Anarchism In Emma Goldman's 'What I Believe'

Anthem by Ayn Rand was written in a futuristic period where no one had their own say. They were all equal to one another, they were all brothers and nobody was above anyone else. Whatever you think you know, you’re wrong, all you know is what they know.

Set in the age where government has become synonymous with oppressor, Anthem by Ayn Rand focuses on the perspective of Equality, a boy who grew up nestled underneath the boot of collectivism trying to find an identity. Equality’s narrative expresses both Rand’s fears and hopes for the society where government threatened to rein all. To comprehend fully what devices and mechanics that Rand did to implement her predictions of civilization under the tyranny, you must take into consideration the rhetorical theories of great rhetoricians like Plato, Aristotle, and Cicero. While Plato and Cicero’s theories explained details and choices, Aristotle’s theories explained how Rand introduced her paramount message and supported it.

The classroom was full of children, and they were all the same except for their age and gender. They didn’t have a choice for anything that they did, it was the government that was forcing them to be what they were. They weren’t allowed to know anything more than what they were taught. There was one little girl who was a touch different. She was starting to realize that life could be different than what she had always known. She had decided to make a change for herself and not be the same anymore. Just like this little girl, Equality 7-2521 was longing for a change. He realized that there was another way of living, and that was what he wanted. Equality went about doing everything differently from what he had learned from the beginning. He took a stand and ended up being a different person overall, he wasn’t going to let anyone else control him anymore. The characterization and setting techniques employed in Ayn Rand’s dystopian novel Anthem and Kurt Vonnegut’s short story “Harrison Bergeron” illustrate the theme of how those who are under authority do not change who they are on the inside just because they are controlled, resulting in rebellion and dishonesty toward those who are in charge.

Henry David Thoreau’s essay basically begins by stating that the government is of no good for the American people. Thoreau’s essay talks about occasions in which the government has done bad instead of doing things to help out the people, for example the Mexican-American War. Also, the essay informs that the people give a lot of credit to the government for things they believe it has achieved when in reality those achievements have happened thanks to the people and he also states that better things would come out of those achievements if the government was less involved. Overall, Henry David Thoreau’s essay tries to inform or persuade people to understand that the country would be better if the government was less involved and allow the people to have more say in what is happening to the country as a whole. Henry David Thoreau’s “Civil Disobedience” is rhetorically effective because of his attention to pathos and logos.

Collectivism is a very common theme in Ayn Rand’s writing. From Anthem to The Fountainhead, her opinion is very clear: individualism is the source of freedom and joy, while collectivism is the root of sorrow and slavery. In Anthem, the main character, Equality 7-252, has grown up in a collectivist society that has remained strong for centuries. In that society, no one has had the choice to do what they want to do, love what (or who) they love, and simply be who they are. That society praises the idea that men live only for each other. Living for oneself is evil, a Transgression. The idea of “I”, “Me”, and “Mine” has disappeared, dragging the precious words along with it. Throughout the plot, Equality 7-2521 is seen both unintentionally and intentionally defying his society. At first, he condemns himself, describing his evil acts and mind and labeling his different mindset as a curse. “We were born with a curse. It has always driven us to thoughts which are forbidden.” (Rand 18) He is also condemned by others, for things he cannot control. He is taller than most other people, he has preferences for what he wishes to become, and he has ideas and opinions. Yet when his life assignment is Street Sweeper, he rejoices. He sees that as a way to pay penance for his sins. Later on, however, he embraces his individuality. “I am. I think. I will.” (Rand 94) He is the first to accept the idea of individuality for centuries, and helps others accept it, too.

Henry David Thoreau, an American essayist, philosopher, and historian around the 1800s, composed “Civil Disobedience” to uncover the rapid downfall of the American Government. Thoreau highlights “That Government does best when it does not govern at all”; and when the men are most ready for It, that will be the type of Government they will have, a Government-free one (Thoreau 1). Thoreau expresses his bravery in his writing to bear his nationalistic attitude, showing his hostility towards the American Government during that time; he asserts that the Government, in it’s present state is sinister and corrupted because the Government favors slavery and the Mexican war. Throughout his explanations, Thoreau argues that the American citizens should take complete control by being the true leaders of the government and not allow the Government to rescind or decay their consciences. To grab the reader’s attention and to lead them to a new kind of nationalism and it’s circumstance, Thoreau exquisitely makes use of the rhetorical elements of ethos, logos, and pathos.

In the United States of America, individuals have always taken it upon themselves to write the wrong that they witness in society. This can be portrayed in both Thomas Paine’s Common Sense, and Henry David Thoreau Civil Disobedience. Throughout history, as the times have changed so has individuals perception on government. Both authors existed at a different time in history, but they both convey a similar message that citizens should disobey government- but their idea of government is completely different.\

In his expository essay Resistance to Civil Government, Henry Thoreau compares men serving in the armed forces of The United States to wooden statues and he discusses how the government has manipulated and used their men. Throughout the course of Thoreau’s essay, he challenges his reader to look beyond the superficial aspect of their country and address the issues that often go unnoticed. Thoreau dares readers to respond boldly to topics and decisions that they might consider unfair or unjust. Prompted by an instance in which he stood up for a tax that he thought was unjust, Thoreau writes a provoking, almost taunting essay in which he describes some of the abuses that the government has forced on its people.

