From The Student Room
TSR Wiki > Study Help > Subjects and Revision > Revision Notes > Politics > What implications does the anarchist view of human nature have for the state?
What implications does the anarchist view of human nature have for the state?
According to Weber the state is a: ‘monopoly of legitimate violence over a specific territory’ and thus, runs counter to the anarchist view of human nature. The anarchist tradition can be broadly split into collectivists and individualists. What unites them, however, is an optimistic view of human nature. ‘Nature’ implies that there is some ‘ideal’ or platonic ‘form’ of human which exists independent of particular beings. For anarchists of both traditions their interpretation of human nature has the implication that the state is both evil and unnecessary. As Ghandi put it, the state is: “a concentrated body of evil”. What’s more they have a pessimistic view of human nature’s attitude to power:, therefore: “all power corrupts”and not just “absolute” as Acton’s liberal maxim asserted
The collectivist anarchists like Bakunin argue that we are, at heart, social creatures. Given free choice we will form communes and collectives with other humans. He claimed that “social solidarity is the first human law, freedom the second”. Bakunin’s view of ‘nature’ was that we’re bound by a form of ‘natural law’, this dictates that we act in a ‘social’ rather than ‘individualistic’ manner. So, we are ‘free sovereign’ individuals, but we’re not free to deny our social nature. The implications is that the free individual does not need to coerced by the state and its laws. Kropotkin had a similar understanding of our nature, but we are totally free and given this free-will any ‘moral human’ will form communes. This is known as free communism, to separate it from the Marxist view of forced post-revolutionary dictatorship.
Bakunin thought given the power advocated by Marx and his followers any man would soon become “worse than the Czar”. This illustrates both that, for the collectivist, all power is ‘corrupting’ and that nature is malleable. This was at catalyst of the first internationals split in 1872. A perfect society, for the anarchist, will create morally perfect individuals, we are moulded by a social environment and not innate characteristics. Thus, society should be based on communal living and -- for Kropotkin -- ‘mutual aid’ with direct democracy. The state, as we know it, is 'evil, unnecessary, and runs counter to our nature.
On the other hand, anarchists from the individualist tradition stress our inherent self-interest, but this is also guided by enlightened rationale. For Godwin, given the correct education and upbringing the external restraint of the state can be replaced with ‘internal private judgement’. Both of these positions would also hold the state to evil and uncalled for. Stirner claimed the state denies people their natural egoism, controlling our behaviour and forcing us into unnatural social relations. “the egoist, have not at heart the welfare of human society, I sacrifice nothing to it, I only utilise it”, stirner proclaimed to justify his view of the evils of the state in the face of our true human nature.
Rothbard would agree to this view of nature and he thought (as an anarco-capitalist) that the state could be replaced with total free-market capitalism. Law and order can be purchased on the open market and this is more natural to us than the provision of coercion by the state. Individuals would become enlightened, he argued, understanding transactions taking place on fair terms would benefit everyone. Thus, for the individualistic anarchists we will naturally treat one and another with respect and consideration. The state is evil, in that it disrupts natural order and prevents people from expressive their innermost natures.
What generally unites the two traditions is the view of our 'malleable' nature - and the dangers of power. The state is simply not compatible with either school of thought. Goldman claimed government is symbolised by: "the club, the gun, the handcuff or the prison" For all anarchists these are the tools of what is, at heart, a concentration of evil.
Comments
This essay is aimed at people studying for A Level Politics, but will be suitable for other people too.
Originally submitted by Dr Pip on TSR Forums.
