anarchism

0.0(0)
studied byStudied by 0 people
learnLearn
examPractice Test
spaced repetitionSpaced Repetition
heart puzzleMatch
flashcardsFlashcards
Card Sorting

1/5

encourage image

There's no tags or description

Looks like no tags are added yet.

Study Analytics
Name
Mastery
Learn
Test
Matching
Spaced

No study sessions yet.

6 Terms

1
New cards

to what extent is violence justified in achieving the end of the state?

2
New cards

1) Agree - violence to achieve the end of the state

Some anarchists argue that violence is justified as a necessary means to achieve the end of the state. Collectivist anarchist Mikhail Bakunin believed that only through violent revolution could the state be abolished and society transformed. He advocated for “propaganda by the deed”, a concept that encouraged acts such as targeted violence, mass strikes, and refusal to pay taxes, which he believed would spark a wider uprising from below. For Bakunin, destruction was essential to create a new, free society built on economic equality and direct democracy. A key example of this in action was Bakunin’s support for the Paris Commune of 1871, which he saw as a successful spontaneous uprising that overthrew state power and briefly replaced it with communal self-governance. Similarly, Max Stirner, an individualist anarchist, supported spontaneous insurrection, which could be violent, as a way to dismantle the state and liberate the individual from all imposed structures. In conclusion, both collectivist and individualist anarchists have historically accepted that violence can be a legitimate and effective tool for bringing about the collapse of the state, particularly when other means of resistance are seen as insufficient.

3
New cards

1) Agree: state is violent so in order to combat this, you have to use violence as well

Another reason why violence may be seen as justified in achieving the end of the state is that the state itself is inherently violent, and therefore force may be the only way to dismantle it. Peter Kropotkin, a key anarcho-communist thinker, argued that the state maintains power through coercion, exploitation, and systemic violence, particularly against the working class. He believed that a peaceful transition was unlikely, stating that “the law has always been made by the privileged classes in the interest of preserving their privileges.” For Kropotkin, this meant that revolution — potentially violent — was a natural and necessary response to state oppression. He supported direct action and believed that the overthrow of the state would require dismantling the institutions that upheld inequality. In conclusion, some anarchists believe violence is justified not just because it helps fight back, but because it challenges the force and control the state uses to keep power.

4
New cards

2) Disagree- democratic ways over violence

While many anarchists see violence as necessary to overthrow the state, others argue that peaceful and democratic methods are more effective and better align with anarchist values. Even within the collectivist tradition, there is disagreement: Emma Goldman famously declared, “Give us what belongs to us in peace, and if you don’t give it to us in peace, we will take it by force.” In contrast, Pierre‑Joseph Proudhon championed non-violence, believing the state could be dismantled through passive resistance, education, and mutual cooperation. He succinctly expressed this belief, stating, “As man seeks justice in equality, so society seeks order in anarchy.”  Proudhon argued that a stateless society based on reason and moral order would emerge organically—without the bloodshed of revolution. Even during the violent French Revolution of 1848, he refrained from participating, criticizing the chaos by noting the revolutionaries had simply “made revolution without an idea.” In conclusion, thinkers like Proudhon highlight that violence undermines the rational, ethical foundations of anarchism—asserting that peaceful, democratic means offer a more coherent path to dismantling the state.

5
New cards

2) Disagree in violence

favour of personal rebellion and egoist insurrection

Although some anarchists support violent revolution to dismantle the state, Max Stirner—a key individualist anarchist—rejected this idea in favour of personal rebellion and egoist insurrection, which may or may not involve violence. Stirner did not promote organised revolution or mass uprisings, but instead believed in individuals asserting their autonomy by rejecting all forms of imposed authority, including the state, religion, and morality. In his book The Ego and Its Own (1844), Stirner wrote: “The state calls its own violence law, but that of the individual crime,” criticising the hypocrisy of state power while promoting individual liberation. For Stirner, the focus was not on replacing the state through collective violence, but on the self-liberation of the egoist from all systems of domination. His insurrection was a personal and existential act, not necessarily a violent one. In conclusion, Stirner offers a different anarchist perspective—one where violence is not a requirement, and where individual freedom can be achieved through the rejection of authority rather than its violent overthrow.

6
New cards

view of the state

Despite differences in method and emphasis, all anarchist thinkers fundamentally agree that the state is an oppressive institution that must be abolished. For anarchists, the state is not a neutral body but a tool of domination that enforces inequality and suppresses individual freedom. Mikhail Bakunin famously declared, “The state is nothing but a machine for the oppression of one class by another” (from Statism and Anarchy, 1873). Similarly, Max Stirner viewed the state as a threat to personal autonomy, calling it “the mortal enemy of the individual.” Whether they advocate violent revolution (Bakunin, Goldman), or insurrection (Stirner), all anarchists are united in the belief that the state cannot be reformed — it must be replaced with a system based on voluntary cooperation and mutual aid. In conclusion, while anarchists may differ in strategy, they share a core conviction that the state is incompatible with freedom and must ultimately be abolished.