Mikhail Bakunin

Background 

Mikhail Aleksandrovich Bakunin was born on May 30th, 1814 in Premukhino, Russia and died in Bern, Switzerland on July 1st, 1876 (Smolensky, 2016). Bakunin’s father was a doctor of philosophy who believed deeply in the values of Enlightenment intellectuals and found a true interest in the ideas of Rousseau, specifically (Smolensky, 2016). This said, Bakunin grew, through the teachings of his father, to have similar beliefs (Smolensky, 2016). Bakunin placed more emphasis on the importance of reason than of faith, while also believing in the importance of “…individual consent to radical lengths.” (Smolensky, 2016). Values such as these give reasoning as to why and how he became an “… avowed atheist, materialist, and anarchist activist” (Knowles, 2002).

As a teenager, Mikhail Bakunin was sent to an artillery school in St. Petersburg and, eventually, “…posted to a military unit on the Polish frontier.” (Smolensky, 2016). Smolensky (2016) further notes that “the military life was not for Bakunin, and in 1835, he bolted from his unit, narrowly avoiding arrest and certain disgrace for desertion.” After such an experience avoiding authority, Bakunin had grown to despise it (Smolensky, 2016). This distaste for authority, along with the meeting and studying of other German philosophers, such as Fichte, Herzen, Hegel, and Belinsky, had propelled him into the career of anarchism he is most famously known for (Smolensky, 2016).

Historical Significance

As a devoted anarchist, Mikhail Bakunin had contributed the vast majority of his life and focus on the emancipation of humanity from all authority (Knowles, 2002). Said best by Smolensky (2016):

“For Bakunin, the very essence of humanity lay in thought and rebellion. Thought, or science, allowed human beings to understand the world around them in a way that other animals could never approach. Rebellion, or freedom, allowed human beings to exercise thought rather than blindly follow external authorities. To accept religious or political authority was, for Bakunin, to be less than fully human. The full development of humanity, in turn, demanded thoroughgoing social revolution, which would erase all manner of legal tyranny, class domination, and privilege, opening the way for true community.”

In 1848, Bakunin began his revolutionary career fighting alongside other working-class revolutionaries throughout European cities such as Paris (Smolensky, 2016). During this year, he also took part in revolutions in Germany and Poland and was seen at the Slav Congress in Prague (Smolensky, 2016). In 1849, Mikhail Bakunin took part in the insurrection in Dresden, Germany, where he was eventually arrested and held in a German prison until 1851, when he was sent to a prison in Russia (Smolensky, 2016). After an additional six years in the Russian prison, Bakunin was released and sent to Siberia (Smolensky, 2016). However, in 1861, Bakunin escaped Siberia and traveled to London. (Smolensky, 2016). In 1863, he took part in the Polish insurrection, reaching as far as Sweden, and the following year he traveled to Italy, where he successfully established a “…network of secret revolutionary societies across Europe.” (Smolensky, 2016). As Smolensky (2016) further states, “In 1868, Bakunin relocated to Geneva, where he joined the First International, a federation of various working-class parties for world socialism.” However, Bakunin and his followers were later removed from the First International due to conflict with Karl Marx, who sought out his removal (Smolensky, 2016).

The prolonged feud between Karl Marx and Mikhail Bakunin is a very recurrent topic when conducting research and discussing the histories of both individuals. However, as Gouldner (1982) states,  “This climactic conflict was largely fought within the organizational framework of the International Workingman’s Association (IWA), later known as the First International.” (p. 853). Although both were revolutionists who fought against bourgeois individualism, Marx believed that only the working-class individuals should be eligible for membership in the First International, excluding those who fell under different categories such as intellectuals and students (Gouldner, 1982, p.855-856). Evidently, Bakunin was an intellectual himself, creating tension between himself and Marx upon his membership (Gouldner, 1982, p. 856). However, as explained by Gouldner (1982):

“What made Marx so implacably opposed to him, however, was not simply that Bakunin was his intellectual competitor for revolutionary leader- ship in the IWA, but that Bakunin’s doctrine provided a theoretical ground- ing for the very anti-intellectual exclusionary policies so prevalent among the militant artisans.” (p. 856).

Anarchists are constantly influenced by the actions and behaviors displayed by Mikhail Bakunin in the 19th century (Goodwin, 2007). Goodwin (2007) states that anarchist propaganda in 20th century Soviet Russia “… saw its boldest expression in the anarchists’ defence of their most legendary representative, Mikhail Bakunin (1814-76).” (p. 533). Through his “…passionate rhetoric against authoritarianism…” and “… acts of revolutionary valor…” Bakunin had won the hearts of young working-class anarchists and revolutionists during both his own time and thereafter (Goodwin, 2007, p.534).

