Ideology Core Questions Flashcards
To what extent do anarchists disagree on human nature?
Anarchists agree that human nature is corrupted by external social forces such as capitalism and the state:
Individualists such as Stirner view the state as limiting the ‘ego’, enforcing a capitalist system which is unfulfilling by denying workers the full-fruits of their labour; state looks to ‘tame, limit and subordinate the individual’. As human nature placed the ego above all else, clearly society distorts this. Goldman argued that the state runs counter to human nature by constraining personal liberty—unhindered individuality and mutual aid would arise with the rise of anarchist society
Collectivist anarchists view that economically exploitative system as hindering our natural altruistic nature. Kropotkin’s utopian future requires liberation from authority to nurture solidarity and altruism. Bakunin viewed our sociability as restricted by the state and thus calls for collectivisation
Disagreement regarding methods to liberate human nature from the state:
Divergence within collectivist anarchism: Bakunin calls for ‘propaganda by the deed’, whilst Kropotkin glorifies intellectual education, despite both endorsing spontaneous mass revolution to annihilate the state, freeing human nature in a collectivist system, with common ownership and eradication of wage system
Stirner’s egoism calls for insurrection, whereby individuals transcend the state and become egoist, leaving it to wither and die, as he rejects revolution as merely replacing the source of authoritarian power. Following this, Union of Egoists will emerge to satiate natural self-interested human nature
Bridging the individualist-collectivist gap, Proudhon endorses evolution rather than revolution, liberating human nature gradually within the shell of the existing state through reforms, eventually reaching a mutualist society with small-scale private possession and exchange of goods and services: humans are an ‘integral part of collective existence’
Disagreement regarding the core roots of human nature when liberated from the state:
Stirner, through the Union of Egoists, viewed a utopia as a society where individuals relentlessly pursuit their own interests (not common good). He would not deplore, for example, a mother who kills her own child if she deemed her actions plausible—this ‘owners is self-mastery’ as ‘I am my own only when I am master of myself’. Accordingly, human nature is self-serving and competitive
Kropotkin’s mutual aid refutes the social Darwinist survival of the fittest, arguing that ‘under any circumstances sociability is the greatest advantage in the struggle for life’. He deplores Stirner’s egoism as negative and excessive hedonistic. Accordingly, human nature is altruistic and co-operative
To what extent do anarchists disagree over the state?
Anarchism is characterised by its rejection of the state—Emma Goldman referred to it as a ‘cold monster’
For both individualist and collectivist anarchist, rejecting the state is necessary to create liberty: Stirner’s egoism rejects authority as it seeks to ‘tame, limit and subordinate the individual’, the state withholds full-fruits of labour, limiting the ego
Collectivist anarchist reject the state: anarcho-communist Kropotkin viewed utopian society as one free of capitalism and the state, based on voluntary federations in a system of mutual aid. Similarly, anarchists-communist Goldman states three main reasons why the state should be rejected: it runs counter to human nature, it relies on the implicit threat of violence and it engages in external military struggles. Clearly the reasons for rejecting the state differ even within the collectivist strand, yet it is rejected nonetheless
Agreement that the state corrupts and distorts human nature:
In ‘Mutual Aid’, Kropotkin wrote that humans have been successful as a species due to our cooperative, rather than competitive, nature. Yet the state corrupts this, ‘subject[ing] the masses to the will of the minorities’ , concealing this natural altruism.
Stirner argued that the ‘ego’ should be placed above all else, exemplified by the Union of Egoists utopia, as individual sovereignty is paramount and ‘I am my own only when I am master of myself’. Accordingly, the state suppresses natural human impulse to prioritise individual sovereignty and thus egoism and the state are in ‘deadly hostility’.
Thus, despite the core roots of human nature differing between anarchists, consensus is that the state disrupts the natural order and prevents humans from acting in line with what is best for them, be that self-interest or altruism.
Disagreement over how to achieve a stateless society:
Collectivist anarchists have subtle internal divisions: Bakunin calls for the revolutionary annihilation of the state, utilising ‘propaganda by the deed’ to inspire revolutionary spirit, causing mass strikes and violent uprisings. Kropotkin agrees that the state must be overthrown by the masses, but believes that this should be ‘educated’ and led by anarchist intellectuals promoting their ideas to resonate with revolutionary instincts.
Further disagreement with Stirner’s rejection of revolution as authoritarian, instead endorsing insurrection, whereby individuals exalt themselves, transcending the state and leaving it to wither and die. Similarly, but not quite mirroring Stirner, Proudhon believes in evolution instead of direct action, whereby a new mutualist society is constructed within the shell of the existing state
The disagreement cannot be absolute, however, as the desired end result is shared by all anarchists: the eradication of the state, immediately or gradually
To what extent do anarchists disagree on society?
As anarchism advocates social liberty, all strands reject society in its current form, characterised by hierarchy and exploitation:
Egoist Stirner rejects capitalist society as ‘machine-like labour [that] amounts to the same thing as slavery’. Anarchism rejection of the state informs his view that current state-led society ‘tame[s], limit[s] and subordinate[s] the individual’, as individual sovereignty and the ‘ego’ is disregarded for the well-being on the community as a whole.
