aaaanarchism

7/28/2019 aaaanarchism

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/aaaanarchism 1/12

Is Anarchism closer to Liberalism or to Socialism?

Within the overall ideology of anarchism there are important differences both between

individualist and social anarchism and within these broad theoretical categories while

some anarchist theorists such as William Godwin cannot be easily categorised at all. Thesimilarities and differences between anarchism, liberalism and socialism may be analysed

terms of the main inter-related core elements of each ideology: analyses of human nature,

individual liberty, the state and the capitalist system.

Liberals, socialists and anarchists share the optimistic view that individuals are potentially rational and to a considerable extent the best judges of their own best

interests. However in classical and neo-liberal ideologies individuals are seen as primarily egoistic and atomistic following their own narrow self-interest rather than

attempting to recognise the broad interests of the community while the invisible hand of

the market mechanism is assumed to ensure that the pursuit of self interest secures theeconomic interests of society as a whole. Contrastingly social liberals argued for a more

communitarian form of rational self-interest and this is extended in socialist thought



where individuals are seen as potentially rational but also potentially cooperative and

community spirited once their apparent selfish competitiveness has been eroded via the

reform or abolition of capitalism.

Anarchist attitudes to human nature vary very considerably. At one extreme Max Stirner

argues that individual self-development demands that individuals follow their ownnarrow, egoistic self- interest as fully as possible recognising only the constraints that

they face other powerful self-interested egoists attempting to do the same thing and

thereby creating the potential for serious conflict. Anarcho-capitalists argue for theabolition of the state and for the organisation of the entire economy in accordance with

the principles of laissez faire thereby implying a view of human nature similar to that of

classical and neo-liberals. The individualist anarchists Warren and Tucker proposed

economic arrangements involving the abolition of the profit motive but the continuationof some economic inequality to sustain economic incentives thereby suggesting attitudes

to human nature intermediate between liberalism and moderate socialism.

The views of human nature of the social anarchists Bakunin [the collectivist anarchist]and Kropotkin [the anarcho- communists] overlap considerably with those of radical

socialists. For them individual competitiveness is not inborn but the result of living in acompetitive capitalist society; the communal ownership of the means of production will

encourage community spirit; according to Kropotkin the allocation of goods and services

according to need will not destroy incentives because individuals will be prepared towork for the good of the community while Bakunin, although he supports the allocation

of goods and services according to work done rejects the massive economic inequalities

which are inevitably generated in capitalist societies.

According to liberals because individuals are potentially rational they must be allowed

the liberty to act in their own best interests except if they are likely to harm others.

Minimum night watchman states are seen as necessary to guarantee the social order which is itself a pre-requisite for individual liberty but individuals must also be free [in

the negative sense] from excessive state interference. Classical and neo-liberals argue

further that economic inequality is inevitable and desirable in a capitalist economy andthat it is also indicative of the freedom of talented individuals to make the best of their

talents.

However social liberals added the notion that the social welfare functions of the stateshould be extended to provide the positive freedoms for all individuals to develop their

talents to the full. Socialists in turn have argued that far greater economic equality is

necessary if all individuals are to enjoy liberty and that a much extended state will beessential if both equality and individual liberty are to be achieved although in the Marxist

theory the state should wither away once pure communism has been achieved.

Anarchists support maximum possible levels of individual liberty and claim that states,

far from protecting individual liberty via the safeguarding of the social order as liberals

claim actually destroy the capacities of individuals to create their own social order.

Neither can extended socialist states be relied upon to promote greater equality and



thereby to promote greater liberty. In relation to the USSR the anarchists predicted that

the statist version of socialism introduced by Lenin and the Bolsheviks would actually

restrict individual liberty without significantly increasing economic equality and so it hasturned out to be.

Assuming that the state is to be abolished there are also important disputes amonganarchists as to what types of organisations should replace the state. For example the

individualist anarchists Warren and Tucker argue for small scale communities of

individual producers whose independence is protected by their ownership of their ownmeans of production and where community regulations are strictly limited so as to

maximise individual liberty. Against this the social anarchists Bakunin and Kropotkin

argue for the communal ownership of the means of production and hope that individuals

will come to experience higher levels of liberty in their decisions freely to cooperate withothers. Here is illustrated the anarchist support for individual liberty combined with

divisions within anarchism as to the actual nature of liberty and the best means of

achieving it.