Breann McKinney

References

Goodwin, J. F. (2007). Russian anarchism and the Bolshevization of Bakunin in the early Soviet period. Kritika: Explorations in Russian & Eurasian History, 8(3), 533-560. Retrieved from: https://kritika.georgetown.edu/

Gouldner, A. W. (1982). Marx’s last battle: Bakunin and the First International. Theory and Society, 11(6), 853-884. Retrieved from: http://www.jstor.org

Knowles, R. (2002). “Human light”: The mystical religion of Mikhail Bakunin. The European Legacy, 7(1), 7-24. doi: 10.1080/10848770120114547

Smolensky, I. (2016). Mikhail Bakunin. Salem Press Biographical Encyclopedia. Retrieved from: https://www.salempress.com/ 

Driss Chraïbi

Driss Chraibi was a Moroccan writer who saw himself as an anarchist. He was born in Morocco on July 15th, 1926 and died April 1^st, 2007 in France. Chraibi is best known for his works on the subjects of immigration, patriarchy, and religious and cultural conflicts, along with civilization. Chraibi viewed civilization as a means of “othering” (When one is excluded as a result of not fitting the same societal normalcies of a group) cultures (Bahri, 2014). His works are known for having an overall very anti-colonialist tone, however critics have called his works rather stubborn in their opposition. The works depict a relationship between the colonizing French and the colonized Moroccans in which opposition is the only way the two groups exist, not acknowledging that other relationships could have existed. An example of a highly controversial Chraibi text would be Le Passé Simple. Moroccans were shocked and appalled by this work that discusses the origins of Moroccan culture. The French on the other hand saw Le Passé Simple as a rationale for maintaining a presence in Morocco. The novel was banned in Morocco for many years, and remains a controversial novel to this day. This is because it is seen as pro-colonialist (Marx-Scouras, 1992).

Chraibi believed that the Western countries had a “monopoly on civilization” (Bahri, 2014), and that it is exclusive of other nation’s and their contributions. Chraibi often aimed to highlight contributions to humanity from the Arab-Muslim world. This was not done as to highlight any sort of racial superiority, but rather to show exchanges of culture between the Western and Arab-Muslim worlds (Bahri, 2014). Chraibi has also written extensively about the Arab world. For example, his book Mother Spring goes back several centuries to discuss the beginnings of Islam and the Arab conquest of the Berber region of Africa (Harter, 1991). Chraibi believed that the Arab conquest of the Berbers was truly one of the mind and soul, as opposed to other peoples who had conquered the Berbers before. Chraibi depicts the conquered people as simple, constantly in a state of flux as their ways of life are changed by conquerors. While he depicts his own people as simple, he also shows their deep caring for their nation, one particular character bowing down and kissing the Moroccan soil, stating that no one will defeat this and will always be there (Harter, 1991).

Since anarchy is the denial and non-acceptance of authority, it would make sense that Chraibi saw himself as an anarchist. Chraibi was especially critical of the French people, as they were the colonizers of his native land, Morocco, which his some of his works show in a subtle way. While many of Chraibi’s works do not outright show that he was an anarchist, he believed that in countering Western ideals and cultures, one must be careful (Bahri, 2014). Chraibi believed that to effectively counter Western culture, one must see what was successful when building the foundation of a society based around freedom (Bahri, 2014). In one particular novel, The Butts, one of his characters, Simone,  discusses how European civilizations have caused despair for Northern Africa, yet the same character also shows contempt for their homeland. Simone feels as though North Africans have let themselves fall victim to a history of colonialism throughout history, whether it be the Greeks, the Arabs or the French (Bahri, 2014).

Later in his life, Chraibi reconsidered his views of Islam. While earlier in his writing career he appeared to be indifferent to Islam and its traditions, he eventually came to find them agreeable (Bahri, 2014). He also remained deeply critical of the legacy of colonialism in Morocco and North Africa as a whole. He was always proud of his heritage and deeply nationalistic. When he passed away in 2007 despite having died in France, he was laid to rest in Casablanca as per his request (Bahri, 2014).

Adam Katz

Works Cited

Marx-Scouras, Danielle. “International Journal of Middle East Studies.” International Journal of Middle East Studies, vol. 23, no. 3, 1991, pp. 465–467. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/164521.

Marx-Scouras, Danielle. “A Literature of Departure: The Cross-Cultural Writing of Driss Chraïbi.” Research in African Literatures, vol. 23, no. 2, 1992, pp. 131–144. JSTOR, JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3820400.

Bahri, Hamid. “Civilization and Otherness: The Case of Driss Chraibi.” Theartsjournal.org, Jan. 2014, www.theartsjournal.org/index.php/site/article/viewFile/282/212.

