Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I am having huge problems with this question can any one help :confused:

    So far i have this and its a bot short


    A utopia is literally an ideal society. All political ideologies are utopian to an extent, as all ideologies layout the blueprint to a better world. However in its political sense it is usually characterized by the abolition of want, the absence of conflict and the avoidance of oppression and violence. Utopian political theories thus layout a critique of current society, by constructing a model of ‘utopian’ society. Utopian theories are usually based on assumptions about the unlimited possibilities of human self-development. However utopianism is often used as a pejorative term to imply deluded or fanciful thinking, a belief in unrealistic and unachievable goal.

    At the heart of anarchism lies an unashamed utopianism, a belief in the natural goodness or at least potential goodness of human kind. From this prospective, social order arises naturally and spontaneously, it does not require the machinery law and order. This is why archaist conclusion have only been reached by political thinkers who’s views of human nature are optimistic (utopian) enough to sustain the notion of natural order and spontaneous harmony. For example collectivist anarchist stresses the human capacity for sociable and cooperative behaviors, while individualist anarchist highlight the importance of enlightened human reason. Not uncommonly this potential for spontaneous harmony within human nature is linked to the belief that nature itself, and indeed the universe are biased in favor of natural order. However archaism is not entirely utopian, anarchist thinkers such as Proudhon acknowledged that human beings could be selfish and competitive as well as sociable and cooperative, Although the human core may be morally and intellectually enlightened a capacity for corruption lurk within each and every human. Proudhon thus believed that statelessness could not come about spontaneously, but rather through gradual shrinkage of the state and the gradual strengthen of positive social intuitions. Opponents of anarchism have pointed out a that however socially enlightened institutions may be, if selfish or negative impulse are basic to human nature and not evidence of human corruption the prospect of natural order I nothing more than a utopian dream

    However ‘utopian’ is usually used by critics, who point out the lack of coherence and analysis in relation to future stateless society. Marxist and collectivist anarchist both look forward to the future anarchic society. Marxist in contrast have a systematic approach to this process and they argue that ‘hope’ and ‘belief’ alone in spontatious revolution is not enough, dismiising anarchism simply as utopian
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    It depends on whether you consider utopia a good or a bad thing. Basically, argue all the good and desirable aspects of anarchism, and then argue all the bad ones. Utopianism is really the easiest question you could hope for with anarchism.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Two definitions of utopianism:
    Moore's 'original' definition, described in his book Utopia. This in essence is a form of communual anarchism.
    Alternatively as a word to describe any idea of an impossible, perfect, harmonious society.

    Anarchism can be viewed to be the former through the existance of ideology strands such as anarcho-communism, which are pretty similiar to Moore's original idea.

    Anarchism can be viewed to be the latter as its critics have said that a harmonious anarchistic society is impossible due to human nature, or according to the Marxists because of its belief in an unplanned classless sponatenous revolution.

    However, anarchism can also be viewed not to be similiar to Moore's definition due to the existance of individualistic anarchism and other ideological strands which differ from it.

    similarly, anarchism can be viewed to not be utopian as its practioners would argue that it is an achievable goal.

    Hope that helped.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    could you not look at the limitations of anarchism as a governing system, and that it has not so far been used successfully to maintain any (modern) society (whereas the ideology communism has been exemplified (or arguably hadnt) - in 1917) , so its feasibility as a system, and the idea of creating a 'utopia' is so far unknown as such a society has not yet come into existance. so its pretty much a speculative question in terms of how it works. (or is that not relevant to the question as we are dealing in abstract terms - and not historical or future examples of anarchism as a system)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MEIMEI)
    I am having huge problems with this question can any one help :confused:

    So far i have this and its a bot short


    A utopia is literally an ideal society. All political ideologies are utopian to an extent, as all ideologies layout the blueprint to a better world. However in its political sense it is usually characterized by the abolition of want, the absence of conflict and the avoidance of oppression and violence. Utopian political theories thus layout a critique of current society, by constructing a model of ‘utopian’ society. Utopian theories are usually based on assumptions about the unlimited possibilities of human self-development. However utopianism is often used as a pejorative term to imply deluded or fanciful thinking, a belief in unrealistic and unachievable goal.

    At the heart of anarchism lies an unashamed utopianism, a belief in the natural goodness or at least potential goodness of human kind.
    Personally, as an anarchist, I don't believe this. I believe that whether people are naturally good or not, having a state would be a bad thing. If people are naturally not good, why would it be a good thing to have some of them have a monopoly on the use of force in a given geographic area? Murray Rothbard summed that view up:

