8 ms·

At the dances I was one of the most untiring and gayest. One evening a cousin of Sasha [Alexander Berkman], a young boy, took me aside. With a grave face, as if

At the dances I was one of the most untiring and gayest. One evening a cousin of Sasha [Alexander Berkman], a young boy, took me aside. With a grave face, as if he were about to announce the death of a dear comrade, he whispered to me that it did not behoove an agitator to dance. Certainly not with such reckless abandon, anyway. It was undignified for one who was on the way to become a force in the anarchist movement. My frivolity would only hurt the Cause. I grew furious at the impudent interference of the boy. I told him to mind his own business, I was tired of having the Cause constantly thrown into my face. I did not believe that a Cause which stood for a beautiful ideal, for anarchism, for release and freedom from conventions and prejudice, should demand the denial of life and joy. I insisted that our Cause could not expect me to become a nun and that the movement should not be turned into a cloister. If it meant that, I did not want it. "I want freedom, the right to self-expression, everybody's right to beautiful, radiant things." -- Emma Goldman, Living My Life (1931) http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/goldman/Features/danceswithfeminists.html http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/goldman/Features/danceswithfemin...

AndrewKemendo 8y ago
Goldman wasn't the kind of socialist that Orwell is describing. Orwell was obsessively critical of Authoritarian Socialism - namely big [S] State Socialism as represented by the Soviet Union. That is in stark contrast with Goldman's Democratic Anarcho-Socialism which shares little relation - philosophically or sentimentally - with the State Socialism that Orwell was writing about.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  Orwell was obsessively critical of Authoritarian Socialism - namely big [S] State Socialism as represented by the Soviet Union. I don't think George Orwell would necessarily be cotton to variations of Authoritarian Socialism implemented in very large corporations. That is in stark contrast with Goldman's Democratic Anarcho-Socialism which shares little relation - philosophically or sentimentally - with the State Socialism that Orwell was writing about. I have friends who claim to be "anarcho-" something, who at the same time espouse state socialist politics. Their action in aggregate is often authoritarian, and I don't see how any anarchic politics can prevent the oppressive rule of a majority. As such mechanisms play out in my private life, it seems that anarchy results in less diversity of thought and virulent oppression of minority viewpoints. EDIT: My corollary -- Oppressive tribalism is just a later stage development of anarchy.
  - AndrewKemendo 8y ago
    My post was a historical contextualization about the thrust and focus of Orwell's criticism of Socialism, as the parent seemed to be trying to object to the premise with an anecdote from a "socialist" with whimsical predilections. The implicit point there, being that there was a categorical error being made. I do not claim to say anything about possible or theoretical corollaries that Orwell may or may not have drawn around hierarchical structures more broadly. To your last point, conflicts around self-organizing groups and spontaneous formation of oppressive hierarchies is an ongoing debate within Anarchistic philosophy itself, so no new ground tread there simply by stating it. See: Proudhoun, Bakunin, Kropotkin etc...
    - stcredzero 8y ago
      In that case, you really need to do something about self styled "anarchists" on social media declaring that they can do any evil to fight evil, so long as they use just a little less evil. From what I can see, thought leadership doesn't reach the "anarchist" on the street, leaving them to wallow in a toxic tribalism which is welcoming of nihilistic violence. Have all the erudite debates you want. Others are presenting a far different face to the public. The fact that the media will then dissemble and cover for such actions and attitudes then makes it all much worse. Or is it ok to use evil to fight evil, so long as you use a little less?
      - AndrewKemendo 8y ago
        Well, Anarchism has been pretty successfully demonized, misinterpreted and put into the "evil" bin with every other -ism except for capitalism. Kind of hard to organize when you're whole philosophy is allergic to hierarchical structures. When Noam Chomsky is your most famous public personality it's hard to build a broad and passionate following. I don't see it getting anything like mainstream traction ever, as it's a lifestyle as much as it is a philosophy. I also don't think it's how people naturally behave. People seem to like to be ruled, so long as they have just enough freedom.
        8y ago
- CaptainSwing 8y ago
  The socialist getting the most attention in this article is actually William Morris, who tended towards more libertarian ideas of socialism, though not as anti-statist as Goldman. Morris and Orwell were probably fairly close to eachother in terms of how they positioned themselves on the socialist spectrum of their time, both being kind of anarcho-curious state socialists You're right Orwell had a vendetta against the soviet union and similar 'authoritarian' socialisms, but I think this article reads closer to a good faith self-criticism directed towards his peers rather than a dig at authoritarianism.