Other Relevant Readings

The Simple Past by Driss Chraibi

The Butts by Driss Chraibi

Orientalism by Edward Said

Leo Tolstoy

Leo Tolstoy, well-known author of  “War and Peace” and “Anna Karenina”, was born in 1828 to a Russian aristocratic family. His father was Count Nikolai Ill’ich Tolstoi and his mother Princess Mariya Nikolaeva Volkonskaya (Hanson, 1979). Tolstoy lost his mother before he turned two years old and his father before he turned 10 years old.

After the death of his parents, he was sent to live with his “pious” Aunt Tatiana; he later claimed that she became the greatest influence of his life (Bhattacharaya, 1981). At 15 years old, he started to attend the University of Kazan, however, formal education did not suit him and he left university before his graduation. Around this time, he had inherited his family’s property at Yasnaya Polyana; Yasnaya Polyana was also the place where he was born. His lifestyle became unhealthy after that (Hanson, 1979) and, as can be seen later in his writings, he was constantly conflicted between abstinence or indulgence (Bhattacharaya, 1981). Eventually, at the age of 23, he became tired with his unhealthy way of life and he joined his brother and his regiment in Caucasus. He served until after the Crimean war. It was around this time that he had started to write. Tolstoy left the military at the age of 27, with a reputation of being non-violent(Hanson, 1979). In 1876, he converted to Christianity (Bhattacharaya, 1981) and in November 1910, he died of pneumonia in Astapovo train station, with his daughter next to him (Christoyannopoulos, 2010).

During his lifetime, Russia was gradually experiencing “despotism, orthodoxy and seldom”(Hanson, 1979). Despite being a powerful military empire at the time, it was less mechanized and industrialized than other countries (especially Britain) and so was behind the progress of other European countries.  Russia was full of different nationalities and races. In Tolstoy’s childhood, there was oppression and racism against certain groups. Many groups, Russian or not, were excluded from society’s rewards and benefits. Monetary possession and bloodline were a particular factor in this (Green, 1986). Tolstoy found himself constantly in-between the two groups, as he was born a part of the aristocracy but saw life as a peasant to possess greater happiness. There was also heavy censoring in Russia during the years Tolstoy was active as a writer. Nevertheless, Tolstoy was able to spread his ideas through his writing (Lavrin, 1946).

Although, Leo Tolstoy was famous for his Russian literature, he was also known for his radical political and religious thinking. He critiqued the state (Christoyannopoulos, 2008) and at times would use religion as either a comparison, and an accomplice of the state’s corruption in Russia. Tolstoy saw corruption in the institution of the church: he did not go to church or believe in church dogmas and took his own perspective in the religion of Christianity (Christoyannopoulos, 2010).

One of his most famous works was “The Kingdom of God is Within You”, published in 1893. Although it was not published in Russia, the writing itself moved around and was read. One idea that the book mentioned was how everyone is caught in a cycle of violence and has no chance of escaping it. Leaders controlled the populace using a series of methods: intimidating, corrupting, hypnotizing the people, and finally selecting from the men who have undergone the previous steps and succumbed to them. In “The Kingdom of God is Within You”, Tolstoy had also thought that the people had more to lose from the present economy, rather than gain. The rich would exploit the poor and pretend to be the righteous ones in society.  He also believed that the goodness could not be simultaneous with power. The good cannot become powerful and the powerful cannot be good. “The Kingdom of God is Within You” eventually ended up influencing Gandhi’s views on non-violence resistance to the state (Higgs, 2015).

Tolstoy was also a non-violent anarchist. He thought that violence was irrational, harmful and “counterproductive” and that love was the solution. He was critical of capitalism and patriotism. He saw capitalism and ownership of private property as “wage slavery” (Christoyannopoulos, 2010). Civilization and man-made laws, to him, were drenched in materialism (Lavrin, 1946).  Patriotism, to Tolstoy, was a way to control people, not give the people what they needed (Higgs, 2015 and Christoyannopoulos, 2010). Tolstoy was sympathetic towards revolutionaries (Christoyannopoulos, 2010) while at the same time, he condemned revolution. Seven years after his death, the Russian Revolution came into full swing, and ironically, Tolstoy became an indirect “stimulus” to it (Lavrin, 1946). Lenin, a significant leader in the Russian Revolution, despite disliking Tolstoy’s thinking, connected his character to his own ideals and to promote his own educated self (Green,1986).

Min Jee Kim

Works Cited

Bhattacharaya, Ashok K. “Leo Tolstoy: A Biographical Reappraisal.” Indian Literature 24, no. 2 (1981): 67-77. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24158486.

Christoyannopoulos, Alexandre. “‘Bethink Yourselves Or You Will Perish’: Leo Tolstoy’s Voice a Centenary After His Death.” Anarchist Studies 18, no. 2 (2010): 11-18. http://libaccess.mcmaster.ca.libaccess.lib.mcmaster.ca/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.libaccess.lib.mcmaster.ca/docview/851707476?accountid=12347.

