productive groups,
communities and societies loosely federated together, eventually
developing into a free communism, actuated by a solidarity of interests.
There can be no freedom in the large sense of the word, no harmonious
development, so long as mercenary and commercial considerations play an
important part in the determination of personal conduct.
I believe government, organized authority, or the State is necessary
only to maintain or protect property and monopoly. It has proven
efficient in that function only. As a promoter of individual liberty,
human well-being and social harmony, which alone constitute real order,
government stands condemned by all the great men of the world.
I therefore believe, with my fellow-Anarchists, that the statutory
regulations, legislative enactments, constitutional provisions, are
invasive. They never yet induced man to do anything he could and would
not do by virtue of his intellect or temperament, nor prevented anything
that man was impelled to do by the same dictates. Millet’s pictorial
description of “The Man with the Hoe,” Meunier’s masterpieces of the
miners that have aided in lifting labor from its degrading position,
Gorki’s descriptions of the underworld, Ibsen’s psychological analysis
of human life, could never have been induced by government any more than
the spirit which impels a man to save a drowning child or a crippled
woman from a burning building has ever been called into operation by
statutory regulations or the policeman’s club. I believe — indeed, I
know — that whatever is fine and beautiful in the human expresses and
asserts itself in spite of government, and not because of it.
The Anarchists are therefore justified in assuming that Anarchism — the
absence of government — will insure the widest and greatest scope for
unhampered human development, the cornerstone of true social progress
and harmony.
As to the stereotyped argument that government acts as a check on crime
and vice, even the makers of law no longer believe it. This country
spends millions of dollars for the maintenance of her “criminals” behind
prison bars, yet crime is on the increase. Surely this state of affairs
is not owing to an insufficiency of laws! Ninety percent of all crimes
are property crimes, which have their root in our economic iniquities.
So long as these latter continue to exist we might convert every
lamp-post into a gibbet without having the least effect on the crime in
our midst. Crimes resulting from heredity can certainly never be cured
by law. Surely we are learning even to-day that such crimes can
effectively be treated only by the best modern medical methods at our
command, and, above all, by the spirit of a deeper sense of fellowship,
kindness and understanding.
I should not treat of this subject separately, since it belongs to the
paraphernalia of government, if it were not for the fact that those who
are most vigorously opposed to my beliefs on the ground that the latter
stand for force are the advocates of militarism.
The fact is that Anarchists are the only true advocates of peace, the
only people who call a halt to the growing tendency of militarism, which
is fast making of this erstwhile free country an imperialistic and
despotic power.
The military spirit is the most merciless, heartless and brutal in
existence. It fosters an institution for which there is not even a
pretense of justification. The soldier, to quote Tolstoi, is a
professional man-killer. He does not kill for the love of it, like a
savage, or in a passion, like a homicide. He is a cold-blooded,
mechanical, obedient tool of his military superiors. He is ready to cut
throats or scuttle a ship at the command of his ranking officer, without
knowing or, perhaps, caring how, why or wherefore. I am supported in
this contention by no less a military light than Gen. Funston. I quote
from the latter’s communication to the New York Evening Post of June 30,
dealing with the case of Private William Buwalda, which caused such a
stir all through the Northwest. “The first duty of an officer or
enlisted man,” says our noble warrior, “is unquestioning obedience and
loyalty to the government to which he has sworn allegiance; it makes no
difference whether he approves of that government or not.”
How can we harmonize the principle of “unquestioning obedience” with the
principle of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”? The deadly
power of militarism has never before been so effectually demonstrated in
this country as in the recent condemnation by court-martial of William
Buwalda, of San Francisco, Company A, Engineers, to five years in
military prison. Here was a man who had a record of fifteen years of
continuous service. “His character and conduct were unimpeachable,” we
are told by Gen. Funston, who, in consideration of it, reduced Buwalda’s
sentence to three years. Yet the man is thrown suddenly out of the army,
dishonored, robbed of his chances of a pension and sent to prison. What
was his crime? Just listen, ye free-born Americans! William Buwalda
attended a public meeting, and after the lecture he shook hands with the
speaker. Gen. Funston, in his letter to the Post, to which I have
already referred above, asserts that Buwalda’s action was a “great
military offense, infinitely worse than desertion.” In another public
statement, which the General made in Portland, Ore., he said that
“Buwalda’s was a serious crime, equal to treason.”
It is quite true that the meeting had been arranged by Anarchists. Had
the Socialists issued the call, Gen. Funston informs us, there would
have been no objection to Buwalda’s presence. Indeed, the General says,
“I would not have the slightest hesitancy about attending a Socialist
meeting myself.” But to attend an Anarchist meeting with Emma Goldman as
speaker — could there be anything more “treasonable”?
For this horrible crime a man, a free-born American citizen, who has
given this country the best fifteen years of his life, and whose
character and conduct during that time were “unimpeachable,” is now
languishing in a prison, dishonored, disgraced and robbed of a
livelihood.
