ful, as
well as unnecessary." In her oft-repeated lecture on the subject she
warmly described the benefits to ensue from social revolution:

Anarchism stands for a social order based on the free grouping
of individuals for the purpose of producing real social wealth;
an order that will guarantee to every human being free access
to the earth and full enjoyment of the necessities of life,
according to individual desires, tastes, and inclinations.

To the end of her life Emma avowed the soundness and practicality of her
doctrine. As late as 1934 she declared in _Harper's Magazine_: "I am
certain that Anarchism is too vital and too close to human nature ever
to die. When the failure of modern dictatorship and authoritarian
philosophies becomes apparent and the realization of failure more
general, Anarchism will be vindicated." It was her belief that sooner or
later the mass of mankind would perceive the futility of begging for
crumbs and would take power into its own hands. Since she scorned
political means, she expounded the validity of direct action. This
method she defined as the "conscious individual or collective effort to
protest against, or remedy, social conditions through the systematic
assertion of the economic power of the workers." Once the state and
capitalism were destroyed, anarchism would assume the form of free
communism, which she described as "a social arrangement based on the
principle: To each according to his needs; from each according to his
ability." It must be stressed that although the wording is common to all
forms of communism, that of Marx and Lenin implies strict centralized
authority, while that of Kropotkin and Emma Goldman envisions complete
decentralization and the supremacy of the individual.

No man who has pondered the concept of the good life will fail to
appreciate the ideal propounded by the anarchists. And one who has
observed the results of modern dictatorship cannot but sympathize with a
vision of the future in which the individual is the prime beneficiary of
all social activity. Yet life often makes mock of man's noblest dreams.
Emma may have been "the daughter of the dream"; her doctrine remains as
utopian as it is alluring. There is no gainsaying the fact that modern
conditions still favor national and industrial centralization. The
philosophy of anarchism appears less tenable today than ever.

* * * * *

Though in no