Christoyannopoulos, Alexandre J. M. E. “Leo Tolstoy on the State: A Detailed Picture of Tolstoy’s Denunciation of State Violence and Deception.” Anarchist Studies 16, no. 1 (2008): 20-47. http://libaccess.mcmaster.ca.libaccess.lib.mcmaster.ca/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.libaccess.lib.mcmaster.ca/docview/210984992?accountid=12347.

Green, Martin. The Origins of Non-violence: Tolstoy and Gandhi in their Historical Settings, Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University, 1986.

Hanson, Earl. “Leo Tolstoy: Pedagogue and Storyteller of Old Russia.” Language Arts 56, no. 4 (1979): 434-36. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41404825.

Higgs, Robert. “Tolstoy’s Manifesto on the State, Christian Anarchy, and Pacifism.” The Independent Review 19, no. 3 (Winter, 2015): 471-479. http://libaccess.mcmaster.ca.libaccess.lib.mcmaster.ca/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.libaccess.lib.mcmaster.ca/docview/1643164394?accountid=12347.

Lavrin, Janko. Tolstoy. New York: Russell & Russell, 1946.

Other Relevant Readings

Bicknell, Jeanette. “Lev Tolstoy and the Concept of Brotherhood.” Canadian Slavonic Papers 41, no. 1 (03, 1999): 97-99. http://libaccess.mcmaster.ca.libaccess.lib.mcmaster.ca/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.libaccess.lib.mcmaster.ca/docview/274674670?accountid=12347.

“Two Letters of Leo Tolstoy. on Non-Resistance to Evil.” Slavonic and East European Review 8, (1929): 242. http://libaccess.mcmaster.ca.libaccess.lib.mcmaster.ca/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.libaccess.lib.mcmaster.ca/docview/1293749906?accountid=12347.

Peter Kropotkin

December 9, 1842 – February 8, 1921

“It is only those who do nothing who makes no mistake.” This powerful statement on political action comes from Peter Kropotkin, the most well-known theorist of anarchist thought from the 19th century (Kropotkin, 143). Born into a noble family with aristocratic origins, Kropotkin lived a privileged childhood under the care of servants in his father’s estate. As a result of neglect from his father and step mother, both of whom belonged to the upper class of Russian society, and the love he had for his family’s serfs, he would grow up believing he had an “abiding dedication” to the people of Russia (Kropotkin, viii). Due to the excellent education Kropotkin received, he developed a passion for geography, history, science, and philosophy. These interests would be secondary to his career in the military, forced on him by his father. During his time as a page to Tsar Alexander II in 1861, the young and impressionable Kropotkin had high hopes for reform and radical improvement with the emancipation of the serfs in Russia (Kropotkin, viii). Even when it was made clear by the Tsar that any revolt would be quelled with violence, his drive to make change took him to Eastern Siberia following his graduation from an elite military school, where he was stationed in a remote Cossack Regiment (Kropotkin, viii).

 

During his time in Siberia, Kropotkin busied himself as a secretary of two commissions: the prison and exile system, and a plan for the municipal self-government. However, once again he was discouraged by the State when his attempts at reform were derailed by government corruption in St Petersburg (Kropotkin, ix). It was then that Kropotkin returned to his passion for geology and geography. He led scientific expeditions in Eastern Siberia, in which he formulated ground-breaking theories on the formation of the landscape in Siberia. It is here that one sees the scientific trajectory that Kropotkin’s studies and theories took; a dedication to scientific values was evident in all of his affairs. He possessed an impeccable, wide-ranging and well-developed intellect. That intellect would become useful when, in 1867, following his resignation from military service in Siberia, he declared he was ready to become an anarchist. There couldn’t have been anyone better suited to represent the movement and develop theories on anarchism than Kropotkin. His virtues, qualities, and character gave him the image of a friend to the Russian people, which placed him in a favourable light.

After his declaration and commitment to spreading anarchism, Kropotkin fell into many different organizations and initiatives, where he provided his expertise, rather than physical action. It was in Switzerland where he joined the Jura Federation as an organizer and journalist.

 

He and other colleagues began the political newspaper Le Révolté, which later became Les Temps Nouveaux , one of the most influential anarchist publications in Europe (Kropotkin, xii). This would work in conjunction with his efforts in the Chaikovsky Circle. Not only was he was active in organizing the worker’s meetings, Kropotkin’s background in education made him an excellent teacher with lectures on basic education as well as socialist themes. His work at the Chaikovsky Circle and the Jura Federation were Kropotkin’s contribution to the spread of socialist ideas from the elite to the masses, which was incredibly important to Kropotkin (Kropotkin, xii).