In arguing for the abolition for the state as a means of securing individual liberty

anarchists are closer to the liberalistic acceptance of the minimum state than to thesocialist theory of the extended state but once we have considered anarchist attitudes to

capitalism we shall see that some social anarchists still define themselves as socialists

despite their desire to abolish the state.

Both classical and neo-liberals are strong supporters of laissez faire combined with a

limited night-watchman state to secure the social order. Liberal support for laissez faire

was under-pinned by the economic theories outlined by Adam Smith in his study “TheWealth of Nations” [1776] in which he argued that the competitive capitalist economy

based upon private profit and individual self-interest could via the so-called “invisible

hand” of the market mechanism secure the best possible living standards for all membersof society. The economic inequalities produced by capitalism are justified since they

provide the incentives necessary to promote economic growth and are not seen as

restricting either individual liberty or equality of opportunity.

These arguments are rejected totally by radical socialists for whom unregulated free

market capitalism results in a serious misallocation of resources because it is based on

production for profit rather than production for need. Furthermore capitalism is seen asunjust, exploitative and dehumanizing and its inevitable economic inequality and poverty

completely obliterate any possibility of individual liberty and equality of opportunity.

Once again anarchist attitudes to capitalism vary considerably. At one end of the anarchist

spectrum anarcho-capitalists sympathise with the free market liberal defence of laissez

faire and wish even to extend laissez faire principles into the production of services suchas legal institutions, the police and the military which are currently produced by the state.

At the other extreme social anarchists such as Bakunin and especially Kropotkin would

accept in its entirety the radical socialist critique of free market capitalism without of

course accepting the socialist remedy of extended state activity. The individualist



anarchists Warren and Tucker and the mutualist social anarchist Proudhon might be seen

as located at intermediate positions on this political spectrum.

In summary it might be argued that anarcho-capitalists in their support for free market

principles and the abolition of the state are far closer to liberals who in the interests of

both economic efficiency and liberty support free market principles combined with alimited state than to socialists who are critical of the unregulated capitalist free market

and support substantial and possibly total government control of the economy. By

contrast although the desired abolition of the state by the social anarchists Bakunin andKropotkin [and by Godwin] links them to some extent with the liberal support for the

limited state, their rejection of free market capitalism combined with their beliefs that

true liberty can be achieved only in communally based equal societies identifies them not

with liberalism but with a radical but stateless and libertarian form of socialism..

The individualist anarchists Warren and Tucker and the mutualist social anarchist

Proudhon occupy intermediate positions between liberalism and socialism. Their support

for limited amounts of private property and limited inequality as well as their fears thatcommunal living could undermine individual liberty links them to liberalism whereas

their rejection of the profit motive and of extreme inequality helps to explain DavidMiller’s description of Warren and Tucker as “market socialists” while Ian Adams has

pointed to the intermediate position occupied by Proudhon as follows,” “Proudhon’s ideal

world was a world of small independent producers- peasant farmers and craftsmen whoassociated and made contracts with each other freely for their mutual benefit and for

whom a centralised coercive state was an unnecessary evil. We can certainly see elements

of socialism in Proudhon’s rejection of large inequalities of wealth and income and of the

profit motive but in his rejection of the central state and his support for self-governingcommunities, individual ownership of possessions and acceptance of a measure of

economic inequality we can also see important links to liberal ideology.

It is perhaps fair to say that the contemporary anarchist movement is influenced more

strongly nowadays by social anarchists who in their support for the anti-globalisation and

anti-capitalist movements are also rejecting the economic principles of neo-liberalism.Yet in their belief that social and economic equality and individual liberty can only be

achieved via the abolition of the state the influence of liberalism is still apparent.

Meanwhile so-called life style anarchists may be focusing on exercising their own

personal liberties in small non-hierarchical, non-authoritarian groups and in their own personal lifestyle choices. This is not to say that individuals cannot be both life style and

social anarchists.

Introduction

Anarchism literally means “without rule” or “without government”. It has

traditionally been associated with chaos, social disorder, destruction,

violence and even terrorism. For example in the latter stages of the French

Revolution the so-called Enrages who were critical of the Jacobin



government for their failure to do more to help the poor and the

disadvantaged were described by the government as “anarchists” in this

pejorative sense and since then the word “anarchist” has often been used,

particularly by moderates as a term of political abuse. However increasingly

from the late C18th political theorists building on long standing political

criticisms of authority developed an altogether more positive interpretation

of the term anarchism.