Collectivists condemn current society as damaging to human nature: Bakunin maintains that religion subdues individual thought and the state is a ‘vast slaughterhouse’ which suppresses natural altruism. Comparably, Goldman defined anarchism as a social order based on liberty without legal restrictions, thus condemning current society as protecting the interests of the ruling-class
Less consensus over how a future society should be ordered:
Bridging the gap between collectivism and individualism, Proudhon’s mutualism permits small-scale private possession and advocates self-governing produces to exchange goods through contracts freely entered into. This differs from collectivism as it benefits the hard-working to a greater extent and different from the Union of Egoists, as Proudhon views people to be ‘an integral part of collective existence’ whereas Stirner glorifies relentless pursuit of self-interest
By contrast, anarchism-communist Kropotkin’s utopian society would be economically based on communism, with common ownership and elimination of wage system: ‘All things are for all men, since all men have need of them’, promoting cooperation and altruism
Further disagreement over how this future anarchist society should be achieved, namely how the state should be overthrown:
Divisions within collectivism: Bakunin’s ‘propaganda by the deed’ and Kropotkin’s ‘education, then revolution’
To what extent do anarchists have differing views on the economy?
Different views over acceptance of capitalism as an economic system: Anarchists-capitalists, despite wishing to dismantle the gov, believe in the invisible hand of the free-market and private property, thus profit motive and wage system are endorsed. Rothbard argued that a free-market would create order due to competitive human nature, retaining capitalist aspects — individualists are not wholly in agreement, however, as Stirner’s egoism rejects capitalist system as ‘machine-like labour [that] amounts to the same thing as slavery’ Anarchists-communists such as Kropotkin reject this, as his economic utopia would be economically based on communism, with common ownership of the means of production. Capitalism does not reflect the true communal nature of society. Similarly, collectivist Bakunin calls for collectivisation in the economy, as abolition of private property will promote liberty and order, especially due to our natural social nature. He rejects the capitalism as ‘If there is a state, there must be the domination of one class by another and, as a result, slavery’
According to the divergence over the extent to which capitalism is accepted, it follows that the ideal economic utopia different between different anarchists:
For egoist Stirner, views of utopian economic system based on creation of unions of egoists, where voluntary groups of self-serving individuals pursue personal objectives. He rejects private property in favour of egoistic property which entails rejection of exclusive possession, instead free use of objects or people. This has a clear contrast with anarcho-capitalism, presenting divide within the individualist bracket
Collectivists share more common ground with both Kropotkin and Bakunin calling for a collectivised economy with the common ownership of the MoP and abolition of private property. Kropotkin stated that ‘All things are for all men, since all men have need of them’, accentuating the difference between equality of opportunity for individualists and equality of outcome for collectivists
To what extent to conservatives have differing views on human nature?
Differing views over social paternalism stems from disputes over man in the state of nature:
Traditional conservative Hobbes saw life in the state of nature as ‘solitary poor, nasty, brutish and short’ arising from our ‘restless desire’ for power. Accordingly, we form social contract with hierarchal paternalistic governments to coerce order, acting as a ‘noblesse oblige’. One-nation thought agrees on the need for paternalism to avoid class-conflict, suggesting views of man in the state of nature coincide with traditional thought. By contrast, liberal New Right views human base nature as more rational than impulsive, as Ayn Rand exemplified, thus advocating atomistic individualism to create a ‘natural order’ without paternalism. New Right itself is divided, as Neo-conservatives are morally authoritarian, advocating strong police force and harsh punishment for permissiveness, highlighting a view of human nature comparable to Hobbes and Disraeli
Pragmatism vs ideology dispute arises from disagreement over human capacity for reason:
Traditional creed notes the need for pragmatism resulting from the intrinsic complexity of society — Oakeshott argued that abstract principles are inadequate in understanding society due to limited mental capacity of the populace. Burke glorified empiricism as it ensures organicism. Nuanced difference within traditional conservatism, as Hobbes explained the limited mental capacity of people with external factors, arguing that we are easily ‘led astray’
Liberal New Right endorses ideology over tradition and empiricism, based on the belief that paternalistic government intervention cannot solve problems as well as we can, being rational and self-interested creatures — pragmatism subjugated these natural traits
Difference outlooks on human nature inform economic stances: Liberal New Right opposes taxation to fund welfare schemes, endorsing the free-market — Nozick based his philosophy on Kant and Locke, arguing that people should not be used as a mere means to an end and individuals are sovereign, suggesting a positive outlook of human nature that is not shared by other conservatives. Rand agrees that the state should be limited in economic affairs, albeit placing more emphasis on our competitive nature than co-operative, calling for a ‘pure, uncontrolled, unregulated, laissez-faire economy’, respecting human nature and non-aggression One-nation thought, by contrast, endorses taxation and welfare schemes as human nature is volatile — Disraeli saw the best way to avoid revolution to reconcile economic interests of the upper-class with that of the working-class (1951-64 Tory governments)