Kropotkin’s legacy is an intellectual one, in that his influence was in providing tangible, working principles for anarchist thought. He wished to seek out a rational or effective way to transform the oppressive system. This was his motivation and reasoning for developing theories that were empirical in nature; “He had to explore all the possibilities systematically, for if one essential feature of his character was his passionate concern for the oppressed, the other was his preoccupation with rational reflection based on scientific investigation and enquiry” (Cahm, 19). Yet, even though he was bringing science into his political theories on anarchism, his ideas were incredibly accessible by those who read his work. Mutual Aid, A Conquest of Bread, The Great French Revolution , and so forth influenced revolutionary movements in Spain and the working class circles who called themselves syndicalists. Furthermore, Kropotkin pushed for education, as he knew that the natural result of when the people were faced with the injustices of the State, they would unite to destroy the State, private property, and the monopoly many corporations had on the industries (Kropotkin, 3). Many modern anarchists draw from Kropotkin’s life and works, for he changed beliefs towards the anarchist agenda. Emma Goldman, an American activist who was involved with the US and Spain during the civil war, suggests that Kropotkin’s thoughts on anarchism reaches all aspects of society, and that it is an ideology open to the future (Osofsky, 146). In these ways, Peter Kropotkin’s theories, ideologies, and wisdom will continue to influence modern anarchist thought, and make simple the ideas and complexities of anarchism for years to come.

Keywords: Russian anarchism, marxism, populism, radicalization, syndicalism.

 

Zainab Khan

Works Cited
Cahm, Caroline. Kropotkin and The Rise of Revolutionary Anarchism 1872-1886. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989.

Osofsky, Stephen. Peter Kropotkin . Connecticut: Twayne Publishers, 1979.

Kropotkin, Peter. “Anarchism: A Collection of Revolutionary Writings.” Courier Corporation, 2012 . Edited by Roger N. Baldwin. Massachusetts: Courier Corporation, 2012.

Woodcock, George and Ivan Avakumovic. The Anarchist Prince: A Biographical Study of Peter Kropotkin. London: Boardman Books, 1950.

Other Relevant Readings
Howell, Yvonne. The Slavic and East European Journal 43, no. 2 (1999): 396-98.

Shpayer-Makov, Haia. “The Reception of Peter Kropotkin in Britain, 1886-1917.” Albion: A Quarterly Journal Concerned with British Studies 19, no. 3 (1987): 373-90.

Shub, David. “Kropotkin and Lenin.” The Russian Review 12, no. 4 (1953): 227-34.

 

Li Shizeng

May 29, 1881 – 30 September, 1973

Li Shizeng (or Li Yü-ying) was born to a family who possessed major political connections with the Qing government in Beijing, China and grew up in a household that, through his father’s teachings, helped him foster his interest for agriculture and political activism. When political and social unrest arose in China, his father’s teachings would help Shizeng to eventually bridge his areas of interest in order to create a fast-growing and politically influential group that was intent on making changes to a system that was starting to fail (Shurtleff and Aoyagi, 5).

Shizeng’s life in politics began when he was sent to Paris, joining the Chinese appointed minister to France as one of his attachés (Shurtleff and Aoyagi, 5). While in Paris, Li enrolled at the École Pratique d’Agriculture de Chesnoy in Montargis, France which was where he first developed an interest in soy products. Li attempted to establish his own tofu company which would later go on to be instrumental in funding both his social campaigns and the Paris Anarchist movement (Shurtleff and Aoyagi, 5). After several years of work on the tofu company, Shizeng

traveled back to his home country of China where he attempted to raise the initial investment needed to help get the company flourishing. Shizeng’s efforts were met with success, and his new investors allowed him to establish the world’s first soy dairy in Colombes, France (Shurtleff and Aoyagi, 6). Shizeng’s tofu plant may seem insignificant, but it was instrumental for the foundation of the anarchist movement that would go on to spark revolution across the world through Li’s work-study movement. The goal for the plant was to provide a medium to help educate young Chinese students in his frugal-study mantra.

The idea of a growing resentment of the government was popularized by Sun Zhongshan (one of the first to call for social revolution) and was adopted by thousands of Chinese citizens with whom the sentiment resonated, including Li Shizeng. (Dirlik “The Revolution That Never Was”, 124). The growing tensions between the government and the people allowed Shizeng to recruit many young Chinese scholars who hungered for the study of revolutionary ways of thought. Through funding from the soy factory, Li was able to send thousands of students from China to France to work in his factories and study in French universities (Bailey, 441). Shizeng’s work-study revolved around the idea that a gap existed between scholars and the working class. Work-study was an attempt to assure that Shizeng’s students would not only be able to think logically, but they would also be able to work hard at the same time (in essence work-study allowed students to gain experience in all fields of work life) (Bailey, 451). The Chinese revolution of 1911 marked the point where the work-study program started to transition into a tool to train students in anarchist thought (Dirlik “The New Culture Movement” 265-266) which resulted in some of Li’s students later becoming government officials themselves (Bailey,

441).The frugal-study opposed the Qing government, through his teachings and through allowing regular students to study abroad which was against the Qing regulations. The Qing government allowed for government-sanctioned groups of small numbers to travel but Li’s movement allowed the common citizen to travel abroad (Bailey, 446).

