“Anarchism shares its roots with liberalism, and its goals with socialism.” Discuss.

“Man was born free, yet everywhere he is in chains.” (quoted in Heywood, 2007, p182)

Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s opening line to his 1762 text Social Contract appears to be an ideal summary of an anarchist’s view of politics. When one thinks of anarchy, the following stereotypes may come to mind: a state of chaos. Violence ruling the streets. People living without a moral compass. Yet, when anarchism is given a more thorough examination, a number of interesting facts come to light. First, anarchists themselves diverge into different sub-groups. They are not carbon copies of each other. Second, and more significantly, anarchism tends to overlap with two key political ideologies - liberalism and socialism - thus indicating that there may be fundamental similarities between anarchists and liberals and socialists. This implies that there is more to being an anarchist than stereotypically thought, namely, that they do not spend all of their time attacking random people in the street. This essay will argue that although anarchism does appear to share its roots and goals with liberalism and socialism, there remain crucial differences between the ideologies and therefore anarchism still has influential values exclusive to itself.

First we shall define anarchism in its general form before looking at where anarchists split into their particular sub-groups. Although many sources state that it is hard to define the ideology in general, Andrew Heywood provides a useful definition. He defines anarchism as the “central belief that political authority in all its forms, and especially in the form of the state, is both evil and unnecessary” (Heywood, 2007, p175). All anarchists view the state as an oppressive tool, the “chains” that Rousseau was referring to in the opening sentence. Thus, anarchists unanimously agree that the abolishment of the state is necessary to achieve freedom for mankind. Anarchists, despite their stereotype of being pessimistic and violent, appear to have a very positive view on human potential. They believe that co-operation stimulates unity and, therefore, harmony – the state is therefore unnecessary (Goodwin, 2007, p133). The split amongst anarchists occurs mainly when the economy is taken into account. To the left, some anarchist thinkers such as Peter Kropotkin believed in a form of anarcho communism. Others, such as Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and Michael Bakunin, believed that collectivist anarchism was the right step forward, yet they too divided anarchism into ideas of mutualism and anarcho syndicalism. In the “middle” of this anarchist “spectrum”, there are the libertarian including thinkers such as Josiah Warren, Lysander Spooner and William Godwin. To complete our hypothetical spectrum, we have individualist anarchists on the right. Anarchists such as Murray Rothbard believed in the power of the free market, arguing that it, rather than the state, could cater the needs of society. However, there were also thinkers such as Max Stirner who believed in a more extreme form of freedom – egoism. As we can see, there are a number of different anarchist schools of thought we need to study before making a conclusion on how far anarchists agree with socialists and liberals.

With anarchism defined and split, it is time to discuss its relationship with the other ideologies – starting with socialism. Socialism is mainly associated with the writings of political thinkers Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels – the authors of the Communist

Manifesto. Like the anarchists, socialists (in particular Marxists) viewed the state as a form of oppression, a tool used by the bourgeoisie to reduce people to “a class of labourers, who live only so long as they find work, and who find work only so long as their labour increases capital” (Marx, 1848, p9). However, unlike some anarchist sub-groups, they viewed the culprit as being the economic model of capitalism. To counter capitalism, Marx promoted the action of revolution; the overthrowing of the existing order in order to establish a fraternalistic-based, communal society. While some anarcho and collectivist anarchists agreed, others, such as Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, opposed the notion of revolution. Collectivist anarchists, like socialists, believe in the potential of human good. Humans, to them, are moral creatures. Thus, most share the belief in collectivism – more can be achieved together than as an individual. Not all of them, however, agreed with Marx. Proudhon is a unique example, for despite being a collectivist anarchist, implying the belief in togetherness, he rejected the communist idea of subordinating the individual to the collectivity (Hoffman and Graham, 2006, p93). Although he agreed with Marx in regards to the bourgeois exploiting others (leading to his famous “property is theft” paradox), Proudhon argued that instead of using revolution to end the state, which would contradict anarchist thought due to its political nature, the people should instead break away from the state and begin a model called mutualism (Thomas, 1980, p178). People would instead make informal contracts with each other ranging from trade to agreeing a length of time for a particular service. Credit could be borrowed from a mutual credit bank. Without a workforce, Proudhon argued, the state would wither away. In this case, therefore, collectivist anarchists share the Marxist goal of ending the capitalist and state stranglehold on humanity but disagree on how this is best achieved.

