In the essay entitled “Anarchism,” Emma Goldman provides a defense of anarchism and attempts to persuade skeptics of the efficacy of the philosophy. Specifically, Goldman attempts to convince the reader that, contrary to the arguments of skeptics, anarchism is functional in practice and not just an abstract idea. Goldman argues that the current capitalist social structure is inherently exploitative and dominant, particularly of the working class, and an anarchic future is the most practical solution to society's ills. While Goldman dismisses critics who argue that anarchism is a nice idea in theory but not in practice, I disagree with Goldman's assessment. Although anarchism has valid qualities and, in theory, would provide solutions, Goldman first argues that critics have viewed the definition of practicality incorrectly, and with a correct definition, the practicality of anarchism will become apparent. According to Goldman, practicality “is not whether the latter can keep intact what is wrong or foolish; rather it is whether the project has enough vitality to leave the stagnant waters of the old and build, as well as sustain, a new life” (49). Even using this definition, however, anarchism still fails to remain a viable and workable philosophy. Anarchism may be able to eliminate the wrong or senseless aspects of an exploitative capitalist system, but the new anarchist system is not without errors in itself. If we embraced Goldman's anarchism, we would simply exchange old problems for new, probably unforeseen problems. It is true that everyone, whether under anarchism or capitalism, must meet their basic needs for food, shelter and clothing. The reason many working-class people work in low-paying, demeaning jobs is that they otherwise have no other means to provide for their needs. If these workers had other ways to survive, they probably wouldn't be doing exploitative work. This desperation in no way excuses employers who treat their employees poorly. All employers should treat their workers with basic human dignity and respect, and the exploitation criticized by Goldman should be corrected. However, what this example illustrates is that people ultimately have to meet their basic needs for survival and must occasionally do jobs that they do not want to do. With anarchism, these basic needs do not disappear instantly. A person will have to provide himself with everything he needs to survive or work with others to exchange goods or services in some way. Because anarchism is based on free, voluntary association without an overarching structure, there is no guarantee that people can consistently rely on each other for such ends. It may also be that a person has to perform a service that they do not want to do in order to satisfy their basic needs, in which case they are probably not authorized to do so.