Shortly after arriving in Paris, Li Shizeng met Élisée Reclus, whose own ideas combined with the growing discontent against the Qing government, pushed Shizeng towards becoming an anarchist (Dirlik “The Revolution That Never Was”, 126). After establishing his school for work- study and with the help of other revolutionary Chinese thinkers, Shizeng created the Revolutionary Alliance (Dirlik, 126) which followed the traditional ways of anarchist thought. Society would rule as there was no government to control thought or infringe on another’s freedoms (Clark, 4). The Revolutionary Alliance believed that there was one way to achieve this ruling society: through social revolution based on the agreement of the majority of society (Dirlik “The Revolution That Never Was”, 133-134). Through a series of essays, Shizeng and his peers called for a social revolution in China. Instead of a simple(ish) coup d’état, the anarchist social revolution would strive to overhaul the organizational structure of society which would result in a balanced utopia-esque nation. With the help of mass propaganda, outcries of discontent, the education provided through work-study and Li Shizeng’s and the Revolutionary Alliance’s return to China, an uprising was finally achieved with the Revolution of 1911. The Chinese people overthrew the Qing Emperor, Puyi on February 12, 1912, ending dynastic rule in China (Shurtleff and Aoyagi, 7). Despite this, it was not Chinese society that ended up ruling the people but a series of fragmented governments (Shurtleff and Aoyagi, 7). The leading thinkers in

anarchism including Li Shizeng went on to suppress the ideas of communism and then in a twist of irony, their own followers (Dirlik “The Revolution That Never Was”, 126). Revolution resulted in the opposite of its goal. Upon inspection of the current Chinese government, it is apparent that the removal of the Qing dynasty has only resulted in a different type of government that controls its population with an iron fist.

Benjamin Edwards

 

Other Relevant Reading:

Duara, Prasenjit. “Knowledge and Power in the Discourse of Modernity: The Campaigns Against Popular Religion in Early Twentieth-Century China.” The Journal of Asian Studies, vol. 50, no. 1, 1991, pp. 67–83. JSTOR, JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/2057476.

Dirlik, Arif. “The Revolution That Never Was: Anarchism in the Guomindang.” Modern China, vol. 15, no. 4, 1989, pp. 419–462. JSTOR, JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/189240.

Wang, Cheng-Hua. “Rediscovering Song Painting For The Nation: Artistic Discursive Practices In Early Twentieth-Century China.” Artibus Asiae, vol. 71, no. 2, 2011, pp. 221–246. JSTOR, JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/23350215.

Works Cited:

Bailey, Paul. “The Chinese Work-Study Movement in France.” The China Quarterly, no. 115, 1988, pp. 441–461. JSTOR, JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/654865.’

Clark, John P. “What is Anarchism?” Nomos, vol. 19, 1978, pp. 3–28. JSTOR, JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/24219036.

Dirlik, Arif. “Vision and Revolution: Anarchism in Chinese Revolutionary Thought on the Eve of the 1911 Revolution.” Modern China, vol. 12, no. 2, 1986, pp. 123–165. JSTOR, JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/189118.

Dirlik, Arif. “The New Culture Movement Revisited: Anarchism and the Idea of Social Revolution in New Culture Thinking.” Modern China, vol. 11, no. 3, 1985, pp. 251–300. JSTOR, JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/188805.

Shurtleff, William, and Akiko Aoyagi. “History Of His Work With Soyfoods and Soybeans In France, and His Political Career In China and Taiwan (1881-1973) .” Soyinfo Centre, Soyinfo Centre, 8 June 2011, soyinfo centre, http://www.soyinfocenter.com/pdf/144/LiYy.pdf

Emma Goldman

June 27, 1869 – May 14, 1940

Emma Goldman revolutionized the world through her actions, writings, and lectures. She neglected social norms and strived to enlighten humanity, particularly women and spark social change. Although she was a complex woman, her passion and persuasion stimulated positive development in areas that desperately required revising.