However, there was another influential collectivist anarchist – Michael Bakunin – who influenced the beliefs of anarcho syndicalism. Bakunin famously argued, contrary to Thomas Hobbes’ belief that a Leviathan was created by mutual agreement, “man is born into society, just as an ant is born into an ant-hill and bee into its hive” (quoted in Hoffman et al, 2006, p94) One of his main anarchist beliefs was that man’s desire to revolt is instinctive, hence the use of animals in the above quote. Bakunin, unlike Proudhon, argued that revolution is necessary. However, Bakunin disagreed with Marx’s argument that the workers should violently revolt against the bourgeoisie. Bakunin argued that instead of attacking the bourgeois themselves, which was unnecessary and violent, the workers should instead “attack things and relationships, destroy property and the State” (quoted in Eltzbacher, 2004, p133). By destroying property instead of people, Bakunin argued that the state would be paralysed and unable to recover, thus leading to both a successful and bloodless revolution. To compound Bakunin’s angst, Marx argued that after the revolution, a period of transition of power would be required from the bourgeois to the proletariat. He called this the Dictatorship of the Proletariat (Marx, n.d). Bakunin critisised communism, arguing that “they [the Marxists] maintain that only a dictatorship – their dictatorship, of course – can create the will of the people, while our answer to this is: No dictatorship can have any other aim but that of self-perpetuation” (quoted in Caplan, n.d). He also argued that communism would reduce people to a “herd of animals” who would exist solely for the materialistic aspects of life (Marshall, 1993, p432). Thus, Bakunin advocated a bottom-up level of management instead: “I would

have the organisation of society, and of the collective or social property, from below upward by the voice of free union, not from above downward by means of any authority” (quoted in Eltzbacher, 2004, p131). He argued that instead of a dictatorship, a “secret association” of revolutionary staff should act as an intermediary between the instincts of the people and the revolutionary model (Hoffman et al, 2006, p94). This is what stimulates a relationship between socialist syndicalism and anarcho syndicalism, another form of collectivist anarchism. Socialists have always been linked to the trade union movement who, like anarchists, value direct actions such as strikes over conventional politics, which to both of them, is a waste of time. Socialists and anarcho syndicates thus agree that it is vital that they have a voice in the trade unions (Heywood, 2007, p189). Anarchists are also attracted to the syndicate movement because of its decentralised and non-hierarchical nature – exactly how they envisage the society of the future to be. However, other anarchists disagree, arguing that anarcho syndicates are “watering down” anarchist goals and, like democratic socialists (who we shall talk about soon), are becoming pre-occupied with reform rather than revolution (Heywood, 2007, p189).

Anarcho communists, as the name suggests, relate with Marxists better than their collectivist cousins. Not only do they support the idea of bourgeois overthrow but, crucially, they share the goal of using violent revolution as the instrument to achieve it. The disagreement, as with Bakunin, regards the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Marx’s revolution is not a simple case of raising a mob, defeating the existing order and creating a communist utopia as the anarchists would like. As one would expect, anarcho communists see no difference between a bourgeois state and a proletariat state: the state is evil, no matter what mask it puts on. In recent years, Marx’s vision has been criticised by anarchists such as Morgan Gibson, who made the point that “Marxism, like Christianity, is haunted by the spectre of its founder. As twentieth century revolutions have been betrayed by Stalinism…Marx’s humanistic expectations…seem more and more utopian” (1965, p341). This is an ironic dig at the opening sentence of Marx’s manifesto regarding the Communist “spectre”. To an anarcho communist, revolution means revolution – there are no “in betweens”. In the words of Heywood, anarcho communists believe that “the state cannot be allowed to “wither away”; it must be abolished” (2007, p187). Anarcho communists argue that an instant state-to-community transition is possible as a result of man’s natural desire to co-operate. This is best explained through the thinking of anarcho communism’s champion, Peter Kropotkin. Kropotkin’s text Mutual Aid focuses on Charles Darwin’s biological theory of evolution. He argued that “sociability is the greatest advantage in the struggle for life”, his best example being the human race’s ascension to the top of the animal kingdom (quoted in Marshall, 1993, p319). It can be argued that while Marxists believe in revolution, anarcho communists believe in revolution. Thus, the shared goal and difference is clear: Marxists and anarcho communists agree in regards to overthrowing the state in order to establish a community by use of revolution, but they strongly disagree in trusting human goodness. Marxists favour a temporary dictatorship to ensure a smooth transition to communism whereas Kropotkinists believe that the natural ability for humans to co-operate makes this Leviathan unnecessary.

