anarchism (better version)

Examine the view that Anarchists are more united on their view of the Economy.

Intro:

While anarchists share a general anti-capitalist stance, they are less united on the economy than on the state. Collectivist anarchists advocate communal ownership and cooperation, whereas individualist anarchists defend personal property and voluntary exchange. Therefore, anarchists are more divided than united on economic issues.

1) Agree on the economy

Anarchists are largely united in their rejection of capitalism and their support for alternative economic systems based on voluntary cooperation. AO1: All strands of anarchism oppose capitalism because it relies on coercive hierarchies such as wage labour and private ownership of the means of production. For instance, Kropotkin, in The Conquest of Bread, argued that capitalism creates inequality and artificial scarcity, advocating instead for decentralised communal ownership guided by the principle “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” Similarly, Emma Goldman saw capitalism as violent and exploitative, saying "The economic arrangements of today are immoral," and advocated a society where wealth was collectively controlled and distributed based on need. In addition to rejecting capitalism, anarchists support decentralised economic systems without central planning: Proudhon promoted mutualism, where small producers and workers exchanged goods through voluntary mutual credit institutions, and Bakunin opposed both capitalism and authoritarian socialism, advocating workers’ self-management and free federations of labour. AO2: These examples show that anarchists share a consistent belief in non-hierarchical, voluntary economic relations, reflecting their broader commitment to freedom and equality. Their opposition to both state and capitalist control highlights a unified rejection of coercion in economic life. AO3: However, there are internal differences regarding how these systems should operate in practice—mutualists focus on market-based exchange without exploitation, whereas anarcho-communists like Kropotkin envision fully communal sharing. Despite these variations, anarchists’ agreement on rejecting capitalism and prioritising voluntary, cooperative economic structures demonstrates that they are broadly united on economic principles.

2) Disagree on the economy

While anarchists are united in rejecting capitalism, they are deeply divided over property, markets, and distribution. AO1: Individualist anarchists, such as Max Stirner, defend private property as an extension of the self, stating, “I alone decide what I will have,” and argue that individuals should be free to own goods and engage in voluntary market exchange. Stirner opposed interference from the state or society but did not fundamentally reject capitalism itself, emphasising personal autonomy over collective ownership. In contrast, collectivist anarchists like Kropotkin and Bakunin advocate communal ownership and the abolition of profit. Kropotkin, in Fields, Factories and Workshops, attacked wage labour and property, insisting on equal access to goods, while Bakunin described the capitalist class as “vampires feeding on the blood of the people,” calling for collective control of land and production. AO2: These contrasting views illustrate that anarchists are divided on the economy: individualists prioritise personal freedom and voluntary exchange, whereas collectivists prioritise equality and shared ownership, revealing fundamental disagreement on property rights and economic organisation. AO3: However, despite these divisions, all anarchists agree on opposing coercive hierarchies and exploitation, suggesting that while there is practical divergence over economic structures, there remains an underlying ideological unity against capitalist oppression. Nevertheless, the depth of disagreement over property and profit demonstrates that anarchists cannot be considered entirely united on economic matters.

Conclusion

Although all anarchists reject capitalism's coercion and exploitation, they diverge sharply on what should replace it.

Collectivists promote communal ownership and equal distribution, while individualists like Stirner accept private ownership and egoistic exchange. Therefore, anarchists are less united on the economy than they are on the state, showing deep internal divisions over property, profit, and markets.

Examine the view that Anarchists are more united on their view of the State

Intro:

Anarchists are largely united in their rejection of the state, which they view as a tool of oppression. Despite variations in reasoning, both individualist and collectivist anarchists fundamentally oppose hierarchical structures like the state.

While their motivations and alternatives differ—such as Stirner's egoism versus Kropotkin's communism-they ultimately converge in their rejection of state authority.

Therefore, anarchists are more united than divided on their view of the state.

1) agree more united in the state

Anarchists are strongly united in opposing the state, which they see as inherently coercive and illegitimate. AO1: All strands of anarchism reject the state because it concentrates power and restricts individual freedom. Bakunin argued, “Wherever there is authority, there is no freedom,” claiming in Statism and Anarchy that the state always serves ruling-class interests and remains oppressive, even under socialism. Similarly, Max Stirner described the state as a “spook” in The Ego and Its Own, dismissing all fixed structures, including the state, as barriers to personal autonomy. Furthermore, anarchists agree that freedom and human flourishing require a stateless society. Emma Goldman described the state as “the altar of political freedom” maintained for human sacrifice, highlighting its role in perpetuating patriarchy and capitalist violence, while Kropotkin, in The Conquest of Bread, argued that the state suppresses mutual aid and cooperation, and that only decentralised, voluntary communities can allow humans to thrive. AO2: These perspectives demonstrate that, despite differences over individualism or collectivism, anarchists consistently view the state as a threat to liberty and collective wellbeing, uniting them in the belief that it must be dismantled. AO3: However, some critics argue that anarchists differ on how to replace the state, with individualists focusing on personal autonomy and collectivists on communal self-management. Nevertheless, the shared opposition to hierarchical authority and coercive institutions shows that anarchists are broadly united in their stance against the state.

