Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
We have referred to anarchism several times in the classes one of the most intense and challeging alternatives to liberalism. Referring to the readings by Kropotkin, Bakunin, Wolff, Nozick and Winstanley to understand the anarchist position. Does it have value? Is it ethically correct? Is it practical? Defend your points using relevant texts from Political Thought.
Being the classical Anarchism, also known as Libertarian Socialism. Another vocabulary would anarcho-communist and anarcho-capitalist.
position taking its point of departure in five different anarchist thinkers ranging from the 17th century up to modern philosophers from the 1970s, namely Winstanley, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Wolff and Nozick. If I accept Eltzbachers very simplified version of what defines the anarchist position then it leaves me with four thinkers already, since Nozick belongs in the Libertarian traditions (anarcho-capitalism) and promotes a minimal state (Wolff, 2007). Now, I have spend the first page of our so bringing some inputs on the deductive/reductive method being requested in this exam question, and tried to display the issues with this approach. Therefore I have decided to construct an approach, which is easier to defend. First of all it is important to understand which kind of anarchism the five thinkers promote. The empirical data that I have been asked to base this assignment on originates from four different chapters being Human Nature, The justification of the state, Liberty and rights, and Economic Justice, in which thinkers are placed randomly. Unfortunately, the empirical data does not leave much space for comparison, and thereby a comparative analysis, which would have been the ideal approach for illustrating the difference between anarcho-communism and anarcho-capitalism . The empirical data is a really vague basis to understand the anarchist position, so I will use additional literature to support the views portrayed, in which the book Black Flame3 have been a part of shaping the ideological expression coming forward in this paper. Personally, I consider four core elements (call them value or ethics) essential to anarchism being: antiauthority (thereby anti-statism), anti-capitalistic (against exploitation of workers, against competition), for collective ownership (classless society), for collective organization (horizontalism). To help clarifying my position I have decided to add a quote from van der Walt and Schmidt (p. 33): anarchism is a revolutionary and libertarian socialist doctrine: advocating individual freedom through a free society, anarchism aims to create a democratic, egalitarian, and stateless socialist order through an international and internationalist social revolution, abolishing capitalism, landlordism, and the state. Based on the ideological beliefs expressed above I have tried to categories the five thinkers to which tradition they belong. I have already sorted one out, Nozick, for being Libertarian and pro a minimal state. Secondly, Winstanley belongs in the feudal/landlordism era and before the invention of the modern anarchism by PJ Proudhon (Woodcock, 1967)4. Thirdly, Robert Paul Wolff represents a modern and very individualistic approach to anarchism, and thereby distinguishing himself from the last two thinkers
3 4
Bakunin and Kropotkin, who forms more or less the basis for the premises I setup for defining anarchism, which is also known as classical anarchism or libertarian socialism. Finally, I feel that I have made it clear that it is impossible to give a unifying explanation and analysis of what anarchism exist of based on the empirical data, and at the same time I have illustrated my doubts in a canon approach. Therefore, I have decided to go separately through all of thinkers, though acknowledging the common features between Kropotkin and Bakunin.
Winstanley
Winstanley in his text The Common Stock addresses one of the central values of anarchism, namely the right to free use of the land and fight against property rights and its aggressors. To build up his argument he points out the false consciousness (a Marxist term, that I could not help but borrow) of the classes when he exemplifies that free trading, freedom to have ministers preach, sexual freedom of women, freedom to family hierarchy, in reality does not contain any freedom at all, since there is an authority behind controlling it (p. 227). These examples can be categorized as false freedom. Furthermore, it is advocated in the text a creation of public store-houses, be a common treasury (p. 229), to create an egalitarian economy, which is a strong anarchistic value. Two points in the text conflicts with traditional anarchistic values, being a government to uphold the laws in terms of protecting familys property. The existence of a government is a critical point as well as the family being the central organizational form of society. More than 300 years did George Woodcock comment on Winstanleys ideas in a flattering manner: If Winstanley's criticism of society as he sees it at this crucial point in his career ends in a libertarian rejection of both authority and property, his vision of the kind of egalitarian society he would like to create embodies many features of the ideal society envisaged by the anarchists two centuries later (Woodcock, 1967). I can only agree with Woodcocks observation, since Winstanley was highly inspirational thinker, far ahead of his times. A so-called anarchist would though complete brake with these ideas, namely Robert Nozick, who I will look into in the next section. I will now continue onto the empirical data dealing with the classical anarchism arriving from Kropotkin and Bakunin, dealing with mutual aid and science and the people.