We are not quite done with socialism yet – only with Marxists. Socialists who do not consider themselves communist will fall under a group known as democratic socialists. Democratic socialists, according to John Hoffman, see themselves as “everything that Marxism isn’t: democratic, reformist, realistic, open-minded and concerned with the moral case for socialism” (2006, p73). Going by this definition, the prospect of finding any shared goals between anarchists and democratic socialists appears unlikely. Democratic socialists believe in using political actions such as standing for election and drafting legislation. By taking this gradualist approach, social reform could be achieved peacefully. Even Marx conceded that if conditions were correct (such as universal suffrage, industrialised agriculture and a well-developed capitalist model) then democratic elections would be ideal conditions for socialist ideas to develop (Ritter, 1980, p129). Obviously, this is not a goal shared by anarchists. To an anarchist, democratic government is just a façade; it is sugar-coated oppression. Rather, thinkers such as Kropotkin argued that real democracy – direct democracy – could be achieved through the abolition of the state. Through small, self-sufficient communities, people could talk face-to-face with each other and co-operate, amicably settling their differences without the need of petty politics (Heywood, 2007, p190). If left-wing anarchists and democratic socialists are to share any goals, then it can be argued that they both aim to strengthen communal ties amongst people. They both want to unite people in order to achieve more as a society. Alan Ritter defines this as communal individuality (1980, p128).

We shall finish our discussion of anarchist-socialist relations by further analysing Ritter’s argument of communal individuality for it stresses a word of caution. According to Ritter, it would be simple for us to conclude that anarchists and socialists share the same goal in abolishing the state to create their respective utopias. As we have seen through studying democratic socialists, that argument is not only vague but also untrue. Rather, Ritter points out that that anarchists and socialists share the goal of promoting community, of promoting teamwork. Together, through co-operation, more can be achieved. Therefore, we can see why both groups would want to pursue this goal: for socialists, it promotes togetherness, whereas for anarchists, it demonstrates that through trust and co-operation, man can live peacefully therefore proving their point that the state is unnecessary and should be abolished. Whether anarcho communist, collectivist anarchist, social democrat or Marxist, the majority will unite in saying that promoting social unity is a crucial goal for their respective ideology.

It is now time to discuss the shared roots between anarchism and liberalism. It must be stressed that in regards to anarchists, we will be talking about libertarians and individualist anarchists, for unlike collectivist and anarcho communists, they value the individual over social unity. History alone demonstrates that anarchism and liberalism share similar roots, for they both flourished during the Enlightenment when religious authority was being challenged and replaced by secular governments. This can mean one thing: they both value individual rights over submission to authority – at least to an extent in the case of liberals. If liberalism is to have shared roots with anarchism, then the individual should have the ultimate say in his day to day affairs, with little or no obstacles blocking his path. Barbara Goodwin states that “the preservation of the individual and the

attainment of individual happiness are the supreme goals of a liberal political system, at least in theory” (2007, p37). This statement is hit and miss: on one hand, liberals too highlight that preserving individual rights is a fundamental goal in its ideology. On the other hand, two words are present that would make an anarchist cringe: political system. Effectively, we can imagine the following scenario: anarchism and liberalism share the same roots, but after a period of development, they grow into different trees. It would be like an oak and a birch tree sharing the same roots – individual autonomy – but branching off with liberalism stating the need for government to protect these rights, and anarchism protesting it as an unnecessary evil.

