Anarchism Assignment

Q1. What is the discomfort that anarchists have with the idea of state and power? Do you think that the
anarchist school of thought can be a viable alternative?

Ans. Introduction

Anarchism, literally meaning ‘without rule’, is in its quintessential sense, associated with chaos and
absence of order. However, anarchism as a principle is not negative as stated above. Anarchism as a
principle opposes the idea of a state as they believe that coercive authority manifests itself in every
state structure. Anarchists advocate the abolition of state and governments in all forms of politics be it
democracy or dictatorship as the eventual issue with all forms of government is coercion.

The origins of anarchism can be traced back to a socialist movement. William Godwin however was the
first who articulated the principles of anarchism. Anarchism takes an optimistic view of individuals
believing they would be inherently kind and harmonious. Individuals according to anarchism are capable
of managing affairs on their own when they come together voluntarily.

Anarchism may only be completely viable when applied across the world. However, the state structure
has become entrenched in human life so much so that its existence is never questioned. In this context,
it has taken the anarchist ideas time to develop as an alternative as against the state.

The following sections would be examining the anarchist view of the state, economy and religion. It
would also aim to examine how viable anarchism is as an alternative.

Anarchist view of the state

Anarchists oppose the concept of a state due to their belief that coercive authority is the inherent defect
of a state which curbs the equality and liberty of an individual as stated by Andrew Heywood. It is also
seen that anarchists differentiate between various kinds of authority thereby showing dissent only for a
certain kind. Authority that is needed in the form of professional help of doctors or teachers is not
opposed by anarchists. According to Richard Sylvan, such authorities are ‘transparent’ authorities
without whom, there is lack of knowledge. Other authorities like institutions of the state, are called
‘opaque’ and are coercive due to the dogmatic position taken by them.

Anarchists differ from supporters of other ideologies as their stand of the state is purely perceptive of
the coercive measures that are underlined in all actions of the state. Liberals on the other hand believe
in the need for state for protection of individual rights while Marxists perceive it to be an apparatus
which would eliminate social and economic inequalities between the contradicting classes of the
bourgeois and proletariat. Anarchism on the other hand is an overlap between the two ideologies
thereby taking both liberal and socialist forms both of which oppose the need for a state.

The most significant aspect of anarchism is in its conception of the nature of the state. Anarchists focus
on the state being oppressive as well as unnecessary. The advocates of this school of thought have
recognized oppression at the hands of the state in the form of law and taxation. The state further
arrogates more power to itself through centralization thereby becoming more oppressive. Anarchists
further claim that war is a result of the creation of boundaries and the pursuit of nuclear weapons are a
depiction of states being pitted against one another in the struggle to attain more power. The state’s
actions in such a case lead to individual sufferings.

The perspective of nature of the individual in the context of anarchism differs from liberalism. According
to Hobbes and Locke, human beings were selfish and greedy and could not be trusted based on their
inherent qualities. The state was hence needed to guide them in order to prevent the breakdown of
social order.

Godwin on the other hand, opposes this view claiming that individuals are capable of making their own
decisions based on their rationality. Human beings are inherently peaceful and would be capable of
maintaining harmony. The above is the primary reason for opposition to the state by anarchists. In
support of voluntary organizations, anarchists bring to light, a concept that proposes the idea of self-
regulation as opposed to the constant need of a state that is advocated by the modern world view.

The state according to anarchism is not only evil but also unnecessary. Richard Sylvan states that in the
contemporary context, the state is treated as something that is ‘axiomatic’ or something that does not
require justification. The justification of the existence of the state would mean that it is necessary, but
according to anarchists ‘the state lacks adequate justification’. It’s presence for a long time has led
people to take its existence for granted. However, due to their optimistic view of individuals, anarchists
do not believe that the absence of an authority over our heads would lead to chaos.

Many functions that are attributed to the state in the contemporary context are seen as something that
small groups of individuals could manage based on their autonomy. Decision making would then take
place according to the same.

Opposition to Church

Anarchism further opposes the Church and its nexus with the state. The Church’s advocacy of the
authority of the Supreme Being is opposed by anarchists. It further questions the Divine Right that is
claimed by Kings to legitimize their power. According to Anarchists like Proudhon, individuals are free
and independent. In the above context religion imposed by the Church was a set of beliefs that curbed
the autonomy of the individual.

Further, the Church became an instrument that exercised more power as a result of the above.
According to Heywood, “Religion is seen by anarchists as one of the pillars of the state, it propagates an
ideology of obedience and submission to both spiritual leaders and earthly rulers.”

Anarchists further oppose the imposition of moral judgements according to the given principles of
religion. Despite opposing the Church, some forms of anarchism do believe in some forms of spirituality.

