anarchism

anarchism word origin

greek ‘anarkhos’ > ‘without rule’

2 strands and description

1) collectivist anarchism

common ownership, HN is rational, cooperative and altruistic > mutual aid \[koroptkin\], anarcho-communism \[bakunin\], anarcho-syndicalism \[goldman\]

\
2) individualist anarchism

self interested individuals = largely free to make judgements they feel is in their best interest > egoism \[stirner\], anarcho-capitalism

\
* Proudham’s mutualism links both, technically under 1\] tho

define anarchism

a socio-political philosophy advocating the abolition of hierarchical government and the organization of society on a voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to force or compulsion.

Bakunin = ‘if there is a State, there must be domination of

one class by another and, as a result, slavery; the State without slavery is unthinkable—and this is why we are the enemies of the State. (Bakunin 1873)

\
critique on state power, viewing centralized, monopolistic coercive power as illegitimate. Anarchists thus criticize “the state”. Bakunin provides a paradigm historical example, saying:

how do anarchists respond to hobbesian ideas ab the ‘state of nature’ \[ultimately anarchial\] being ‘solitary poor nasty brutish and short’

they claim the state tends to produce its own sort of unhappiness: as oppressive, violent, corrupt, and inimical to liberty

in terms of domination what have anarchists always contended, eg Bakunin

Anarchists have always contended that domination exists in mutually irreducible forms that arise within multiple sites. Much to the chagrin of Marx and Engels, Bakunin adamantly refused to subordinate oppressive political and religious institutions to “economic requisites” and to reduce domination to the economic category of “enslavement

when was Science and the Urgent Revolutionary Task \[bakunin\] written

1870

bakunin = the states function is ‘civil order-that is,

the systematic and legalized dominance of the ruling class over the exploited people. \[1870\]

what does bakunin mean when he says “political power and wealth are inseparable”

state and capital exist in a symbiotic relationship of collusion and coconspiracy. For anarchists, all oppressive institutions exist independently of each other even though they overlap and intersect with one another

bakunin = All states are bad in the sense that by their nature,

that is, by the conditions and objectives of their existence, they constitute the opposite of human justice, freedom and equality.

kropotkin= Capital, the dead past, employs labor—

the living vitality and power of the present.

kropotkin= in the capitalistic hierarchy of values,

, capital stands higher than labor, amassed things higher than the manifestations of life. capital employs labour’

goldman = “the State is but the
shadow of man,

the shadow of his opaqueness, of his ignorance and fear

\[epitomises collectivist anarchism\] landauer =

We are the State, and we shall continue to be the State

until we have created the institutions that form a real community and society of men

how does malatesta define mutual aid

fraternal, equalitarian, and libertarian association, in which solidarity, consciously and freely expressed, unites mankind

goldman = only mutual aid and voluntary cooperation can

create the basis for a free individual and associational life.

how is bakunins belief that \[human beings are indeed born “free,” but this freedom remains one more “empty faculty” unless and until it is realized through the practice of self-creation. Human nature, or rather the human condition, is defi ned by the confl ict between social construction and self-creation or development\] similar to kropotkin

Kropotkin, too, denies that human beings are innately “rapacious and egotistic” and insists that “the growth of egotism and rapacity, of slavishness and ambition” is catalyzed by underlying social, economic, and political conditions.

\
Moreover, human beings have natural capacities both for selfinterested behavior, such as dominating and exploiting others for their own ends, as well as altruistic behavior, such as sympathizing and cooperating with others.

\
For both Kropotkin and Bakunin, however, the experiencing subject is constituted by the confl icts which emerge among these and other internal psychological forces, as well as the social forces which act upon them

\
(as opposed to Goldman, who sees these forces as acting in a more harmonious and complementary manner with one another).

kropotkin = We\] conceive a society in which all the mutual relations of its members are regulated… by mutual agreements between members of that society,

and by sum of social customs and habits—not petrified by law, routine, or superstition

In his famous studies of evolutionary development, Kropotkin’s goal is not to demonstrate that human beings exhibit a natural propensity toward altruism or “mutual aid,”

but to argue, against the social Darwinists, that human nature cannot be defined in terms of any “inborn feelings” or essential predispositions.

\
\
human beings are marked by a fundamental mutability, a capacity to create and develop ourselves over and above the infl uence of instinct, habit, and other internal and external drives

kropotkin = ‘The hospitality of primitive peoples, respect for human life, the sense of reciprocal obligation, compassion for the weak, courage, extending even to the sacrifi ce of self for others’ meaning

‘all these qualities are developed in man anterior to the law’ so while Social “feelings and practices” are not features of a universal human essence they are made possible by biological preconditions “always present in man.”

\
Like Bakunin, however, Kropotkin insists that these rudiments remain empty unless they are developed. Beliefs, feelings, and practices are the products of social forms rather than their cause.

For Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, and many others, …. is the most basic error, the most dangerous enemy of human thought.

Lebenleugnung > denial of life

how are bakunin and marx similar

Bakunin is a splendid example of the way in which social anarchism on the one hand embraces Marx’s moral critique of capitalism and on the other rejects its preferred revolutionary strateg

\
Bakunin readily draws on Marx’s account of alienation in his attack on the dehumanising consequences of capitalist production.

\
The importance here (in terms of the differences between social and poststructuralist anarchism) is that the adoption of this Marxist concept reflects social anarchism’s foundationalist perspective. Here social anarchism and Marxism converge in assuming that the scale of the dehumanising effects of capitalism can be measured against some notion of human nature.

\
Even though the conception of human nature differs between social anarchism and Marxism, the critical common reference point is the centrality of human nature to both ideologies. Human nature is the foundation upon which Marx builds his moral critique of the alienating and exploitative features of capitalism, which is a foundationalist perspective that social anarchists like Bakunin share.

how are bakunin and marx different

rival conceptions of FN

\
anarchists possess a more realistic perspective of human nature, precisely because of their fears that a Marxist ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ would lead to the development of a new ruling élite. The corrupting effects of power on human nature are well documented in the anarchist writings of Bakunin and others and are integral to the split between Marxists and anarchists after the First International.

\
In essence, what social anarchism is arguing against here is Marxism’s mode of representational politics. Establishing themselves as the representatives and voice of the oppressed masses, Marxist revolutionary leaders assume a vanguard role in securing the victory of the proletariat.

\
The creation of a centralised, hierarchical political party to lead the workers to victory is anathema to most anarchists for three principal reasons. The first of these is the issue of representation. As writers such as Bakunin (1990: 135–6) and Malatesta (1974: 44–7) stress, anarchists are not in the business of drawing up blueprints or establishing themselves as prophetic revolutionary leaders. This would be tantamount to anarchists becoming a priestly class governing the rest of humanity.

\
Malatesta writes: ‘we would be declaring ourselves the government and would be prescribing, as do religious legislators, a universal code for present and future generations’ 1974

\
\