Goldman was born in Lithuania on June 27, 1869, into an orthodox Jewish family to a “disappointed” father and “cold” mother (Berkeley). Throughout her adolescence, she lived in parts of what is modern-day the Czech Republic and Russia. She grew up during and in the Russian Empire, experiencing an absolute monarchy which aided in molding her into the radical anarchist that she became. Goldman immigrated to Rochester, New York with her sister and began working in deplorable conditions and an inhumane environment, typical for the late 19th century (Ferguson 1). Her work surroundings first initiated her disdain for capitalist society and stimulated her to become an activist for workers rights. However, it was the Haymarket Affair; where anarchists bombed brutal police officers during a workers’ protest in 1886, that completely inspired Goldman to learn about and embrace anarchism and revolutionize the area concerning workers’ rights (Everett 270). Goldman became inspired by nihilist revolutionaries, Russian Radicalists, Peter Kropotkin, Mikail Bakunin, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, and Max Stirner who focused on anarchism, individualism, mutualism, and overall revolution; these ideas became very prominent in Goldman’s “anarchism without adjectives” (Ferguson 2). She lectured from January 1890 until December 1939, five months before her death on May 14th, 1940 in Toronto. Goldman discussed anarchism, workers, and women rights in her lectures that travelled through the United States, to Europe, and Canada (Berkeley). Throughout her life, Goldman essentially preached for the liberation of workers and provoked society to work together to achieve emancipation from oppressive governments. One can surmise that Goldman supported anarchism because throughout her entire life she witnessed powerful leaders inflicting adversity among their subjects and citizens facing hardships; evident in the Russian Empire, Industrial Revolution, First World War, and communism. She continually justified radical anarchist terrorism; she even conspired in the failed assassination of Henry Clay Frick in 1892 with her lover and comrade, Alexander Berkman (Palmer 2). Although she would famously lecture, Goldman, founded the Mother Earth magazine as an outlet for discussions of anarchism and feminism (Berkeley). Rochelle Gurstein speculates that Goldman viewed anarchism as individual freedom that “… required direct action, the open defiance of, and resistance, to all laws and restrictions economic, social, and moral” (Gurstein 68).

 

Due to her religious background and the time period, Goldman was persuaded by her family to remarry Jacob A. Kersner, whom of which she broke apart from. Ultimately when she finalized her divorce to Kersner in 1888, her family and the Jewish community that she belonged to scorned her (Berkeley). This societal patriarchal disapproval of divorce drove Goldman to reject the classic structure of marriage and family that women were forced to adhere to. Goldman became a colossal feminist icon partly because of these feelings, she encouraged relationships that allowed for sexual autonomy and were not controlled by men’s desires (Ferguson 734). She bluntly preached that “…wives were the slaves and prostitutes of their husbands. She said women should forget about suffrage until they could forget about their reputations. She argued that sex was healthy and natural. She told people to talk to their lovers, spend time with them as friends, and allow them other relationships.” (Collins 2). Essentially Goldman advocated for

women to be in control of their own bodies and be boundless sexual beings like men while also promoting the idea that men and women should work together in order to overthrow large-scale oppressors. These beliefs compelled her to endorse the practice of birth control demanding that women should have jurisdiction over their own bodies and reproduction (Ferguson 2). This candid discourse was completely revolutionary for the time due to the power that men had over society. Goldman’s lectures inspired latter feminist movements and essentially made her one of the most prominent faces of feminism during the late 19th to mid 20th century. However, although her progressive stance and dialogue ultimately assisted with future feminism and women’s rights, she was often viewed as too radical during her reign. As mentioned by Goldman herself, “the tragedy of all emancipated women, myself included, is that we are rooted in the old soil though our visions are of the future.” (Collins 3). She was arrested many times due to her craving for change and appetite for development within women’s rights; publicly supporting birth control. By taking her family life and religious upbringing into consideration, it can be speculated that Goldman’s contempt for patriarchal traditions and practices first arose due to her family’s interactions, her father’s disappointment when she turned out to be a girl, and witnessed male dominance within her orthodox Jewish household. Goldman also lived during a period where women were customarily viewed as inferior and possessions of men.

Goldman’s resilience led her to be brutalized, arrested numerous times, and deported from the United States to Russia. She was more than progressive for her time which made her into an icon for workers, anarchists, and feminists. Her actions, writings, and lectures demonstrated that dedication and strong beliefs can enlighten dark societies.

 

Laurel Brandes

Works Cited
Berkeley University. “Emma Goldman Papers.” libcom.org, 2016.

Carter, Everett. “The Haymarket Affair in Literature.” American Quarterly 2, no. 3 (1950): 270-78.

Collins, Levi. “Rooted in the Old Soil: Emma Goldman’s Path to Sexual Modernism.” Rooted in the Old Soil: Emma Goldman’s Path to Sexual Modernism, 2011, 1-120.

Ferguson, Kathy E., Dr. “Emma Goldman’s “Anarchism Without Adjectives”.” The Public Domain Review. Web.