The case for Anarchism has come to rest essentially on the idea that political

arguments in support of political authority and particularly arguments in

support of the state are flawed. In the anarchist view the state does not

guarantee social order, nor protect individual liberty, nor create the

economic conditions for the improvement of working class life as

conservatives, liberals and non-anarchist socialists would argue: rather the

state constrains the individual and creates social disorder. Conversely theanarchists claim it is only individual freedom and the abolition of the state

which will result in real human self-development and social harmony. To

see this let us discuss the Anarchist logo.

We must recognise that although the ideology of Anarchism contains

important core elements there are also major divergences within this

ideology. Anarchists are committed to the cause of individual liberty. They

believe that individuals are the best judges of their own best interests and

that they should therefore possess the high degree of liberty necessary to

enable them to think and act as they see fit. The exercise of individual liberty

will result also in social order and social harmony whereas if individuals are

constrained by other individuals and organisations and especially if they are

constrained by the State the result will be social disorder and social

disharmony.

All anarchists of all types are united in their opposition to authority and in

particular to the authority of the State. Whereas Liberals, Conservatives and

non-Anarchist Socialists advance various justifications for the existence of

the State Anarchists argue that States destroy individual liberty and in doingso undermine social order and harmony. However there are also disputes

within Anarchism surrounding the nature of human nature itself, the nature

of individual liberty, the nature of the State, the nature of capitalism, the

methods by which the transition to anarchist society is to be achieved and

the desired characteristics of future anarchist societies.



We may to some extent analyse some of the controversies within Anarchism

via the consideration of the broad distinction between individualist and

social anarchism according to which Godwin, Stirner, Warren, Tucker and

the anarcho-capitalists are usually described as individualist anarchists and

Proudhon, Bakunin and Kropotkin are usually described as social anarchists.

It will be necessary to outline the possible differences between these two

broad types of anarchism while at the same time recognising the limitations

of this broad distinction. In this respect you may be interested in the

following email communication from Peter Marshall…perhaps the major

UK expert on Anarchism.

Anarchists and Human Nature

It is useful to begin our analysis of Anarchism with a consideration of anarchist views of human nature for such views help also to explain several

other elements of anarchist thought. Although William Godwin is usually

described as an individualist anarchist and Pierre Joseph Proudhon, Michael

Bakunin, and Peter Kropotkin are described as social anarchists all of these

writers provide a similar optimistic view of human nature. Thus they all

argue that human beings are born with the capacity for selfish and altruistic

behaviour but that societies can be organised so as to promote the

development of altruistic behaviour. There is nothing inherently self-

interested in human nature and Kropotkin indeed argues that it is social

cooperation rather than competition which is likely to foster the survival of

animal species and of human beings all of which leads him to oppose the

social Darwinist ideas of liberals such as Herbert Spencer. Whereas Godwin

and Kropotkin argued for the allocation of goods and services according to

social need, both Proudhon and Bakunin supported a measure of inequality

according to work done which perhaps hints at some differences their

attitude to human nature.

The views of Godwin, Proudhon, Bakunin and Kropotkin differ very

substantially from those of the individualist Max Stirner who rejects allconcepts such as equality and social justice as essentially meaningless and

argues instead that individuals should vigorously develop their own

individuality and pursue their own self-interest even when this individual

self-interest runs counter to the interests of others all of which suggests that

Stirner has a positive view of the human capacity for self-development but

also that individuals have it in their nature to be extremely selfish. Notice



that Godwin’s view of human nature is much closer to those of the social

anarchists Proudhon, Bakunin and Kropotkin than to the individualist

Stirner.

Finally we may consider the views of American individualist anarchists such

as Josiah Warren and Benjamin Tucker and of the anarcho-capitalists such

as Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard, Robert Nozick and David Friedman. Josiah

Warren and Benjamin Tucker are described by David Miller [Anarchism

1984] as “ market socialists “in the sense that they envisaged and economic

system in which prices were determined by their costs of production [mainly

by their labour costs] with zero profit and hence zero exploitation of labour.

