To what extent are Anarchists united in their views on Human Nature? (24)

Removal of state is needed to allow positive human nature to flourish

• Anarchists agree that the state corrupts human nature, so its removal is necessary for humans to flourish.

• The state imposes hierarchy and obedience, as Emma Goldman argued, “the most violent element in society is ignorance,” showing how it indoctrinates individuals.

• This corruption affects rulers, who prioritise power, and the populace, whose natural capacity for cooperation is stifled.

• Anarchists advocate voluntary action to challenge the state - Bakunin promoted revolutionary acts to awaken the masses, while - Stirner’s “Union of Egoists” emphasises cooperation only when mutually beneficial, protecting liberty.

• Both individualist and collectivist anarchists reject the idea that removing the state causes chaos, instead believing humans naturally self-organise peacefully once freed from oppression.

Disagree over whether humans are naturally cooperative or self-interested

• Anarchists disagree over whether humans are naturally cooperative or self-interested.

• Stirner and anarcho-capitalists like Rothbard argue that humans are rational and self-interested, with Stirner stating, “I am my own only when I am master of myself,” and Rothbard defending private property and pursuit of wealth as natural. In contrast, collectivists such as Kropotkin argue humans are inherently sociable and altruistic, emphasising ‘mutual aid’ as the evolutionary basis for cooperation.

• Individualists advocate voluntary associations based on self-interest, while collectivists believe humans thrive in communities working together for mutual benefit.

• This reflects a broader ideological divide: collectivist anarchism aligns with left-wing socialism, while individualist anarchism aligns with right-wing neoliberalism.

 

Disagree over whether humans are free when alone or part of a collective

• Anarchists disagree over whether humans achieve freedom alone or within collectives.

• Collectivists such as Bakunin and Georges Sorel argue that liberty is only possible through solidarity and cooperation, with Bakunin stating, “liberty can only exist in solidarity.” Collectivist support for communes, cooperatives, and worker syndicates reflects this belief. In contrast, individualists like Stirner argue that true freedom requires complete autonomy, as even voluntary communities impose constraints on self-interest, with Stirner asserting, “I am my own only when I am master of myself.”

• Collectivists see structured cooperation as necessary to secure equality and mutual support, while individualists prioritise independence and personal decision-making.

• This reflects a broader ideological divide over the role of community in human nature, showing fundamental disagreements about the source of liberty.

.

.