Ferguson, Kathy E. “Gender and Genre in Emma Goldman.” Signs 36, no. 3 (2011): 733-57. Gurstein, Rochelle. “Emma Goldman and the Tragedy of Modem Love.” Salmagundi, no.

135/136 (2002): 67-89.
Palmer, Brian D. “Sasha and Emma: The Anarchist Odyssey of Alexander Berkman and

Emma Goldman.”, no. 72 (February 2013): 370-72.

Other Relevant Reading
Domenico, Kim C. “Emma Goldman and the Soul of Anarchism.” Www.counterpunch.org.

May 04, 2017.
Falk, Candace, and Suzanna Marten. “Love, Anarchy, and Emma Goldman.” Love, Anarchy,

and Emma Goldman 69 (1985-1986): 156-57. JSTOR.
Ferguson, Kathy E. Emma Goldman: political thinking in the streets. Lanham, MD: Rowman

& Littlefield Publishers, 2013.

Anarchism

Anarchism is a social concept for which the core belief is centered around society being able to operate efficiently without the presence of any form of government. Anarchy in a social context originates in 1840 with Pierre-Joseph Proudhon when he wrote What is Property? In this piece, Proudhon describes anarchism as anti-state and anti-capitalist ideals, saying that “property is exclusive” and theft in a sense as well, as he mentions that the production of property requires the exploitation of workers who will likely not get access to the property they have worked on.

Since Anarchism is the denying and resisting of authority, it has historically been a very relevant concept. Just before The Second World War, Anarchists in Spain found themselves able to fight for their beliefs, but also against Franco’s fascist regime. After the defeat of the Spanish Anarchists in 1937 and into World War 2, Anarchists found that supporting a particular side was rather difficult. This was due to the political interests of the Allies and Axis powers. One particular famous Anarachist, Rudolf Rocker who had criticized those who supported World War One, deemed the Allies the right cause for those with Libertarian values to support. After World War Two, Anarchists found themselves trying to find new meaning for their cause in a modern, post-war era. What many thought was that Anarchism could be adapted for the post-war world to be vigilant resistance to any kind of authority and domination in ever day life. Some Anarchist thinkers, such as Murray Bookchin saw the fight against authority and domination as a means to destroy long-standing hierarchies in society regarding gender, race and age. Bookchin believed that the right kind of revolution could usher in an age of non-hierarchy-based societies. Bookchin’s ideas for what Anarchism should become post-war were one of many at the time. Currently, Anarchists do not have any meaningful uniting ideology, which has resulted in their current political obscurity.

The men who are most commonly associated with the beginnings of Anarchist thinking in the mid 1800’s are Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Mikhail Bakunin and Max Stirner. All of these men, along with the men who championed Marxism came from the dissipation of a group called the Young Hegelians, a group of men who had seen the necessity for a reform of the German upper classes. This was based off of radical thoughts inspired by the work of the Philosopher Georg Hegel. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels were formerly members of the Young Hegelians as well, however when they left they criticized the ideology.

Proudhon was the first of these men to criticize the politics and economy of the time in his piece What is Property? Many of Proudhon’s ideas deal with Anarchy and contempt against capitalism and large industries. He laid out a vision of a society in which everyone is self-sufficient and produces their own goods and trades locally. Bakunin was an aristocrat and worked closely with Guillaume. He reversed Hegel’s idea of the State as “The march of God on earth”. Bakunin saw the State as the epitome of evil. He was a member of a group called the Narodniks who saw terror and violence as a way to dethrone the Czar and put in place a Communist order. Bakunin also saw Proudhon as the true father of Anarchism. Max Stirner, like Bakunin and Proudhon was a former Young Hegelian. His works are more inspired by those of Johann Fichte, a German Romantic philosopher. Stirner saw value in the individual and opposed ideals based around working together collectively, especially the ideals of Proudhon.

Adam Katz

 

References

(n.d.). Retrieved October 10, 2017, from https://journals.scholarsportal.info/details/13569317/v20i0002/134_tnaibaruopat.xml

Graham, R. (2014). Randall Amster, Anarchism Today. Retrieved October 12, 2017, from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/retrieve.do?tabID=T002&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&searchResultsType=SingleTab&searchType=AdvancedSearchForm¤tPosition=1&docId=GALE%7CA392792944&docType=Book review&sort=RELEVANCE&contentSegment=&prodId=AONE&contentSet=GALE%7CA392792944&searchId=R1&userGroupName=ocul_mcmaster&inPS=true

Pauli, B. J. (2015, May 20). The New Anarchism in Britain and the US: towards a richer understanding of post-war anarchist thought. Retrieved October 12, 2017, from https://journals.scholarsportal.info/details/13569317/v20i0002/134_tnaibaruopat.xml