Revision as of 23:11, 22 September 2007 editNaught101 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users819 edits add note about etymology - perhaps there should be an etymology section?← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 18:36, 28 December 2024 edit undoTassedethe (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators1,366,014 editsm v2.05 - fix links - Peter Marshall (author)Tag: WPCleaner | ||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{short description|Society without rulers}} | |||
{{totallydisputed}} | |||
{{other uses}} | |||
{{originalresearch}} | |||
{{About|the state of government without authority|the philosophy against authority|Anarchism}} | |||
{{otheruses}} | |||
{{forms of government|Anarchism}} | |||
'''Anarchy''' is a form of ] without ]. As a type of ], it is commonly contrasted with ], which are centralised polities that claim a ] over a permanent ]. Beyond a lack of ], it can more precisely refer to societies that lack any form of ] or ]. While viewed positively by ], the primary advocates of anarchy, it is viewed negatively by advocates of ], who see it in terms of ]. | |||
The word "anarchy" was first defined by ], which understood it to be a corrupted form of ], where a majority of people exclusively pursue their own interests. This use of the word made its way into ] during the ], before the concepts of anarchy and democracy were disconnected from each other in the wake of the ]. During the ], philosophers began to look at anarchy in terms of the "]", a thought experiment used to justify various forms of hierarchical government. By the late 18th century, some philosophers began to speak in defence of anarchy, seeing it as a preferable alternative to existing forms of ]. This lay the foundations for the development of anarchism, which advocates for the creation of anarchy through ] and ]. | |||
'''Anarchy''' (from {{lang-el|ἀναρχία}} ''anarchía'', "without ]") may refer to any of the following: | |||
{{Forms of government}} | |||
* "Absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to beliefs that people are inherently good and can organize themselves without government or bureaucracies; another type of political order."<ref>"anarchy." Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford University Press. 2004</ref> | |||
* "A theoretical social state in which there is no governing person or body of persons, but each individual has absolute liberty (without the implication of disorder)."<ref>"anarchy." Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford University Press. 2004</ref> | |||
* "Absence or non-recognition of authority in any given sphere."<ref>"anarchy." Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford University Press. 2004</ref> | |||
{{toc limit|3}} | |||
or, simply, (from {{lang-el|''an-''}}, "without" and {{lang-el|''-archy''}}, "leadership") | |||
* Without leadership. Hence, the common use of ] as a system of organisation without leaders. | |||
==Definition== | |||
It should be noted that "ruler", used in this context, has no explicit connection to the term "rules". In an anarchy, as defined by the last bullet point, it ''is'' possible to have ''rules'' (laws), however, these must be agreed upon by the participants in the system, and not imposer from above, by a ''ruler'' (leader, authority). Some Languages, such as Norwegian<ref> on anarchy.no. Accessed 2007 Sep 23</ref> have two separate words for the two meanings. This causes problems of understanding in a similar way that the word "free" in english causes misunderstandings when relating to ]. | |||
As a concept, ] is commonly defined by what it excludes.{{Sfn|Bell|2020|p=310}} Etymologically, anarchy is derived from the {{langx|el|αναρχία|translit=anarchia}}; where "αν" ("an") means "without" and "αρχία" ("archia") means "ruler".{{Sfnm|1a1=Dupuis-Déri|1y=2010|1p=13|2a1=Marshall|2y=2008|2p=3}} Therefore, anarchy is fundamentally defined by the absence of ].{{Sfnm|1a1=Chartier|1a2=Van Schoelandt|1y=2020|1p=1|2a1=Dupuis-Déri|2y=2010|2p=13|3a1=Marshall|3y=2008|3pp=19-20|4a1=McKay|4y=2018|4pp=118-119}} | |||
While anarchy specifically represents a society without rulers, it can more generally refer to a ],{{Sfnm|1a1=Chartier|1a2=Van Schoelandt|1y=2020|1p=1|2a1=Dupuis-Déri|2y=2010|2pp=14-15}} or a society without ].{{Sfnm|1a1=Marshall|1y=2008|1p=3|2a1=Morris|2y=2020|2p=40|3a1=Sensen|3y=2020|3p=99}} Anarchy is thus defined in direct contrast to the ],{{Sfnm|1a1=Amster|1y=2018|1p=15|2a1=Bell|2y=2020|2p=310|3a1=Boettke|3a2=Candela|3y=2020|3p=226|4a1=Morris|4y=2020|4pp=39-42|5a1=Sensen|5y=2020|5p=99}} an institution that claims a ] over a given ].{{Sfnm|1a1=Bell|1y=2020|1p=310|2a1=Boettke|2a2=Candela|2y=2020|2p=226|3a1=Morris|3y=2020|3pp=43-45}} Anarchists such as ] have also defined anarchy more precisely as a society without ],{{Sfnm|1a1=Marshall|1y=2008|1p=42|2a1=McLaughlin|2y=2007|2p=12}} or ].{{Sfn|Amster|2018|p=23}} | |||