Liberals, according to William Hocking, “think that the self-seeking and deceitful elements in human nature will remain statistically about as they are” (quoted in Ritter, 1980, p113). While liberals believe that humans are rational creatures capable of reason, they are concerned that since some may still commit acts of evil, a state is necessary to protect people. Obviously, as seen during our discussion of left-wing anarchists, this goes against their positive belief in human potential. To liberals such as John Locke, “where there is no law there is no freedom” (quoted in Heywood, 2007, p36). Thus, unlike anarchists, liberals feel that to protect one’s rights, people must sacrifice a small degree of their own freedom I order to ensure freedom for all. Locke in particular argued that the state would act as a night watchman, allowing people to live their lives freely but watching out for any internal or external threats to their freedom. Obviously, anarchists would argue that the state is still oppressing people as they still have obstacles in their path, blocking them from true freedom. In fact, individualist anarchists such as Josiah Warren would argue that humans are perfectly capable of dealing with wrongdoers by themselves, as shown through the promising beginnings of his anarchist village experiments conducted in Ohio and Long Island during the mid 19th century (Marshall, 1993, p386). Another individualist anarchist, Lysander Spooner, was particularly critical of Locke’s belief in a social contract. He argued that the governments were nothing more than a “mere band of robbers, who have associated for purposes of plunder, conquest, and the enslavement of their fellow men” (quoted in Marshall, 1993, p388). Spooner also questioned how a “social contract” between previous generations could still be valid years later when the people of today had no “say” in the proceedings. To Spooner, it was unfair, oppressive and a sham. Rather than be policed by the state, thinkers such as Warren and Spooner subscribed to a libertarian train of thought. Libertarianism, in simple terms, is defined as “a belief that the individual should enjoy the widest possible freedom” (Heywood, 2007, p193). Although they valued private property, some libertarians – in particular Warren – believed that services and goods should be exchanged on a “labour-for-labour” basis (Marshall, 1993). Other libertarians such as William Godwin supported a more utilitarian-driven way to run society instead of the liberal’s case for a state. Godwin supported individual autonomy – “self government” – by arguing that a person will usually act in a way that would maximise pleasure and minimise suffering (Miller, 1984, p18). Through education, he argued that people would be able to enrich themselves and go on to make honest and sensible decisions based on private judgement. The state, however, would make all of the decisions for them which, based on Godwin’s argument, goes against the principle of utility – thus demonstrating why to anarchists such as Warren, Spooner and Godwin the state is an unnecessary and

corruptive force on humanity (Miller, 1984, p20). Liberals, however, will argue that as there will inevitably be a bad apple in every communal crop, the state is needed to protect the innocent – even if it means sacrificing a degree of personal freedom. Also, regarding Godwin’s claim that humans are moral creatures corrupted by political institutions, the liberals pose an interesting dilemma: assuming that humans are indeed “corrupted” by the state, then how can the anarchist possibly explain why states came to be? (Goodwin, 2007, p133) To a liberal, it would be like arguing that a stream would be able to run naturally without the need of a source.

Yet other anarchists took the liberal belief in freedom further, Max Stirner in particular. It could be argued that Stirner’s egoist belief is best described as “liberalism on steroids”; pushing the notion of individual autonomy to its logical extreme (Epstein, n.d). Essentially, Stirner argued that man is amoral and acts on spontaneous thoughts. Anything be it religion or ideology is, to Stirner, oppressive – even simple desire for, say, the latest sports car would be oppressive in Stirner’s eyes, for although you are free to think of such things, you still, obviously, do not have the car. Thus, he argued that freedom is not enough; man must also become an owner. With ownership comes practical gains. In his text The Ego and His Own, Stirner presents his argument known as ownness. He defined ownness as “my whole being and existence, it is I myself. I am free from what I am rid of, owner of what I have in my power or what I control” (Stirner, 1844, p157). Thus, one can see why Stirner would oppose the state: it makes becoming an owner of something challenging and, in some cases, impossible. Therefore, the roles should be reversed: man should have authority over authority; he should live by his own rules just as nature intended him to. However, liberals criticise his argument on two fronts. First, this system would probably lead to utter chaos: theft and murder would skyrocket as a result of these “owners” doing anything in their power to make gains for themselves. Goodwin raises another liberal critique towards Stirner and other anarchist thinkers such as Bakunin: where do anarchists draw the line in regards to how “natural” a society should be? If man is to return to life before government, does that involve leaving towns and cities and starting a new life in caves? (Goodwin, 2007, p134) To a liberal, anarchists are being contradictory, only dismissing the state as “oppressive” and “unnatural” in order to justify their own dislike.