AndrewKemendo 8y ago

Goldman wasn't the kind of socialist that Orwell is describing. Orwell was obsessively critical of Authoritarian Socialism - namely big [S] State Socialism as represented by the Soviet Union. That is in stark contrast with Goldman's Democratic Anarcho-Socialism which shares little relation - philosophically or sentimentally - with the State Socialism that Orwell was writing about.

stcredzero 8y ago
Orwell was obsessively critical of Authoritarian Socialism - namely big [S] State Socialism as represented by the Soviet Union. I don't think George Orwell would necessarily be cotton to variations of Authoritarian Socialism implemented in very large corporations. That is in stark contrast with Goldman's Democratic Anarcho-Socialism which shares little relation - philosophically or sentimentally - with the State Socialism that Orwell was writing about. I have friends who claim to be "anarcho-" something, who at the same time espouse state socialist politics. Their action in aggregate is often authoritarian, and I don't see how any anarchic politics can prevent the oppressive rule of a majority. As such mechanisms play out in my private life, it seems that anarchy results in less diversity of thought and virulent oppression of minority viewpoints. EDIT: My corollary -- Oppressive tribalism is just a later stage development of anarchy.
- AndrewKemendo 8y ago
  My post was a historical contextualization about the thrust and focus of Orwell's criticism of Socialism, as the parent seemed to be trying to object to the premise with an anecdote from a "socialist" with whimsical predilections. The implicit point there, being that there was a categorical error being made. I do not claim to say anything about possible or theoretical corollaries that Orwell may or may not have drawn around hierarchical structures more broadly. To your last point, conflicts around self-organizing groups and spontaneous formation of oppressive hierarchies is an ongoing debate within Anarchistic philosophy itself, so no new ground tread there simply by stating it. See: Proudhoun, Bakunin, Kropotkin etc...
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    In that case, you really need to do something about self styled "anarchists" on social media declaring that they can do any evil to fight evil, so long as they use just a little less evil. From what I can see, thought leadership doesn't reach the "anarchist" on the street, leaving them to wallow in a toxic tribalism which is welcoming of nihilistic violence. Have all the erudite debates you want. Others are presenting a far different face to the public. The fact that the media will then dissemble and cover for such actions and attitudes then makes it all much worse. Or is it ok to use evil to fight evil, so long as you use a little less?
    - AndrewKemendo 8y ago
      Well, Anarchism has been pretty successfully demonized, misinterpreted and put into the "evil" bin with every other -ism except for capitalism. Kind of hard to organize when you're whole philosophy is allergic to hierarchical structures. When Noam Chomsky is your most famous public personality it's hard to build a broad and passionate following. I don't see it getting anything like mainstream traction ever, as it's a lifestyle as much as it is a philosophy. I also don't think it's how people naturally behave. People seem to like to be ruled, so long as they have just enough freedom.
      - 8y ago
CaptainSwing 8y ago
The socialist getting the most attention in this article is actually William Morris, who tended towards more libertarian ideas of socialism, though not as anti-statist as Goldman. Morris and Orwell were probably fairly close to eachother in terms of how they positioned themselves on the socialist spectrum of their time, both being kind of anarcho-curious state socialists You're right Orwell had a vendetta against the soviet union and similar 'authoritarian' socialisms, but I think this article reads closer to a good faith self-criticism directed towards his peers rather than a dig at authoritarianism.