Authored by: Makhno on Friday, July 04 2008 @ 06:33 PM CDT

Well, this essay certainly hasn't aged well. All that nonsense about barracks life leading to "sexual perversion" would be terribly embarassing to a contemporary anarchist trying to recommend Emma Goldman's writings. That illusion about the growing feeling of international solidarity among the working class was shattered by World War I, when so many working-class organizations lined up in support of their respective national governments; even Kropotkin jumped on the pro-war bandwagon. Just as a side note, what made Goldman think that listing all those statistics about military expenditures would have any effect whatsoever on anyone's patriotic sentiments?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Avapxia on Friday, July 04 2008 @ 08:40 PM CDT

While I was not aware that any form of male prostitution was ever predominant in the military, I do not think that Emma Goldman would be one to simply contrive that argument. I also don't think that Goldman was necessarily being homophobic, as she and her lover/comrade Alexander Berkman were staunch supporters of civil rights for the gay, lesbian, and bisexual community (I would include the transgendered community as well, but I tend to think that there was little awareness of transgendered issues in the Western world in late 19th and early 20th centuries). Although the article is dated, Goldman makes some salient points, particularly referencing the psychological battering of one's individuality and conscience in order to be "a good patriot." While I agree that the statistics for the amount of money the Western powers were spending on their respective militaries is considerably dated, Goldman seemed to be arguing that there was a dangerous rise in militarism amoungst the predominant governments of the world at the turn of the century. From a historical perspective, such military bullying and imperial interests would later lead to World War I. And although that many working class organizations, including even the Socialist Party, were supportive of the First World War, let us not forget that World War I saw the growth of the anti-militarist movement, with Goldman, Berkman, and Debbs being some of its most prominent activists in the United States. Moreover, there was a general distrust of militarism towards the end of the war, especially with the mutinies of the Czarist armies in Russia and the disillusionment felt by many veterans returning home.

[ Reply to This | # ]