In general Bakunins text seems very complex, but delivers a simple message. The ones that believe that science will create the progress for the people have misunderstood something. What the established science does is legitimizing the current system, instead of questioning it and being on the forefronts on how to change society into a total liberation, which should be the task of sociologist. Bakunin advocates that the anarchism is for the masses whereas Robert Paul Wolff focuses on the individual anarchism.
I have now tried to illustrate some of the value based and ethical difference that are between classical anarchism (libertarian socialism) and libertarianism, which Nozick represents. This leads me back to Eltzbachers common denominator of what characterizes anarchism, namely the opposition towards a state, and therefore Nozick cannot be categorized as an anarchist. The only point where I have discovered similarities between classical anarchism and Nozick is the notion of a critical approach towards a deterrence theory, because fear represents a Hobbesian worldview. Libertarianism is not an alternative to liberalism, it is a radicalization of liberalism, more free market, smaller state, and it is no wonder that Nozick is one of the thinkers being central in former Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen book: From Socialist state to minimal state (Rasmussen, 1993, pp. 38-40).
Rights as Side-Constraints, Where Deterrence Theory goes Wrong, Difficulties with Mixing Labour, The Entitlement Theory 6 In the listing, the pages references are very general, and may span over the whole text, since the observations are based on thematical analysis, to discover which morals and ethics Nozick promotes.
The word value, well it can certainly mean a lot of things. If you asked a libertarian socialist it will certainly focus first and for most on principles and behavior, where as a libertarian will focus on the principles of free market value as well as the value of property rights. To distinguish the two in a simplified manner then we have on the one hand side the collectivist values and on the other hand the individualistic values.
Practical
During the paper I have somehow avoided this question of discussing the practical element of anarchism. First of all I would like to address, practical for whom? Since anarchism most central element is to remove states and governments, we would have to think in another of thinking. Since the ideal is that everything should be organized from down and up, all decision made will be based on the decision made at the lowest level. That also means that there will have to planned a great organizational structure. Well if all societies should be evaluated on the question of practicality, why do we then have a representative democracy, when a dictatorship is much more practical? My point is that freedom and avoidance of oppression will always overcome the question of practicality.
Conclusion
I have started out the paper by attacking the canon approach lined up by the exam question, and argued why this can be such a difficult approach. As mentioned, it has been really difficult to give one notion of what values and what ethics represents anarchism, but they come to appear due out the paper, and especially the notion of what anarchism is not in the comparison of libertarian socialism and libertarianism. This wide spread notion of the values and ethics of anarchism follows the critique of the canon approach, leaving us with conclusion that if you want to know the value and ethics of anarchism you will have study the thinkers individually, the only thing you can be sure of is Eltzbachers notion of anti-statism. If the point is to study libertarian socialism, then we would have to include the values of antiauthority (thereby antistatism), anti-capitalistic (against exploitation of workers, against competition), for collective ownership (classless society), for collective organization (horizontalism). So is there five sages?
Bibliography
Bakunin, M., 1999. Science and the people. In: M. Rosen & J. Wolff, eds. Political Thought. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 73-76. Kinna, R., 2005. anarchism: a beginners guide. Oxford: Oneworld Publications. Kinna, R. & Evren, S., 2013. Introduction: Blasting the canon. Anarchist Developments in Cultural Studies (Blasting the canon, issue 1), pp. 1-6. Kropotkin, P., 1999. Mutual Aid. In: Political Thought. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 30-33. Nozick, R., 1999. Rights as Side-Constraints, Where Deterrence Theory goes Wrong, Difficulties with Mixing Labour, The Entitlement Theory. In: M. Rosen & J. Wolff, eds. Political Thought. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 176-178, 184-186, 210-213, 245-248. Rasmussen, A. F., 1993. Fra socialstat til minimalstat. Kbenhavn: Olesen Offset. van der Walt, L. & Schmidt, M., 2009. Black Flame: The Revolutionary Class Politics of Anarchism and Syndicalism. Oakland: AK Press. Wolff, J., 2007. Robert Nozick, Libertarianism, And Utopia. [Online] Available at: http://world.std.com/~mhuben/wolff_2.html [Accessed 12 November 2013]. Wolff, R. P., 1999. Thr conflict of Autonomy and Authority. In: M. Rosen & J. Wolff, eds. Political Thought. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 76-77. Woodcock, G., 1967. Anarchism. In: P. Edwards, ed. Encyclopedia of Philosophy. New York: Macmillan.
10