However, there are two ideological groups that have more in common: classical liberals and anarcho capitalists. Thomas Jefferson, drafter of the United States’ Constitution, sums up the classical liberal train-of-thought by declaring “that government is best which governs least” (quoted in Heywood, 2007, p193). Classical liberals support a laissez-faire capitalist model, believing that the market alone would be able to cater for society’s needs instead of the government. In defence of this argument, economist Adam Smith used the “invisible hand” analogy, arguing that supply and demand economics between buyer and seller will be self-regulatory, managing to fix itself without the need of government interference. Anarcho capitalists such as Murray Rothbard took this liberal belief one step further. Rothbard argued that everything should be left to private enterprise – including the police and judiciary. Rothbard argued that the state is unnecessary and probably a corruptive force on such important institutions. With private businesses, he argued that people would be able to pay for quality protection and

arbitration services – poor quality businesses would lose out to their competitors and subsequently liquidate (Hoffman et al, 2006, p91). However, modern liberals in particular are very critical of Rothbard’s argument. They state that the overall purpose of such a society – to better mankind’s freedom and quality of life – would be secondary to pure greed (Marshall, 1993, p587). It would also, if anything, make some people even more oppressed than under a state. In a capitalist model, there are winners and losers; the losers would end up in poor-paying jobs working for people who are not only their bosses, but their oppressors. The final problem concerns privatisation. Liberals argue that corruption may run rife in such a society; the rich would have the potential to bribe their way out of prison and even turn justice into a commodity! (Marshall, 1993, p587) Thus, to liberals (in particular modern liberals), anarcho-capitalists are just that – capitalists – interested only in themselves and their businesses - not the freedom of man.

To conclude, it appears that anarchism shares very important values with socialism and liberalism. Regarding socialism, some anarchists agree with socialists that promoting unity in a society is paramount: in the workplace, more can be achieved. In life, people can enrich themselves and be happier amongst others who they can trust. With liberals, the root is clear: both value individual autonomy, although as we saw, liberals stop well short of declaring the state unnecessary in day-to-day affairs. However, there is a key value that seperates anarchism from these two ideologies: faith in humanity. It is the positive belief in human potential that makes an anarchist an anarchist. In his view, good (man) will triumph over evil (the state); man will use reason instead of instinct. Unlike a socialist or a liberal, an anarchist confidently believes that the stateless utopia is achievable. The only thing stopping this is the chain round man’s ankle.

Word count: 3769 (inc. citations)

Bibliography

Texts

Eltzbacher, P. (2004) The Great Anarchists: Ideas and Teachings of Seven Major Thinkers. Dover Publications Inc, New York.

Paul Eltzbacher’s text is a useful collection of contemporary writings from seven important anarchist thinkers. He expertly uses the writers’ own words to answer questions such as how they value the state based on their respective anarchist beliefs.

Goodwin, B. (2007) Using Political Ideas. 5th edn. John Wiley and Sons Ltd, Chichester.

Barbara Goodwin’s text is a core source of information regarding political ideologies. Her 5th edition continues to five detailed information on many of the ideologies – this essay used her expert knowledge of liberalism to examine its critique of anarchism.

Graham, P. and Hoffman, J. (2006) Introduction to Political Ideologies. Pearson Education Ltd, Harlow.

Paul Graham and John Hoffman present another useful text for students of political ideologies. The authors provide interesting arguments proffered by people from all ideological circles; this essay was able to use definitions and points from their chapters covering all three ideologies in question: socialism, liberalism and anarchism.

Heywood, A. (2007) Political Ideologies: An Introduction. 4th edn. Palgrave MacMillan, Hampshire and New York.

Andrew Heywood’s text expertly examines all of the political ideologies, with a chapter devoted to each one. He examines their values and agreements and disagreements not just with other ideologies, but between particular groups within an ideology. This essay was able to find a number of interesting points as well as many quotations from important liberal and anarchist thinkers.

Marshall, P. (1993) Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism. HarperCollins Publishers, London.

