> I would say everything, or almost everything, since the
> way Emma approached the issues of her day, especially
> concerning Russia and Spain, is not so different from
> the way that you approach issues like Cuba. And
> your brand of elitist, utopian politics is not so different
> from her brand. Just as Emma Goldman scorned
> the struggles of her day for things like the eight-hour
> day or women's sufferage, so you expressed scorn
> for the achievments of the Cuban Revolution like
> free and universal public education, free health
> care, guaranteed employment etc. But just
> as importantly, I think the article was good
> on pointing out the inapplicability of many of Emma
> Goldman's principles to real life political
> struggles. The citing of Emma's bending
> and even breaking of her own political
> principles in regards to Spain was most
> telling, as she found herself defending the
> decisions of the Spanish anarchists to
> participate (as cabinet ministers no less!)
> in the Spanish Republican government
> along with their decisions to back the
> development of a professional army
> for the Spanish Republic.
You have still failed to answer my question: what does Emma Goldman have to do with this discussion about Cuba and the current situation there?
It looks to me like you don't have a rational response to my positions, so you've dug up a half ass ISO attack on Emma Goldman that was written, I should note, in reaction to a favorable American Experience (PBS) documentary on Goldman.
It also appears that you haven't even bothered to read Goldman's writing on women's suffrage.
Eltist, utopian politics? LOL! How in the hell is saying that Cubans should have a right to self-determination elitist? An elitist argument would be one where I would argue that a class of radicals should lead the Cuban people. I've argued that they should run their own lives, which is an anti-elitist argument.
Chuck