Can there be anything more destructive of the true genius of liberty
than the spirit that made Buwalda’s sentence possible — the spirit of
unquestioning obedience? Is it for this that the American people have in
the last few years sacrificed four hundred million dollars and their
hearts’ blood?
I believe that militarism — a standing army and navy in any country — is
indicative of the decay of liberty and of the destruction of all that is
best and finest in our nation. The steadily growing clamor for more
battleships and an increased army on the ground that these guarantee us
peace is as absurd as the argument that the peaceful man is he who goes
well armed.
The same lack of consistency is displayed by those peace pretenders who
oppose Anarchism because it supposedly teaches violence, and who would
yet be delighted over the possibility of the American nation soon being
able to hurl dynamite bombs upon defenseless enemies from flying
machines.
I believe that militarism will cease when the liberty-loving spirits of
the world say to their masters: “Go and do your own killing. We have
sacrificed ourselves and our loved ones long enough fighting your
battles. In return you have made parasites and criminals of us in times
of peace and brutalized us in times of war. You have separated us from
our brothers and have made of the world a human slaughterhouse. No, we
will not do your killing or fight for the country that you have stolen
from us.”
Oh, I believe with all my heart that human brotherhood and solidarity
will clear the horizon from the terrible red streak of war and
destruction.
The Buwalda case is only one phase of the larger question of free
speech, free press and the right of free assembly.
Many good people imagine that the principles of free speech or press can
be exercised properly and with safety within the limits of
constitutional guarantees. That is the only excuse, it seems to me, for
the terrible apathy and indifference to the onslaught upon free speech
and press that we have witnessed in this county within the last few
months.
I believe that free speech and press mean that I may say and write what
I please. This right, when regulated by constitutional provisions,
legislative enactments, almighty decisions of the Postmaster General or
the policeman’s club, becomes a farce. I am well aware that I will be
warned of consequences if we remove the chains from speech and press. I
believe, however, that the cure of consequences resulting from the
unlimited exercise of expression is to allow more expression.
Mental shackles have never yet stemmed the tide of progress, whereas
premature social explosions have only too often been brought about
through a wave of repression.
Will our governors never learn that countries like England, Holland,
Norway, Sweden and Denmark, with the largest freedom of expression, have
been freest from “consequences”? Whereas Russia, Spain, Italy, France
and, alas! even America, have raised these “consequences” to the most
pressing political factor. Ours is supposed to be a country ruled by the
majority, yet every policeman who is not vested with power by the
majority can break up a meeting, drag the lecturer off the platform and
club the audience out of the hall in true Russian fashion. The
Postmaster General, who is not an elective officer, has the power to
suppress publications and confiscate mail. From his decision there is no
more appeal than from that of the Russian Czar. Truly, I believe we need
a new Declaration of Independence. Is there no modern Jefferson or
Adams?
At the recent convention of the political remnants of a once
revolutionary idea it was voted that religion and vote getting have
nothing to do with each other. Why should they? “So long as man is
willing to delegate to the devil the care of his soul, he might, with
the same consistency, delegate to the politician the care of his rights.
That religion is a private affair has long been settled by the
Bis-Marxian Socialists of Germany. Our American Marxians, poor of blood
and originality, must needs go to Germany for their wisdom. That wisdom
has served as a capital whip to lash the several millions of people into
the well-disciplined army of Socialism. It might do the same here. For
goodness’ sake, let’s not offend respectability, let’s not hurt the
religious feelings of the people.
Religion is a superstition that originated in man’s mental inability to
solve natural phenomena. The Church is an organized institution that has
always been a stumbling block to progress.
Organized churchism has stripped religion of its naïveté and
primitiveness. It has turned religion into a nightmare that oppresses
the human soul and holds the mind in bondage. “The Dominion of Darkness,
as the last true Christian, Leo Tolstoi, calls the Church, has been a
foe of human development and free thought, and as such it has no place
in the life of a truly free people.
I believe these are probably the most tabooed subjects in this country.
It is almost impossible to talk about them without scandalizing the
cherished propriety of a lot of good folk. No wonder so much ignorance
prevails relative to these questions. Nothing short of an open, frank,
and intelligent discussion will purify the air from the hysterical,
sentimental rubbish that is shrouding these vital subjects, vital to
individual as well as social well-being.
Marriage and love are not synonymous; on the contrary, they are often
antagonistic to each other. I am aware of the fact that some marriages
are actuated by love, but the narrow, material confines of marriage, as
it is, speedily crush the tender flower of affection.
Marriage is an institution which furnishes the State and Church with a
tremendous revenue and the means of prying into that phase of life which
refined people have long considered their own, their very own most
sacred affair. Love is that most powerful factor of human relationship
which from time immemorial has defied all man-made laws and broken
through the iron bars of conventions in Church and morality. Marriage is
often an economic arrangement purely, furnishing the woman with a
lifelong life insurance policy and the man with a perpetuator of his
kind or a pretty toy. That is, marriage, or the training thereto,
prepares the woman for the life of a parasite, a dependent, helpless
servant, while it furnishes the man the right of a chattel mortgage over
a human life.
