Post by Mr. Hendrickson™ on Aug 31, 2003 22:50:02 GMT -5
The word anarchy originates from ancient Greece, literally meaning “without rule.” This word soon disappeared and was only known by the elite linguistic scholars for about fifteen hundred years, till the French Revolution. It was here that anarchy found itself attached to the a pejorative meaning, where the conservative “idealists” used the word to describe a Hobbesian state of nature, where without a strict- authoritarian state, civil life would break down, and predictable order would vanish. Today this pejorative understanding remains, where anarchy is thought to define a state of chaos and disorder. This is without qualification, for in the early twentieth century a campaign of terrorism was established across Europe in an attempt to bring down the governing classes, and leave society open to anarchic rule; needless to say this failed, and gave the right more ammunition to fire at the would be anarchic-idealist. It wasn’t till Pierre-Joseph Proudhon announced that “I am an anarchist” that anarchy finally found itself associated with a positive set of political ideas.
Anarchic thinking can be said to originate from Buddhist or Taoist teachings, or the Stoics in ancient Greece. However, the English Philosopher William Godwin wrote the first clear production of an anarchic text. It was minds such as Godwin’s that started to question the need for a state. Before Godwin emerged the need for society was defended by the notion of social contract theory. This justification for a state was developed by Hobbes and Locke, who argued that people entered into society to escape the dangerous trials of the state of nature. This state of nature is one of pure negative liberty (the absence of any constraint) but unlike the anarchic view, Hobbes wrote that in such a state, one would be in continual fear of their life, for everyone is free to kill or be killed. Thus, one would devolve their sovereignty (power and right to freedom) to a state, that would secure their natural rights to “ life, liberty and estates.”
However, Godwin turned this justification for a state on its head, arguing that humanity is in fact rational, and able to follow universal-moral laws. He argued that any corruption experienced was in fact a direct consequence of the corruption and oppression brought by government. Government was thus, not a solution to corruption but its cause.
Thus the anarchist case against authority became clear. Authority is an offence against the inherent rational qualities of man, and work against our liberty. We are free and autonomous creatures, who are very much capable of treating others with respect and sympathy. The whole culture of oppression by the state works against us, it develops a learned psychology of power. Much like the child who sees his older brother steal his sister’s toys, this child will grow to do the same. In this, we can see how in being oppressed from the very start, we develop into oppressors. However, this does not mean to say that anarchists believe all authority to be false. For example, the experience of a dentist or plumber is treated with particular respect for their specialized knowledge. But an anarchist will also view such people with suspicion. Anarchists are nonetheless firmly opposed to political authority, especially if the machinery of the dominant social class founds it; say capitalism.
So what is an anarchist? Well this is not an easy question to answer, and if I were to focus on this, and feel contented with the answer, I would be a far more intelligent being than I am. But essentially, all anarchists believe in the abolition of law and government. This stems mainly from the view that human nature is a positive one. Where a conservative would argue that humanity is a self-interested, dangerous species (Joseph De Maistre, the counter-revolutionary during the French revolution- argued that mankind was “positively evil”) an anarchist strictly believes that mankind is capable of living happily and peacefully together within the absence of authority. For an anarchist it is the state that corrupts the individual. Similar to a socialist, an anarchist believes that it is the environment that breeds evil. Like Plato’s analogy, a good seed in bad soil will not flourish! Therefore, the state is considered as an unnecessary evil, that oppresses the masses.
Morally, Robert Paul Wolfe the American philosopher (there are such things) believed that anarchy was in fact the only moral system. When one follows law or authority, one is failing to act autonomously (freely.) One ought to make decisions freely, as each and every person (psychological pathologies aside) is capable of knowing what is right and wrong. Therefore one ought to take responsibility for one’s actions. For example, the Nazi private who executed thousands of Jews because he was ordered to, shuffles the responsibility to his superiors and thus justifies himself by doing so. To an anarchist this is immoral insofar that it does not allow for autonomous thinking, and allows for a displacement of responsibility.