Opposition to economy
Anarchists oppose economy and all structures related to the same. Individual and collectivist anarchists
take different stands on the mode of economy. Since the initial anarchist phases spanned the workers’
movements, it did orient itself towards socialism. Bakunin interlinks politics with wealth by stating,
‘political power and wealth are inseparable’. Anarchists are therefore critical of the mobilization of
political power through economy or vice versa. This justifies the criticism of the nexus between
politicians and industrialists that the anarchists would oppose.

The anarchist perception of capitalism is exploitation of the working class by the ruling class and even
the capitalism that has had state intervention towards capitalism has allowed a steady transfer of power
from private individuals to the state.

Collective anarchism operates in light of the above statement. They argue that exploitation by the
bourgeois or the property owning classes would not be combatted by state ownership of factors of
production. Instead, the exploitation would just shift from the private owners to that of the state.
Hence collective ownership of resources by groups is advocated by collective anarchism. Individual
anarchists on the other hand, believe that planned economy leads to violation of freedom and property
rights, as stated by Andrew Heywood.

As opposed to a state organized economy, anarcho-communism advocates the presence of small groups
or communities formed voluntarily on the basis of solidarity. They would then effectively regulate their
own resources and have exchanges with other such voluntary organization.

Anarcho-capitalism on the other hand, discusses the importance of the individual managing their own
affairs with no state interference or regulation. As opposed to liberalism which supports the need of the
state for the maintenance of law and order and that of individual rights, anarcho-capitalism supports the
individual who would indulge in contracts with other individuals and depend on them for protection as
stated by Rothbard.

The above sections have discussed the anarchist perspective of the state, religion and the economy. It is
hence important to discuss whether anarchism as an alternative is viable and the means through which
the same can be achieved.

Is anarchism viable?

The anarchist opposition to state brings forth, the question of its viability as an alternative. The passing
of several centuries has made the entrenched concept of a state, extremely difficult to do away with.
Moreover, the inability of anarchism to take root as a world order in the contemporary context has
further justified the existence of the state.

Anarchists have tried to take different approaches with respect to achieving anarchism. A few of the
approaches include anarcho-syndicalism, pacifism and violence though the latter has not been a very
conventional anarchist approach.

Anarcho-syndicalism can be called a revolutionary form of trade unionism which has come to depend
upon the mutual contributions of the members, in the form of ‘crafts, industries or professions’ as
stated by Heywood. A positive feature of the same is decentralization which enables the members to
take decisions voluntarily and decide upon the issues concerning them. Originating in France, anarcho
syndicalism gained popularity in other parts of Europe including Spain during the Spanish Civil War. A
limitation of anarcho- syndicalism is the restriction of goals concerning those of the trade unions and its
lack of coherent structure to guide the people towards anarchism as a whole.

In support of anarchism, some have taken to the path of violence. Violence in relation to anarchism has
often been associated with ‘clandestine groups’ or individuals with tendencies of engaging in terrorism.
According to Heywood, violence is used for revolutionary justice. Violence has been highly criticized by
many anarchists as it causes more suffering with no results. It would further intensify the role of the
state which would be counterproductive as per the idea of anarchy.

Pacifism stands as an absolute contrast to violence. Pacifism refers to the opposition to war and
violence. Anarchists like Leo Tolstoy or Mahatma Gandhi were both pacifists. Both advocated a simple
way of living. Gandhi’s advocacy of recognizing traditions and the support of Satyagraha highlighted the
oppressive character that a state can assume. Traditional practices such as those of self-governing have
become the key aspects of Gandhian anarchism. The optimism with the inherent goodness of human
beings can also be depicted in Gandhi’s version of anarchism.

The question arising after examining all these roads to anarchism is whether anarchism is viable as an
alternative.

According to Richard Sylvan, some benign states can encourage the functioning of anarchism in small
forms. Such a state can therefore, lead to the functioning of trade unions and decentralization that takes
place through the same. As opposed to the above example of anarchism functioning within the state, it
is often seen as a ‘substitute’ of a state in times of its breakdown.

Anarchism prevails even at the supranational level. When states have exchanges and decision making,
there is no body regulating the activities that take place in the international arena. This may not be the
best example of anarchism according to Richard Sylvan, but it is an example of the absence of a head
managing the affairs and possibly, the closest example considering the present context.

In the context of the above examples, it is evident that anarchism has existed only in small pockets and
brief periods in the world. The association of all activity is with the state and this is preventing anarchism
to come up in a big way. Further, it may take time for this alternative to take root completely for an
excessively long time due to the lack of a coherent structure. However, this does not eliminate the
possibility of anarchism to exist in small forms as seen from the above examples. Hence, anarchism may
not be a viable alternative for a long time but small steps towards the same may create the possibility.