My Mother Is A Fish

(Thus far, I've only read two works, with the intent to read a third: "Anarchism and American Traditions" and "Direct Action." )

Voltairine de Cleyre was an astute anarchist of the late 19th century who had the "correct" posture with respect to such issues as local action (for), secessionism (for), standing armies (against).

Interestingly, she writes in favor of what she calls variously "public" and "common" schools. But do not be deceived; she does not accept the state's indoctrination centers. She quotes with approval Jefferson, that he arranged in his local assembly "for public education which he justly considered a matter of "common concern," said his advocacy of public schools was not with any "view to take its ordinary branches out of the hands of private enterprise, which manages so much better the concerns to which it is equal"".

"Such is the spirit of government-provided schools" that they invert the principles on which America's revolution was initiated, they turn glorious American "traditions" into ignoble American "practice". The anarchists say to those who fail to understand this: "[i]f the believers in liberty wish the principles of liberty taught, let them never entrust that instruction to any government; for the nature of government is to become a thing apart, an institution existing for its own sake, preying upon the people, and teaching whatever will tend to keep it secure in its seat."

Why, then, does she (and Jefferson) support the term "public" school? Unexplained it remains, but, it seems likely that she holds out the ideal that the community should assist in the education of the youth. Though this may be an inchoate position and rhetoric for myself, I adopt it anyway.

As to another of the four detailed engines productive of doom from the compromise the revolutionaries made in establishing--or intending to establish--a "limited government", Commerce, de Cleyre seems to recognize that it is a powerful force that may be peaceful or predatory, depending on whether men like Hamilton weld it to the state. I say merely that it seems this way because she does at the end discuss the virtues of an agrarian society, in which cities disband into communities living in self-sustenance. Thus, it may be that she holds commerce to be only a force for evil, in which case, alas.

Moving on to boycotts, a subject which interrelates the presently discussed "Anarchism" with "Direct Action", de Cleyre seems to be tied to a mixture of truth and error. Again, I am unsure: but this time because of my economic ignorance. Is it true that the housewives of de Cleyre's discussion achieved permanently lower prices for meat and butter by their boycotts? I am nearly positive that this cannot be. It could only be so, if they imitated those who boycotted British manufactures in the American Revolution, and sought to produce the goods themselves.

As to the main subject of "Direct Action", I am most taken by the point that all voluntary action--indeed, all non-"political" action--is best characterized as direct action. Men and women may eschew indirect action, but there is not a one alive who could renounce direct action, as ubiquitous a feature of life it be.

Next up, "Sexual Slavery", dealing with the patriarchy.