    (Original post by Rothbard)
    Suppose that we were all starting completely from scratch, and that millions of us had been dropped down upon the Earth, fully grown and developed, from some other planet. Debate begins as to how protection (police and judicial services) will be provided. Someone says: “Let’s give all of our weapons to Joe Jones over there, and to his relatives. And let Jones and his family decide all disputes among us. In that way, the Jones will be able to protect all of us from any aggression or fraud that anyone else may commit. With all the power and all the ability to make ultimate decisions in the hand of Jones, we will be protected from one another. And then let us allow the Joneses to obtain their income from this great service by using their weapons, and by exacting as much revenue by coercion as they shall desire.” Surely in that sort of situation, no one would treat this proposal with anything but ridicule…..it is only because we have become accustomed over thousands of years to the existence of the State that we now give precisely this kind of absurd answer to the problem of social protection and defense.
    Let's go on

    From this prospective, social order arises naturally and spontaneously, it does not require the machinery law and order.
    Not necessarily. Market anarchists and communist anarchist (such as Kropotkin) have highlighted the example of customary law as an alternative to state law. Anarchists might, then, say that they are could be happy with a society that had laws, and means of enforcing them: They just don't think that the state should provide them.

    This is why archaist conclusion have only been reached by political thinkers who’s views of human nature are optimistic (utopian) enough to sustain the notion of natural order and spontaneous harmony. For example collectivist anarchist stresses the human capacity for sociable and cooperative behaviors, while individualist anarchist highlight the importance of enlightened human reason. Not uncommonly this potential for spontaneous harmony within human nature is linked to the belief that nature itself, and indeed the universe are biased in favor of natural order. However archaism is not entirely utopian, anarchist thinkers such as Proudhon acknowledged that human beings could be selfish and competitive as well as sociable and cooperative, Although the human core may be morally and intellectually enlightened a capacity for corruption lurk within each and every human. Proudhon thus believed that statelessness could not come about spontaneously, but rather through gradual shrinkage of the state and the gradual strengthen of positive social intuitions. Opponents of anarchism have pointed out a that however socially enlightened institutions may be, if selfish or negative impulse are basic to human nature and not evidence of human corruption the prospect of natural order I nothing more than a utopian dream
    I might agree with much of this. Life would probably be horrible if the state was abolished tomorrow. On the other hand, perhaps it would not be horrible for long.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MEIMEI)
    I am having huge problems with this question can any one help :confused:
    This is the essay plan I used when revising for this topic last year..

    NTRO – Anarchism is supremely optimistic; humans are either naturally good or we are ‘tabula rasa’ (born neutral and therefore have the capacity to be good).
    Emphasis on human rationality and natural order – leads to belief in human perfectibility and that humans can live in social harmony.
    This optimism has often lead to anarchism being viewed as utopian.

    PARA 1 – “Utopian”, the word lends itself to several interpretations:
    Hopelessly unrealistic
    A perfect society
    Thomas More’s literal translation of ‘nowhere’ (unachievable.)

    PARA 2 – Anarcho-collectivist tradition reflects a strong utopian influence. Bakunin – his belief in social solidarity (naturally occurring community – the belief that we want to live together instinctively in social harmony.)
    This view is generally supported by anarcho-collectivist thinkers.
    Kropotkin (reflects anarcho-communism) saw his views as practical –reflecting small scale communities.
    This reflects Anarchism’s roots in small, pre-industrial communities.

    PARA 3 – Small strand of anarchist thinking – mutualism, tries to reflect the practical organisation of a stateless society governed by trading relations. Practical but idealistic –eg. Cincinnati time store (labour exchange)
    Similarly it is possible to argue the same for modern eco-anarchists – influenced by Bookchin. The outside world sees them as utopian, whereas they view themselves as a practical alternative to an industrialised, hierarchical society.
    The fact that no large scale anarchist society has ever emerged reflects a degree of impracticality which might be interpreted as utopian (one exception – Spanish civil war.)
    Eg. Ian Bone etc. Argue that they are a practical alternative to failed capitalism – increased popularity over last 6 months due to the recession.

    PARA 4 – Anarcho-individualist tradition – not so much utopian as reflecting the reality of human relations and in particular the view that it is possible the have a stateless society in which the functions of the state are replicated by the unrestrained free market.
    This viewpoint is most accurately reflected in the modern anarcho-capitalists of the past 40years. (Rothbard, Freedman etc)
    No such society exists (everything controlled by free market) therefore utopian in that sense. however, if their aim is to produce an absolutely minimal state based on libertarian principles, their views are realistic, ie. They have influenced the anti-state argument (particularly in the USA). Anarcho-capitalism has been more influential on the right wing (Thatcher etc)

    CONCLUSION – It depends on your view of utopia and on the extent to which it is judged that anarchism has influenced other political views.
    There are very few examples of anarchist societies in practice and there is no clear route for achieving an anarchist society – this suggests a high degree of utopianism.

    Hope this helps!!
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
Updated: October 2, 2009

University open days

  • University of Bradford
    All faculties Undergraduate
    Wed, 21 Nov '18
  • Buckinghamshire New University
    All Faculties Postgraduate
    Wed, 21 Nov '18
  • Heriot-Watt University
    All Schools Postgraduate
    Wed, 21 Nov '18
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.