So far, we’ve only described anarchy in its rawest-simplest state. Like all ideologies there are different factions of thought, or at least no one consensus of opinion in how the ideology ought to progress, be attained etc. For example, there are both collectivist and individualist anarchists. They disagree on things such as public ownership, the conceptions of freedom etc.
Collectivist anarchism
The roots of collectivism anarchism lie in socialism, not liberalism. Essentially, this faction of anarchism works by pushing the collectivist ideas of socialism to its limits. Collectivism in summary is the belief that human beings are social animals, best suited to working together for the common good. Like the wolves that hunt in packs, or early man hunting the woolly mammoth in groups, we are instinctively social creatures. Like Bukunin announced “social solidarity is the first human law; freedom is the second”
However, it is for this belief that anarchists are criticised for being naïve and “hopelessly optimistic” in their view of human nature. In reality, few anarchists would claim that people are “naturally good” but rather that it is possible for someone to act well and compassionately to his neighbour. If we are social creatures, then our actions and capacities are moulded by our social experiences, our environmental factors. An individual will be greedy and selfish when interactive with greedy and selfish ways, which is induced by the oppression of an unjust-sovereign society. This thus explains why anarchists (as well as other far left ideologies, such as Marxism and socialism) place so much interest on education. An education when used correctly can mould the future society. However, there are many philosophical anarchists, including myself, that frown on this, as it is still a paternalistic indoctrination, even if it is utilitarian in its ends.
In this, anarchism is clearly interested in liberating education from “schooling” in its disciplining of students. Paul Goodman called this “compulsory miseducation.” Many would preach the goal of deschooling society, and educating them in a system that is more open, and not hierarchical, in that it does not oppress in any way, and leaves children to grow in a environment where learning is related to freedom.
Critics of this used Social Darwinism as an attack on this ideal, where the strong struggle to the top and are naturally competitive with each other, thus discrediting the anarchic view of human nature. However, Peter Kropotkin re-examined Darwinism, and argued that the successful species are those that harness collective energies and work for a mutual aid or cooperation. In this evolution has strengthened the idea of sociability, favouring co-operation over competition. This is shown in the city life of ancient Greece and Medieval Europe. Or even in the capitalist tradition of industrialization, where society works as a machine to further the nation; though capitalism does not do it mutually, but in a neo-slave form.
Anarchic thinking can be said to originate from Buddhist or Taoist teachings, or the Stoics in ancient Greece. However, the English Philosopher William Godwin wrote the first clear production of an anarchic text. It was minds such as Godwin’s that started to question the need for a state. Before Godwin emerged the need for society was defended by the notion of social contract theory. This justification for a state was developed by Hobbes and Locke, who argued that people entered into society to escape the dangerous trials of the state of nature. This state of nature is one of pure negative liberty (the absence of any constraint) but unlike the anarchic view, Hobbes wrote that in such a state, one would be in continual fear of their life, for everyone is free to kill or be killed. Thus, one would devolve their sovereignty (power and right to freedom) to a state, that would secure their natural rights to “ life, liberty and estates.”
However, Godwin turned this justification for a state on its head, arguing that humanity is in fact rational, and able to follow universal-moral laws. He argued that any corruption experienced was in fact a direct consequence of the corruption and oppression brought by government. Government was thus, not a solution to corruption but its cause.
Thus the anarchist case against authority became clear. Authority is an offence against the inherent rational qualities of man, and work against our liberty. We are free and autonomous creatures, who are very much capable of treating others with respect and sympathy. The whole culture of oppression by the state works against us, it develops a learned psychology of power. Much like the child who sees his older brother steal his sister’s toys, this child will grow to do the same. In this, we can see how in being oppressed from the very start, we develop into oppressors. However, this does not mean to say that anarchists believe all authority to be false. For example, the experience of a dentist or plumber is treated with particular respect for their specialized knowledge. But an anarchist will also view such people with suspicion. Anarchists are nonetheless firmly opposed to political authority, especially if the machinery of the dominant social class founds it; say capitalism.
