Anarchism Non-Core Questions Flashcards
To what extent do anarchists have differing views on rejection of the state?
Agree that the state is economically exploitative:
Collectivists believe state exploits the many: anarchists-comms view private property as theft — Bakunin calls for collectivisation, common ownership replacing private property
Individualists see taxation as stealing individual autonomy: Stirner believes workers should retain full fruits of their labour — Proudhon allows for possession and full fruits, but attacks private property
Difference is individualists believe in invisible hand of the free market
Both reject the state as corruptive to human nature, thus removal of it will liberate human nature:
Egoist individualists like Stirner condemn state as limiting the ‘ego’, whilst collectivist require liberty for people to act socially and altruistically, eg Kropotkin’s mutual aid
Difference is in individualist’s view of humans as self interested and competitive against collectivist’s altruistic and cooperative. Yet both agree that removing the state will reveal these qualities
Anarchists disagree on how the state should be removed
Bakunin’s collectivism calls for ‘propaganda by the deed’ — a spontaneous revolution to annihilate the state from below. Proudhon takes a more mutualist approach in ‘evolution, not revolution’, to contrast a new society within the shell of the existing one. Egoist Stirner rejects revolution as authoritarian, instead ‘insurrection’ by withdrawal from society so the state will wither away
To what extent do anarchists have differing views of liberty?
Meaning of true liberty differs between anarchists
For individualists, liberty is freedom to autonomous and explore one’s individuality, independent of hierarchy of state. Stirner’s Union of Egoists is a society where people serve their own rational interests, not the common good. For collectivists, liberty is freedom to be altruistic and co-operate. Bakunin argues that liberty can only be achieved by collectivisation, with common ownership and equality
Anarchists agree that liberty frees human nature from corruptive influences of the state
Both strands see state as corruptive and limiting: for Stirner, capitalism and institutions suppresses individuality and the ego, whereas anarchists-comms like Kropotkin believe the end of private property and mutual aid will nurture altruism and cooperation
Whilst aspects differ, both agree that liberty will unlock human potential
Anarchists have conflicting views on how liberty should be achieved
Bakunin’s collectivism calls for ‘propaganda by the deed’ with spontaneous revolution. Similarly, Kropotkin calls for an educated revolution. However, Stirner’s individualist egoism rejects revolution and Proudhon calls for evolution and gradual withering of the state
Despite these differing methods, all anarchists seek to eradicate the state (eventually) so liberty can be achieved
To what extent do anarchists have differing views on idea that anarchy is order?
Different views on how ‘ordered’ society should be structured
Collectivists and anarchists-comms advocate common ownership as the collective takes precedence over the individual, eg Kropotkin’s mutual aid and collective utopia based on communism. Individualists disagree that order is found through cooperation and altruism, instead when the individual keep the full fruits of their labour; Stirner’s Union of Egoists is where order serves self-interest
Differing views of economic order
All anarchists oppose existing hierarchal forms of capitalism due to inequality, however collectivists believe economic order comes from collective ownership of the means of production, thus retaining no capitalist aspects. Proudhon opposed private property as exploitative and Kropotkin stated ‘all belongs to all’. However, individualists believe economic order comes from invisible hand of free market and competitive individualism. Anarcho-caps seek to retain aspects of capitalism eg profit motive creates orders by expressing consumer preference — Murray Rothbard claimed free-market creates order as humans are competitive
Contrasting views on how to achieve a state of order, with Stirner’s insurrection, Proudhon’s evolution and collectivist revolution. They do agree that the end result is an ordered society, however, nurturing human nature and creating economic liberty
To what extent do anarchists have differing views of economic freedom?
Disagreement over property rights: collectivists would have them abolished completely, arguing economic freedom comes from common ownership of means of production and property perpetuates inequality. However, individualists would lean toward its retention — anarch-cap Murray Rothbard required profit motive in economic freedom as human are naturally competitive
Proudhon takes a middle ground, whereby personal possession protects the individual, but private ownership of the means is exploitative. Goldman believes freedom can only come about by liberating individuals from constraints of private property
Clearly, anarchists disagree re private property, whilst all arguing that economic freedom comes independent of the state
Differing views over what economic freedom looks like: utopia. All anarchists oppose existing forms of capitalism, yet the extent to this differs
Anarchists-comm Kropotkin’s notion of utopia would economically be based on communism with collective ownership of means of production. Proudhon’s mutualism deplores common ownership, arguing that workers should keep full fruits — small associations would exchange to support each other (altruism). Anarcho-caps believe economic freedom can be found within the free market — economic freedom comes with competition (Hans Hoppe) and all contract regulated by free market
Differing views on how to achieve a state of economic freedom, with the debate about evolution, revolution and insurrection. Proudhon’s mutualist society must evolve from the shell of existing state, forming worker cooperatives and the People’s Bank. Collectivists and anarchists-comms view revolution as the way to establish common ownership. Goldman said only collective violence/revolution can overthrow authority. Egoists view this as authoritarian, merely creating new oppressive states — insurrection with people withdrawing from capitalist society is best
To what extent do anarchists have differing views on utopia?
Differing views on what utopia looks like to different anarchists. Utopianism is an ideal society
For collectivists, utopia comes in the form of common ownership: Kropotkin’s utopia is economically based on communism with collectivism and voluntary communes based on direct democracy. For individualists, the absence of the state will liberate human potential, yet the focus is on self-interest rather than collective. Stirner’s utopian Union of Egoists is a free society living in the interests of the ego, based on voluntary agreements. Clearly difference in utopian focus on collective good vs individual good
These differing views come from contrasting anarchist views on human nature
Individualists view human nature as more competitive, whilst collectivists endorse cooperation and altruism. For Striner, utopia is where the ego is placed above everything as this truly liberates human nature as we are free to pursue our own interests. Bakunin accepted our rationality and individuality, but argued instead that humans are naturally altruistic thus a utopia is where individuals cooperate
Differing views on how to achieve utopia
Anarchists-comm Kropotkin believed in education, then revolution to achieve his communist utopia, which would be violent so that there could be a peaceful society. Similarly, Bakunin advocated ‘propaganda by the deed’. Contrasting this are individualist rejections of revolution. Stirner calls for insurrection and Proudhon evolution, so the state can wither away and utopia grows gradually