This of itself would suggest an optimistic view of human nature but both

Warren and Tucker feared that communal living could result in the denial of

individuality and both also supported the ownership of a limited amount of

property as a means of protecting individual independence and liberty whileTucker believed also in the value of economic competition and some

economic inequality which would generate incentives and allow individuals

to enjoy the benefits of their own hard work. Anarchism was “consistent

Manchesterism”, he said which pointed to his support for a modified form of

laissez faire which could result in some economic inequality. Anarcho-

capitalists support an extreme version of neo-liberal ideology in which the

state will be abolished and the entire economy is organised in accordance

with the principles of unregulated laissez faire. This implies that human

beings are able rationally to assess their own self- interest and that if they act

in accordance with it the market mechanism will provide good living

standards for all: individuals are self-interested but their self-interest results

in the common good because of the efficiency of the market mechanism.

More on laissez faire later.

We may argue that social anarchism is the most significant current within

anarchism and that supporters of social anarchism do indeed have an

optimistic view of human nature. However once we investigate other forms

of anarchism we see more variation in anarchist attitudes to human nature.

Anarchists and Individual Liberty

Anarchist views of individual liberty derive partly from their views

concerning human nature and partly from their views of the possible

relationships between individual liberty and the social institutions with

which individuals interact.



• William Godwin, although he did not describe himself as an anarchist,

certainly addressed many of he key issues subsequently analysed by

later anarchists. [Peter Marshall calls him “the grandfather of

anarchism.”] He may be described as an individualist anarchist in thesense that he feared that all forms of social organisation could in

principle restrict individual freedom and thereby restrict the

opportunities for individuals to develop their capacities for individual

judgment. However he also distinguished between liberty and licence

arguing that individuals, although born neither good nor bad, could in

favourable anarchist circumstances learn to take independent

decisions which would nevertheless be in the interests of their fellow

human beings. Thus according to Peter Marshall “one of Godwin’s

greatest strengths is the way in which he reconciles the claims of

personal autonomy and the demands of social life.”• The views of Michael Bakunin and Peter Kropotkin are rather similar

in that they to argue that a high degree of individual freedom can be

reconciled with taking decisions in accordance with social justice and

the needs of the community as a whole. They may be seen as closer to

social anarchism than Godwin, however, because they had greater

confidence that social communal living could be organised without

the reduction in individual autonomy while Godwin was more

sceptical of this. [see also Peter Marshall’s Email!]

• Anarchist views surrounding individual liberty are related also to their views about private property. Whereas Godwin and Kropotkin

supported allocation of goods and services according to need and

Bakunin supported collective ownership but allocation of goods and

services according to work done other anarchists have been more

sympathetic to the ownership of private property. Proudhon famously

stated that property is theft but he did in fact support individual

ownership of limited amounts of land and working implements as a

means of protecting workers’ individual freedom and in this respect

his views are similar to the views of Warren and Tucker. Anarcho-

capitalists also see ownership of private property as essential for the

maintenance of individual freedom.

• It would be fair to say that Max Stirner’s approach to individual

freedom differs very significantly to that of other anarchists. Stirner

mounts an extremely powerful critique of the state but also rejects

concepts of equality and social justice as essentially meaningless and



argues instead for a stateless society of individualist “egoists”

following their own self- interest but recognising that they face other

highly developed individual egoists well able to defend their own

interests so that a state of social balance could prevail although his

critics have argued that this is far from certain. If the egoist Hitler

faced the egoist Stalin there could be trouble ahead…. but what would

happen if Jeremy Paxman, Jose Mourinho, Madonna and Lady

Thatcher met up? Do not refer to this hypothetical example in your

examination!

• We shall be considering the relationships between anarchism and

other ideologies later in these notes but you might at this point

consider how anarchist analyses of individual liberty differ from

liberal analyses of individual liberty.

Anarchists and the State

According to Andrew Heywood, “the state can most simply be described as

a political association that establishes sovereign jurisdiction within defined

territorial borders and exercises authority through asset of permanent

institutions". All anarchists oppose all forms of the State. They obviously

reject dictatorships as tyrannical but they also reject liberal democratic states

and the theories which seek to justify them and they are perhaps particularly

critical of so-called state socialist states which according to anarchists have perverted the aims of anarchist libertarian socialism.

Anarchists criticise liberal democratic states on the following grounds.