    Thoreau seems to be a very educated political thinker. He can be very stubborn but humble when it comes to his beliefs, “I have contemplated the imprisonment of the offender, rather than the seizure of his goods -- though both will serve the same purpose -- because they who assert the purest right, and consequently are most dangerous to a corrupt state… ”(Thoreau 24. 218). Thoreau has lived in the woods for over six years, without paying state taxes. When the police officer asked him to pay, the non-violently compiled and spent a day in jail. Thoreau did not want to fund the American Mexican war through taxes and believed that people shouldn't be forced to do what they don't think is right. He is also a very optimistic person and believes that the people themselves should be good people, live good lives and therefore we wouldn't need as many laws, “when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have.” (1. 210). Thoreau believes that the government is doing the best when doing the least, “I heartily accept the motto, -- “That government is best which governs least” …” (1. 210). Although Thoreau might have an unpopular opinion, he sticks with his beliefs throughout this essay. As he presents his opinion, he does it in the most classy yet confident arguments. He had the thought of the people in mind while writing, showing his good intentions of improving our government.

Throughout history, people's opinion on how the government should govern has shifted back and forth. Some men think that it should be all ruling and powerful, while others think that it should have a very menial role in society. One of the men that thought it should have a menial role in society was Henry David Thoreau and he made that evident in his document called Civil Disobedience. Thoreau believed he was simply asking for a "better government" but in reality he was stirring up the thoughts of many others. Thoreau's opinions are presented in a clear, strong, powerful, convincing and intelligent manner,

America’s inception stemmed from the desire to create a society which differed from those before it. By taking the best pieces of previous civilizations, the founding fathers strived to create a perfectly formed society based on equality, a balance of power, and the independence of man to pursue their own dreams. Literature of this period and more specifically the 19th century often deals with experimentations on this very basis for society. Does one favor the individual over the community or ignore the personal desires of the individual in favor of a collective mindset? Experimenting with the makings of a utopia, defined by Merriam-Webster as, “a place of ideal perfection especially in laws, government, and social conditions” creates a serious question on the plausibility of a perfect society. Dealing with this very quandary first hand, Nathaniel Hawthorne’s The Blithedale Romance is an experimentation on forming a perfect utopia. Within the novel, the desires of the individual are squandered in favor of the collective. In reading Hawthorne, one gets the sense that the world is just out of reach for him. Attaching a mysticism to everything detaches the characters from any sense of reality, meaning that any experiment they set out on should be met with suspicion. Whereas in Henry David Thoreau’s Walden, Thoreau places the individual on a higher plane than the community. Going into the woods, Thoreau detaches himself from society in a far different manner than Hawthorne, with

Locke and Jefferson have different ways of evaluating government than the Ayn Rand Institute. Both philosophers believe certain rights are inalienable to all of men, but when government starts to renege on its original intent, people as a whole may come together and overthrow the government. For Locke government starts with a civil association, or a group of like-minded people who want to protect themselves from the dangers that could potentially arise in the state of nature. Each individual that enters into civil society consents and the basis of authority is the determination of the people as a whole, better known as popular sovereignty. Back in Locke’s time it was commonly held that popular sovereignty would lead to chaos and frequent rebellion. In spite of this, Locke argues that popular sovereignty is the best guarantee against unwarranted rebellion since the population would collectively determine the appropriate remedy. Locke reasons that if the decision to revolt were left up to the individual that it would “unhinge and overturn all polities, and, instead of government and order, leave nothing but anarchy and confusion.” To support collectivism, Locke says as long as the society lasts the power each individual relinquished upon entering does not revert back to the individual. Therefore, even though the government has collapsed the “commonwealth [is] still preserved” and the notion of popular sovereignty remains intact. Another strong piece to add to this counterargument would be to discuss Locke’s ideas on the individual right to punish. Since there is no common authority in the state of nature, Locke holds that individuals have the right to punish those who threaten their self-preservation and individual freedom. However prior to entering a civil association, individuals forfeit their right to punish and confer it upon the government. Therefore, the use of individual rights and

A crucial question people often find themselves asking is whether to live for themselves or to live for others and to what extent. Ayn Rand's novella, Anthem, explores a dystopian society that takes the theme of living for others to a whole new level. The sternness of this culture creates an emotionless and a bland society set on fulfilling collectivist principles. Anthem's society manipulates language to enforce collectivist doctrine by excluding words which cultivate a personal identity and merging religious and government views.

Within the pages of Ayn Rand’s novel, Anthem, a government which resembles a dictatorship is exhibited. Both the leaders and the society itself seek to control mans body and mind as they follow ideals similar to that of a communist party. The leaders and society in Anthem seek to control mans mind using tactics such as collectivism and suppression of the past to accomplish a tyrannical end.

Social conservatives blame divorce, cohabitation, illegitimacy, and the demise of the traditional family for society's ills, from poverty, crime, and juvenile delinquency to the moral decay and destruction of the American way of life. In the 1970s, marriage was at its lowest but by the late 1990s there was a reappearance of marriage, seen in the leveling off of the divorce rate. Although the claims for the value of marriage by conservatives and gay-rights proponents "were from two ends of the spectrum, they came together — at least at the rhetorical level — for what marriage...accomplishes and how crucial it is as a social institution." (Gallagher, 2002)