2) disagree more divided on the state

While anarchists are united in rejecting the state, they are divided over the reasons for its abolition and what should replace it. AO1: Individualist anarchists, such as Max Stirner, prioritise personal autonomy over social structures. He advocated for the “Union of Egoists,” a voluntary association based on self-interest, rather than any collective system, and rejected all fixed ideologies, meaning he did not propose a specific alternative to the state. In contrast, collectivist anarchists argue that some form of coordination is necessary to achieve social freedom. For example, Proudhon famously stated, “Property is theft…[but] property is freedom,” proposing a decentralised system in What is Property? where people manage their own affairs through mutual credit, while Bakunin supported collective revolutionary action and recognised the need for coordination in dismantling the state—suggesting that temporary organisation may sometimes be necessary. AO2: These examples illustrate that anarchists differ on the role of social structures: individualists reject all authority and focus on egoist autonomy, whereas collectivists support communal alternatives and limited coordination to achieve freedom. AO3: This division highlights a significant challenge to the idea of anarchist unity on the state: while all anarchists oppose hierarchical authority, disagreement persists over whether any collective organisation can exist without becoming coercive, showing that anarchist opposition to the state is not monolithic.

Conclusion

In conclusion, anarchists do have internal disagreements over methods, justification, and post-state society models. However, they remain fundamentally united in rejecting the state as inherently coercive, illegitimate, and incompatible with human liberty. Despite disagreements in justification (egoism vs. mutual aid), all anarchists ultimately argue for a stateless society, making them more united than divided on this issue.

To what extent do individualist and collectivist anarchists agree about human nature?

Intro:

The debate between individualist and collectivist anarchists centers around their views on human nature. Despite their differing approaches to achieving an anarchist society, both schools of thought fundamentally agree on the inherent characteristics of human beings.

Individualist anarchists, like Max Stirner, emphasize the autonomy and self-interest of individuals, while collectivist anarchists, such as Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Emma Goldman, and Mikhail Bakunin, focus on the communal and cooperative aspects of human existence. This essay will argue that both individualist and collectivist anarchists share a common belief in the inherent goodness and rationality of human nature, which underpins their vision of a stateless, non-coercive society.

1) agree on human nature.

Anarchists are largely united in their optimistic view of human nature, believing that humans are inherently rational, autonomous, and capable of cooperation without coercive authority. AO1: Individualist anarchists such as Max Stirner argue that individuals are naturally rational and self-governing, driven by their own ego and self-interest. Stirner’s concept of the “ego” emphasises that individuals act rationally when free from imposed constraints, rejecting social institutions as artificial impositions that corrupt natural behaviour. Similarly, Emma Goldman argued in Anarchism and Other Essays that oppressive institutions distort the innate rationality and moral potential of individuals, claiming that when freed from coercion, humans can act both rationally and ethically. Her advocacy of free love and education reform reflects her belief in individuals’ capacity for reasoned moral choice. AO2: These views demonstrate a shared anarchist assumption that humans do not require external authority to behave rationally, supporting the anarchist rejection of the state and hierarchical power. Moreover, collectivist anarchists also share this optimism, emphasising humans’ natural sociability. Proudhon, who famously stated “property is theft,” argued that private property distorts natural relations of mutual aid, instead promoting mutualism—voluntary cooperation without coercion. Likewise, Bakunin believed humans are inherently social beings, trusting in the “spontaneous organisation” of society through voluntary association and rejecting authoritarian Marxism in favour of collective self-management. AO3: However, critics argue that anarchists may underestimate the potential for irrational or selfish behaviour, particularly on a large scale. Nevertheless, despite differences between individualist and collectivist strands, anarchists are united in their belief that human beings are naturally rational and cooperative, reinforcing a shared foundation for their opposition to authority and coercive social structures.

2) disagree on human nature

Anarchists are divided in their understanding of human nature, particularly over whether it is best expressed through individual autonomy or collective welfare. AO1: Individualist anarchists such as Max Stirner argue that human nature is fundamentally egoistic, rejecting all social constructs including morality, duty, and community. In The Ego and Its Own, Stirner proposed the “Union of Egoists,” a temporary and voluntary association formed purely for individual benefit, famously asserting, “I alone decide what I will have.” This contrasts sharply with collectivist anarchists, who see humans as inherently social. Emma Goldman, while valuing individual freedom, warned against the selfishness of extreme individualism, stressing the importance of solidarity and collective struggle in advancing workers’ rights and social justice. AO2: This highlights a key disagreement within anarchism: Stirner views human behaviour as driven solely by self-interest, whereas collectivists believe human nature includes moral responsibility and concern for others. This divide is further illustrated by differences over social organisation. Proudhon, who emphasised mutualism and “collective force,” argued that cooperation is essential for progress, stating that “property is theft,” a view fundamentally opposed to Stirner’s defence of individual ownership. Similarly, Bakunin’s collectivist anarchism rests on the belief that humans flourish through collective struggle; he supported the abolition of private property for the common good and promoted mass revolutionary action, in contrast to Stirner’s focus on individual rebellion. AO3: These deep disagreements suggest that anarchism lacks a unified theory of human nature, as thinkers differ on whether humans are primarily egoistic individuals or inherently social beings. While all anarchists reject imposed authority, the contrast between egoism and collectivism demonstrates a fundamental division at the core of anarchist thought.