So what is an anarchist? Well this is not an easy question to answer, and if I were to focus on this, and feel contented with the answer, I would be a far more intelligent being than I am. But essentially, all anarchists believe in the abolition of law and government. This stems mainly from the view that human nature is a positive one. Where a conservative would argue that humanity is a self-interested, dangerous species (Joseph De Maistre, the counter-revolutionary during the French revolution- argued that mankind was “positively evil”) an anarchist strictly believes that mankind is capable of living happily and peacefully together within the absence of authority. For an anarchist it is the state that corrupts the individual. Similar to a socialist, an anarchist believes that it is the environment that breeds evil. Like Plato’s analogy, a good seed in bad soil will not flourish! Therefore, the state is considered as an unnecessary evil, that oppresses the masses.
Morally, Robert Paul Wolfe the American philosopher (there are such things) believed that anarchy was in fact the only moral system. When one follows law or authority, one is failing to act autonomously (freely.) One ought to make decisions freely, as each and every person (psychological pathologies aside) is capable of knowing what is right and wrong. Therefore one ought to take responsibility for one’s actions. For example, the Nazi private who executed thousands of Jews because he was ordered to, shuffles the responsibility to his superiors and thus justifies himself by doing so. To an anarchist this is immoral insofar that it does not allow for autonomous thinking, and allows for a displacement of responsibility.
So far, we’ve only described anarchy in its rawest-simplest state. Like all ideologies there are different factions of thought, or at least no one consensus of opinion in how the ideology ought to progress, be attained etc. For example, there are both collectivist and individualist anarchists. They disagree on things such as public ownership, the conceptions of freedom etc.
Collectivist anarchism
The roots of collectivism anarchism lie in socialism, not liberalism. Essentially, this faction of anarchism works by pushing the collectivist ideas of socialism to its limits. Collectivism in summary is the belief that human beings are social animals, best suited to working together for the common good. Like the wolves that hunt in packs, or early man hunting the woolly mammoth in groups, we are instinctively social creatures. Like Bukunin announced “social solidarity is the first human law; freedom is the second”
However, it is for this belief that anarchists are criticised for being naïve and “hopelessly optimistic” in their view of human nature. In reality, few anarchists would claim that people are “naturally good” but rather that it is possible for someone to act well and compassionately to his neighbour. If we are social creatures, then our actions and capacities are moulded by our social experiences, our environmental factors. An individual will be greedy and selfish when interactive with greedy and selfish ways, which is induced by the oppression of an unjust-sovereign society. This thus explains why anarchists (as well as other far left ideologies, such as Marxism and socialism) place so much interest on education. An education when used correctly can mould the future society. However, there are many philosophical anarchists, including myself, that frown on this, as it is still a paternalistic indoctrination, even if it is utilitarian in its ends.
In this, anarchism is clearly interested in liberating education from “schooling” in its disciplining of students. Paul Goodman called this “compulsory miseducation.” Many would preach the goal of deschooling society, and educating them in a system that is more open, and not hierarchical, in that it does not oppress in any way, and leaves children to grow in a environment where learning is related to freedom.
Critics of this used Social Darwinism as an attack on this ideal, where the strong struggle to the top and are naturally competitive with each other, thus discrediting the anarchic view of human nature. However, Peter Kropotkin re-examined Darwinism, and argued that the successful species are those that harness collective energies and work for a mutual aid or cooperation. In this evolution has strengthened the idea of sociability, favouring co-operation over competition. This is shown in the city life of ancient Greece and Medieval Europe. Or even in the capitalist tradition of industrialization, where society works as a machine to further the nation; though capitalism does not do it mutually, but in a neo-slave form.