{"title":"“Abolish the Monopolizing of the Earth”","authors":"Adam E. Quinn","doi":"10.1215/01636545-10063606","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n At the turn of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, an industrial capitalist order stretched its grasp across the globe, placing control of farms, mines, and forests in the hands of wealthy industrialists. Living through this period of rapid and unequal economic and environmental change, anarchists denounced what they called the monopolizing of the earth and its products. Anarchists were deeply critical of the privatization of the environment and saw restricting access to nature as a core component of inequality and poverty. This article considers the environmental politics of transnational anarchism in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. With anarchism’s geographically and ideologically diverse participants in mind, it incorporates the natural science-informed utopian visions of Peter Kropotkin and Elisée Reclus, the revolutionary and anti-colonial food and land politics of Ricardo Flores Magón, and the nature-informed radical sex politics of Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman. It finds that “anarchism” did not just mean the destruction of the state and capitalism to its advocates, but the construction of a new political-economic-natural system that saw the liberation of people and the defense of nature as inextricably connected. The article concludes with a call to both include anarchism as a part of the genealogy of environmentalism and consider anarchism’s environmental politics in ongoing conversations about the relationships between environmental crises and human inequalities.","PeriodicalId":51725,"journal":{"name":"RADICAL HISTORY REVIEW","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"RADICAL HISTORY REVIEW","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1215/01636545-10063606","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
At the turn of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, an industrial capitalist order stretched its grasp across the globe, placing control of farms, mines, and forests in the hands of wealthy industrialists. Living through this period of rapid and unequal economic and environmental change, anarchists denounced what they called the monopolizing of the earth and its products. Anarchists were deeply critical of the privatization of the environment and saw restricting access to nature as a core component of inequality and poverty. This article considers the environmental politics of transnational anarchism in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. With anarchism’s geographically and ideologically diverse participants in mind, it incorporates the natural science-informed utopian visions of Peter Kropotkin and Elisée Reclus, the revolutionary and anti-colonial food and land politics of Ricardo Flores Magón, and the nature-informed radical sex politics of Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman. It finds that “anarchism” did not just mean the destruction of the state and capitalism to its advocates, but the construction of a new political-economic-natural system that saw the liberation of people and the defense of nature as inextricably connected. The article concludes with a call to both include anarchism as a part of the genealogy of environmentalism and consider anarchism’s environmental politics in ongoing conversations about the relationships between environmental crises and human inequalities.
期刊介绍:
Individual subscribers and institutions with electronic access can view issues of Radical History Review online. If you have not signed up, review the first-time access instructions. For more than a quarter of a century, Radical History Review has stood at the point where rigorous historical scholarship and active political engagement converge. The journal is edited by a collective of historians—men and women with diverse backgrounds, research interests, and professional perspectives. Articles in RHR address issues of gender, race, sexuality, imperialism, and class, stretching the boundaries of historical analysis to explore Western and non-Western histories.