How can such a condition of affairs have anything in common with love? —
with the element that would forego all the wealth of money and power and
live in its own world of untrammeled human expression? But this is not
the age of romanticism, of Romeo and Juliet, Faust and Marguerite, of
moonlight ecstasies, of flowers and songs. Ours is a practical age. Our
first consideration is an income. So much the worse for us if we have
reached the era when the soul’s highest flights are to be checked. No
race can develop without the love element.
But if two people are to worship at the shrine of love, what is to
become of the golden calf, marriage? “It is the only security for the
woman, for the child, the family, the State.” But it is no security to
love; and without love no true home can or does exist. Without love no
child should be born; without love no true woman can be related to a
man. The fear that love is not sufficient material safety for the child
is out of date. I believe when woman signs her own emancipation, her
first declaration of independence will consist in admiring and loving a
man for the qualities of his heart and mind and not for the quantities
in his pocket. The second declaration will be that she has the right to
follow that love without let or hindrance from the outside world. The
third and most important declaration will be the absolute right to free
motherhood.
In such a mother and an equally free father rests the safety of the
child. They have the strength, the sturdiness, the harmony to create an
atmosphere wherein alone the human plant can grow into an exquisite
flower.
And now I have come to that point in my beliefs about which the greatest
misunderstanding prevails in the minds of the American public. “Well,
come, now, don’t you propagate violence, the killing of crowned heads
and Presidents?” Who says that I do? Have you heard me, has anyone heard
me? Has anyone seen it printed in our literature? No, but the papers say
so, everybody says so; consequently it must be so. Oh, for the accuracy
and logic of the dear public!
I believe that Anarchism is the only philosophy of peace, the only
theory of the social relationship that values human life above
everything else. I know that some Anarchists have committed acts of
violence, but it is the terrible economic inequality and great political
injustice that prompt such acts, not Anarchism. Every institution to-day
rests on violence; our very atmosphere is saturated with it. So long as
such a state exists we might as well strive to stop the rush of Niagara
as hope to do away with violence. I have already stated that countries
with some measure of freedom of expression have had few or no acts of
violence. What is the moral? Simply this: No act committed by an
Anarchist has been for personal gain, aggrandizement or profit, but
rather a conscious protest against some repressive, arbitrary,
tyrannical measure from above.
President Carnot, of France, was killed by Caserio in response to
Carnot’s refusal to commute the death sentence of Vaillant, for whose
life the entire literary, scientific and humanitarian world of France
had pleaded.
Bresci went to Italy on his own money, earned in the silk weaving mills
of Paterson, to call King Humbert to the bar of justice for his order to
shoot defenseless women and children during a bread riot. Angelino
executed Prime Minister Canovas for the latter’s resurrection of the
Spanish inquisition at Montjuich Prison. Alexander Berkman attempted the
life of Henry C. Frick during the Homestead strike only because of his
intense sympathy for the eleven strikers killed by Pinkertons and for
the widows and orphans evicted by Frick from their wretched little homes
that were owned by Mr. Carnegie.
Every one of these men not only made his reasons known to the world in
spoken or written statements, showing the cause that led to his act,
proving that the unbearable economic and political pressure, the
suffering and despair of their fellow-men, women and children prompted
the acts, and not the philosophy of Anarchism. They came openly, frankly
and ready to stand the consequences, ready to give their own lives.
In diagnosing the true nature of our social disease I cannot condemn
those who, through no fault of their own, are suffering from a
wide-spread malady.
I do not believe that these acts can, or ever have been intended to,
bring about the social reconstruction. That can only be done, first, by
a broad and wide education as to man’s place in society and his proper
relation to his fellows; and, second, through example. By example I mean
the actual living of a truth once recognized, not the mere theorizing of
its life element. Lastly, and the most powerful weapon, is the
conscious, intelligent, organized, economic protest of the masses
through direct action and the general strike.
The general contention that Anarchists are opposed to organization, and
hence stand for chaos, is absolutely groundless. True, we do not believe
in the compulsory, arbitrary side of organization that would compel
people of antagonistic tastes and interests into a body and hold them
there by coercion. Organization as the result of natural blending of
common interests, brought about through voluntary adhesion, Anarchists
do not only not oppose, but believe in as the only possible basis of
social life.
It is the harmony of organic growth which produces variety of color and
form — the complete whole we admire in the flower. Analogously will the
organized activity of free human beings endowed with the spirit of
solidarity result in the perfection of social harmony — which is
Anarchism. Indeed, only Anarchism makes non-authoritarian organization a
reality, since it abolishes the existing antagonism between individuals
and classes.