Peter Marshall, like Eltzbacher, devotes each chapter of his book to an important anarchist thinker. Although his text focuses more on the history of anarchism rather than its concepts, he still provided useful information regarding the arguments of the anarchist thinkers.

Marx, K. and Engels, F., McLellan D. (ed) (1992) The Communist Manifesto. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

A famous political manifesto, Marx and Engels speak of the bourgeois’ oppression of the proletariat and how this class struggle should be dealt with. Upon study of this text, an interesting quotation was found that this essay was able to use to emphasise how socialists such as Marx and Engels thought similarly to anarchists – indicating that their ideologies may have more in common than originally thought.

Miller, D. (1984) Anarchism. Dent and Sons Ltd, London.

David Miller’s text focuses more on the different anarchist trains of thought within the ideology – especially in regards to highlighting the split between anarchists of the left (collectivist and communist) and those of the right (individualist and capitalist). This essay used Miller’s text to examine the thinking of libertarian William Godwin.

Ritter, A. (1980) Anarchism: A Theoretical Analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Alan Ritter’s text is similar to Miller’s: it examines the difference and similarities between the different anarchist groups. Crucially for this essay, it also examines the relationships between anarchism and liberalism and socialism. His argument regarding communal individuality was very useful in defining a goal shared by anarchists and socialists.

Stirner, M., Byington, S. (trans), Martin, J. (ed) (2005) The Ego And His Own: The Case of the Individual Against Authority. Dover Publications Inc, New York.

Max Stirner’s 1844 text (translated by Steve Byington and edited by James Martin) explains his thinking behind the concepts of egoism and “ownness”. Stirner, a controversial anarchist, expresses his opinion about what being free is really about and how the use of force is crucial is one wishes to become truly free from oppression.

Thomas, P. (1980) Karl Marx and the Anarchists. Routledge and Keagan Paul Ltd, London, Boston and Henley.

Paul Thomas’ text examines the relationship between important anarchist thinkers (such as Proudhon and Bakunin) and the “father” of communism, Karl Marx. He compares and contrasts contemporary quotations between the thinkers – this essay used his analysis of the difference between Marx and Proudhon’s view on how society should be run which led to Proudhon presenting his argument about mutualism.

Periodicals

Epstein, B. (2001) “Anarchism and the Anti-Globalization Movement”. Monthly Review. Vol. 53 No. 4 September [Internet]. Available from: <http://www.monthlyreview.org/0901epstein.htm> [Accessed 29th October 2008, 21.06 or 9.06pm].

Barbara Epstein’s online article comments on her experiences with anarchists who oppose globalisation. Upon examination of her article, an interesting phrase came to light: “liberalism on steroids”. After reading Stirner’s argument about egoism, this essay felt it would be worth arguing that, perhaps, the phrase could adequately describe Stirner’s belief in unrestrained freedom for mankind.

Gibson, M. (1965) “Marx for Libertarians”. Anarchy. Vol. 5 No. 11 November, p341.

Morgan Gibson’s article in Anarchy’s November 1965 edition was very useful for examining some anarchists’ views on Marxist theory. According to Gibson’s argument, political figures such as Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong have proven the anarchist’s point that power is a corruptive force, and therefore, Marx’s vision of a communist world is nothing more than a utopian fantasy.

Web Sites

Caplan, B. (n.d) Anarchy Theory FAQ [Internet], version 5.2. Available from: <http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/anarfaq.htm> [Accessed 4th

November 2008, 19.34 or 734pm].

Bryan Caplan’s website is a useful source that examines numerous anarchist thinkers as well as the agreements and disagreements amongst the anarchists themselves. Caplan’s site was used as a reference to a statement made by Bakunin when he critisised Marx’s idea of a Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

Marx, K. (n.d, no eds.) Critique of the Gotha Programme – IV [Internet]. Available from: < http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch04.htm> [Accessed 14th

November 2008, 20.17 or 8.17pm].

The fourth section of Marx’s critique of the Gotha programme contains his argument for the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Marx also takes this opportunity to define what, in his opinion, a free state really is. This essay found the web page very useful in examining Marx’s argument and finding out why anarchists oppose his case for a temporary dictatorship in the aftermath of the revolution.