Pros and Cons - Debbie Newman, Ben Woolgar 2014

Anarchism
Section A. Philosophy/political theory

Like many of the views in this chapter, anarchism does not represent a singular or comprehensive ideological position, but a family of competing ones. The common thread that unites anarchist theories is a belief in the unjustifiability of the state and its authority over us. For example, some anarchists argue against the state on the grounds that its authority is not consented to, or that it produces worse outcomes for its citizens, or it unacceptably imposes the values or interests of a certain group upon all citizens of the state. Notably, anarchism can co-exist with many other philosophical positions. For instance, there are ’anarcho-capitalists’, who believe that the absence of a state ensures a purer operation of the capitalist system with a truly free market. On the other hand, ’anarcho-socialists’ believe that mutual co-operation is a naturally arising result in a stateless world, and will in fact bring about greater equality than any state mechanism could provide.

Pros

[1] Many anarchists’ central claim is this: not everyone who must live under the state consents to it, and it is therefore an unacceptable curtailment of that individual’s natural autonomy. Natural autonomy matters, because individuals need to make their own moral decisions, or because they are entitled to pursue their own selfinterest. The state is no more than a randomly selected group of people which purports to be entitled to make those decisions for us, when in fact, they are not. By imposing its values, the state violates our natural autonomy.

[2] Anarchists recognise that even democracies are essentially repressive institutions in which an educated, privileged elite of politicians and civil servants imposes its will on ordinary citizens. Anarchists want to live in a non-hierarchical world of free association in which individual expression is paramount and all the state’s tools of power such as government, taxation, laws and police are done away with. Voting rights and the separation of power are insufficient tools to combat the power of the state, and democracy as a political system is incompatible with pure anarchy.

[3] Anarchism can produce stable political situations in which people are capable of flourishing while preserving their autonomy. We know that, on a small scale, anarchist co-operatives, usually blended with an element of distribution of wealth, are able to succeed and thrive. More generally, the state encourages us to think only in terms of our blunt self-interest, whereas actually, humans are capable of far greater co-operation, and have a natural predilection for it. This self-reliance of people is not manifested because the state creates the impression that everyone can rely on its structural presence and services.

[4] Even if anarchism is ultimately wrong, it represents a positive presence in political discourse. Because we accept that the state is generally legitimate, we also too readily accept the various impositions that the state makes on our lives. For instance, the ’Occupy’ movement provided a valuable counterweight to the dominance of large banks in the aftermath of the global financial crisis (from 2008). The anarchist position opened people’s eyes to the abuse of law enforcement and power which ultimately aimed to protect the powerful.

Cons

[1] There is no doubt that not everyone consents to the state, but that is because to demand that they do would be an absurd requirement for the state’s legitimacy. Rather, there is a need for everyone to play by a common set of rules, in order to ensure that basic outcomes like enforcement of the law and a fair distribution of goods can be achieved. Everyone should opt to act by the principle of ’fair play’. If anarchists purport to be moral, then they should favour the outcome of mutually beneficial co-operation. If they deny that they care about moral goods such as fairness and justice, then they are simply rejecting moral argument altogether. This is in itself a deeply defective position.

[2] The answer to the problem of undemocratic democracies is reform, not anarchy. Democracies can be made more representative through devolution, proportional representation and increased use of the referendum. The power relations that are the subject of complaint will inevitably also manifest themselves in the anarchic state. Rich elites will simply buy themselves private armies, or gather all means of production. This time, however, there will not be any means to temper those forces through the benevolent force of the state. The balance of power will be gone entirely. Rather than do away with the state entirely, less rigorous solutions are available to curb the power of the state.

[3] ’Free association’ between people (perhaps local co-operation in agriculture or learning or trade), where successful, will be continued and eventually formalised in its optimal form. An anarchic ’state of nature’ will inevitably evolve through the formalisation of co-operation on larger scales into something like the societies we now have. There will be an inevitable need for administrators, judges to decide on disputes, and law-enforcement bodies. Anarchism, therefore, is a pointlessly retrograde act — a state of anarchy can never last, because it will never be stable.

[4] Anarchism is often used as a political rationalisation of acts of terrorism and civil disobedience in the name of ’animal rights’ or ’ecology’. Even if those are noble goals, these deeds should be seen for what they are — self-indulgent and anti-social acts passed off as an expression of ’anarchist’ morality. A true anarchist would not eat, wear or use anything created by those who are part of the organised state. As long as these terrorists and eco-warriors use the fruits of the labour of the members of the hierarchical society they seek to subvert, they are acting hypocritically.

Possible motions

This House supports anarchism.

This House believes that there is no such thing as a legitimate state.

This House believes that citizens of democracies have no obligation to obey laws they believe to be unjust.

This House would require every generation to vote to ratify the treaties that bind them.

This House regrets that ’anarchism’ has become a dirty word.

Related topics

Civil disobedience

Democracy

Social contract, existence of the

Terrorism, justifiability of