In the essay titled “Anarchism,” Emma Goldman defends anarchism and attempts to persuade skeptics of the effectiveness of the philosophy. Specifically, Goldman attempts to convince the reader that, contrary to the skeptics' arguments, anarchism is functional in practice and is not simply an abstract idea. Goldman argues that the current capitalist social structure is inherently exploitative and dominant, particularly toward the working class, and that an anarchic future is the most practical solution to society's ills. Although Goldman rejects critics who argue that anarchism is a good idea in theory but is not practical, I disagree with Goldman's assessment. Although anarchism has interesting qualities and can, in theory, provide solutions, Goldman first argues that critics have misinterpreted the definition of practicality and that, under a proper definition, anarchism practical aspect of anarchism will become evident. According to Goldman, practicality “is not whether it can keep evil or senseless intact; rather, it is a question of whether the project has enough vitality to emerge from the stagnant waters of the old and build, as well as sustain, new life” (49). Even using this definition, anarchism still fails to remain a viable and practical philosophy. Anarchism may be capable of eliminating the erroneous or senseless aspects of an exploitative capitalist system, but the new anarchic system is not itself free from errors. If we were to adopt Goldman's anarchism, we would simply be trading old problems for new, probably unforeseen, problems. It is true that with all people, whether under anarchism or capitalism, they must meet their basic needs for food, shelter and clothing. The reason many working-class workers work in low-paying, demeaning jobs is because they have no other way to support themselves otherwise. If these workers had other ways to survive, they probably would not work in exploitative jobs. This desperation in no way justifies employers treating their employees poorly. All employers should treat their workers with basic human dignity and respect, and the exploitation criticized by Goldman should be rectified. However, this example illustrates that people ultimately must satisfy their basic needs to survive and occasionally must do work they do not want to do. With anarchism, these basic needs do not disappear instantly. A person will either have to support themselves to survive or work with others to exchange goods or services in some way. Since anarchism is based on free and voluntary association without an overarching structure, there is no guarantee that people will be able to systematically rely on each other for such purposes. It is also possible that a person must provide a service that they do not wish to provide in order to meet their basic needs, in which case they may not be able to do so..