Conclusion

In conclusion, although anarchists are united in rejecting authority and the state, they are divided over human nature, economic organisation, and the role of collective action. Individualist thinkers such as Stirner emphasise egoism and autonomy, while collectivists like Bakunin and Kropotkin stress cooperation and mutual aid. Therefore, anarchism shows unity in what it opposes, but significant division in what it proposes, meaning claims of full anarchist unity are overstated.

To what extent do individualist and collectivist anarchists disagree about the society?

Intro:

The debate between individualist and collectivist anarchists extends into their visions for society. Individualist anarchists, like Max Stirner, emphasize personal autonomy and the rejection of social institutions, whereas collectivist anarchists, such as Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Emma Goldman, and Mikhail Bakunin, advocate for communal living and cooperative structures. This essay argues that individualist and collectivist anarchists fundamentally disagree on the organization and functioning of society, particularly in terms of social institutions, property, and cooperation.

1) Disagree on society

Anarchists are divided in their views of society, particularly over the role of social institutions, property, and cooperation. AO1: Individualist anarchists such as Max Stirner reject all enduring social institutions, including the state, religion, and morality, which he argued in The Ego and Its Own impose false obligations and restrict personal autonomy. Stirner dismissed these institutions as oppressive “spooks” and instead advocated the “Union of Egoists,” a temporary and voluntary association free from institutional authority. In contrast, collectivist anarchists such as Mikhail Bakunin supported the abolition of hierarchical institutions but argued that freedom requires new decentralised social structures based on collective decision-making. Bakunin promoted workers’ councils and federations, believing in “spontaneous organisation” and collective self-management as the basis of a free society. AO2: This contrast highlights a fundamental disagreement over whether society should consist of loose, temporary associations of self-interested individuals or more structured communal organisations, even without hierarchy. Disagreement also extends to property and cooperation. Stirner viewed property as an extension of individual will, arguing that ownership is justified by one’s power to take and maintain it, whereas Proudhon rejected private property, famously declaring “property is theft,” and instead promoted mutualism—possession based on use, cooperation, and mutual exchange. AO3: These divisions suggest that anarchism lacks a coherent vision of society: while all anarchists reject coercive authority, they disagree sharply over whether social organisation and property relations should prioritise individual autonomy or collective cooperation, undermining claims of anarchist unity on society.

2) Agree on society

Despite divisions over how society should be organised, anarchists are united in their critique of authoritarian structures and coercive social relations. AO1: Both individualist and collectivist anarchists strongly reject the state as an oppressive institution. Max Stirner attacked the state for imposing artificial laws and morality that restrict individual autonomy, dismissing it as a “spook” in The Ego and Its Own. Similarly, collectivist thinkers such as Bakunin and Proudhon argued that the state entrenches inequality and domination, with Bakunin insisting that “wherever there is authority, there is no freedom,” and Proudhon calling for the dismantling of political authority to allow genuine liberty. Anarchists are also united in opposing capitalist exploitation. While Stirner criticised capitalism for creating economic hierarchies that limit individual autonomy, collectivists such as Emma Goldman condemned capitalism as a system of violence and injustice, arguing that it sacrifices human freedom for profit. AO2: These shared critiques demonstrate that, despite divergent societal ideals, anarchists agree that both the state and capitalism are coercive structures that must be rejected to achieve freedom. This unity is reinforced by a shared commitment to voluntary association. Stirner’s “Union of Egoists” promotes free association based on individual choice, while collectivists such as Proudhon, through mutualism, and Goldman, through communal living and collective action, also emphasise voluntary cooperation rather than imposed authority. AO3: However, while anarchists agree on rejecting coercion and valuing voluntary association, they differ significantly over whether society should prioritise individual autonomy or cooperative communal structures. Nonetheless, this common critique of authority and commitment to voluntary social bonds shows that anarchists are united at the level of societal critique, even if divided in their positive visions of society.

Conclusion

In conclusion, anarchists are united in their critique of coercive authority, particularly the state and capitalism, and in their commitment to voluntary association. However, this unity is limited to what anarchists oppose rather than what they propose. Deep divisions remain over human nature, property, and the structure of society, especially between individualist and collectivist thinkers. Therefore, while anarchism shows clear agreement in its societal critiques, it lacks a fully unified vision of how a free society should be organised.