• Liberal democratic states, like all states, interfere with individual

freedom which is essential to promote human self-development and

social order.

• Constitutional governments have evolved over several generations but

there is no logical reason why members of the present generation

should have their political freedoms restricted by the decisions of past

generations. The liberal claim that limited states protect our freedom

is a myth which helps to legitimise governments and hide the fact that

they govern in their own interests and not in the interests of the

citizens. Liberals such as John Locke argued in the C17th that states

were necessary to maintain the social order without which individual

liberty would be impossible but also that individuals should be free [in



a negative sense] from excessive state intervention and that they also

had the right to rebel against the state and to remove tyrannical

governments. Anarchists reject such theories on the grounds that even

limited liberal “night watchman” restrict individual freedom and

undermine opportunities for personal self-development through the

use of individual judgement.

• C17th Century liberals were not especially committed to liberal

democracy based upon universal suffrage but Anarchists are critical

also of the liberal democratic state which is also seen as restricting

individual freedoms in various ways such that as Pierre Joseph

Proudhon expressed it, “Universal suffrage is the counter–revolution”

or as we hear sometimes in everyday conversation, “Don’t vote: it

only encourages them.” Anarchists criticise liberal democratic states

on the following grounds.

• Conservative and non-anarchist socialist arguments in support of thestate are also invalid

• We cannot rely on parliamentary representatives to govern in our

interests since they will be corrupted quickly by their proximity to

state power and in any case we can develop our individuality to the

full only by participating personally in politics and relying on our own

judgement, not by relying on the judgement of others.

• Political parties cannot be trusted: they over-simplify issues and rely

on misleading political slogans and demagoguery thereby misleading

people and preventing them from thinking for themselves.• Even in a highly participatory democracy if decisions are taken on the

basis of majority voting there are dangers involved in the possibility

of the tyranny of the majority as some early liberal theorists also

recognised. Decisions taken on the basis of majority voting are not

necessarily correct decisions and anarchists argue that it is entirely

justifiable for individuals to rely upon their own individual judgement

and to disobey laws with which they disagree. [ In anarchist societies

to be discussed below it is hoped that communal decisions can be

made on the basis of a social consensus constructed through rational discussion rather than on the basis of majority voting.]

• Anarchists may also use arguments influenced by radical socialism

[and possibly Marxism] to claim that even apparently democratically

elected governments govern in the interests of the rich and powerful.

Thus not only is our own freedom restricted when governments pass

laws which we are forced either to obey or to risk punishment for non-



compliance but these laws also defend the interests of the rich via the

perpetuation of exploitation, economic inequality and poverty.

• Exactly similar arguments apply to government taxation and

spending: taxation takes away our freedom to spend our own money

while the government spends money in accordance with the interestsof the rich and /or in accordance with its own interests.

• States are involved in economic competition with other states which

may lead to wars in which citizens are misled by spurious appeals to

nationalism into killing and maiming in the interests of the state.

• Whereas social anarchists argue that the state is to be abolished partly

because it is an instrument of capitalist oppression, anarcho-capitalists

argue that the state is to be abolished because it inhibits the operation

of laissez-faire capitalism which alone can protect individual freedom

and generate rising living standards for all. In this respect anarcho-

capitalism may be regarded as an extreme variant of neo-liberalism

but its defence of economic inequality leads some social anarchists to

deny that it is to be regarded as a form of anarchism. Again, more on

anarcho-capitalism later.

Anarchism and Other Forms of Authority

Anarchists are likely to oppose other forms of authority as well as the

authority of the state. Thus for example patriarchal family structures mayinhibit individual freedom of women and children; schools may encourage

an unthinking respect for authority among children which encourages them

to accept monotonous and poorly paid work in later life without complaint;

religion may encourage a fatalistic acceptance of economic inequality rather

than a readiness to rebel against it and all forms of authority prevent

individuals from developing their own individual judgement which alone

can provide a basis for social harmony in anarchy.

As we shall see in more detail later the issue of authority does present some

problems for anarchists.

• Should they accept the authority of experts?

• If they set up communes will it be necessary to choose representatives

who, in some ways use their authority to undermine the individual

freedom of the rest of the members?



• Is there a danger that within anarchist communities the majority

opinion will restrict the freedom of individuals opposed to the

majority opinion?

Documents

aaaanarchism