==Anarchy after state collapse== | |||
===English Civil War=== | |||
{{main|English Civil War}} | |||
The tumult of the ] led the term to be taken up in ]. Anarchy was one of the issues at the ] of ]: | |||
Anarchy is often defined synonymously as chaos or ],{{Sfnm|1a1=Bell|1y=2020|1p=309|2a1=Boettke|2a2=Candela|2y=2020|2p=226|3a1=Chartier|3a2=Van Schoelandt|3y=2020|3p=1}} reflecting the ] as depicted by ].{{Sfnm|1a1=Boettke|1a2=Candela|1y=2020|1p=226|2a1=Morris|2y=2020|2pp=39-40|3a1=Sensen|3y=2020|3p=99}} By this definition, anarchy represents not only an absence of government but also an absence of ]. This connection of anarchy with chaos usually assumes that, without government, no means of governance exist and thus that disorder is an unavoidable outcome of anarchy.{{Sfn|Boettke|Candela|2020|p=226}} Sociologist ] has described chaos as a "degenerate form of anarchy", in which there is an absence, not just of rulers, but of any kind of political organization.{{Sfn|Dupuis-Déri|2010|pp=16-17}} He contrasts the "rule of all" under anarchy with the "rule of none" under chaos.{{Sfn|Dupuis-Déri|2010|pp=17-18}} | |||
:]: ''I shall blow up your buildings a little more and be less open with you than I was before. I wish we all truly wanted to change this cesspool we live in. If I did mistrust you I would not use such asseverations. I think it doth go on mistrust, and things are thought too readily matters of reflection, that were never intended. For my part, as I think, you forgot something that was in my speech, and you do not only yourselves believe that some men are inclining to anarchy, but you would make all men believe that. And, sir, to say because a man pleads that every man hath a voice by right of nature, that therefore it destroys by the same argument all property -- this is to forget the Law of God. That there’s a property, the Law of God says it; else why hath God made that law, Thou shalt not steal? I am a poor man, therefore I must be oppressed: if I have no interest in the kingdom, I must suffer by all their laws be they right or wrong. Nay thus: a gentleman lives in a country and hath three or four lordships, as some men have (God knows how they got them); and when a Parliament is called he must be a Parliament-man; and it may be he sees some poor men, they live near this man, he can crush them -- I have known an invasion to make sure he hath turned the poor men out of doors; and I would fain know whether the potency of rich men do not this, and so keep them under the greatest tyranny that was ever thought of in the world. And therefore I think that to that it is fully answered: God hath set down that thing as to propriety with this law of his, Thou shalt not steal. And for my part I am against any such thought, and, as for yourselves, I wish you would not make the world believe that we are for anarchy.'' | |||
Since its conception, anarchy has been used in both a positive and negative sense, respectively describing a free society without coercion or a state of chaos.{{Sfn|Marshall|2008|p=3}} | |||
:]: ''I know nothing but this, that they that are the most yielding have the greatest wisdom; but really, sir, this is not right as it should be. No man says that you have a mind to anarchy, but that the consequence of this rule tends to anarchy, must end in anarchy; for where is there any bound or limit set if you take away this limit , that men that have no interest but the interest of breathing shall have no voice in elections? Therefore I am confident on 't, we should not be so hot one with another.''<ref></ref> | |||
==Conceptual development== | |||
As people began to theorise about the English Civil War, Anarchy came to be more sharply defined, albeit from differing political perspectives: | |||
===Classical philosophy=== | |||
When the word "anarchy" ({{langx|el|αναρχία|translit=anarchia}}) was first defined in ancient Greece, it initially had both a positive and negative connotation, respectively referring to ] or chaos without rulers. The latter definition was taken by the philosopher ], who criticised ] as "anarchical", and his disciple ], who questioned how to prevent democracy from descending into anarchy.{{Sfn|Marshall|2008|p=66}} ] initially understood anarchy to be a corrupted form of ], although it later came to be conceived of as its own form of political regime, distinct from any kind of democracy.{{Sfn|Dupuis-Déri|2010|p=9}} According to the traditional conception of political regimes, anarchy results when authority is derived from a majority of people who pursue their own interests.{{Sfn|Dupuis-Déri|2010|p=11}} | |||
===Post-classical development=== | |||
*] ] ('']) describes the ] as a ], where man lives a brutish existence. ''For the savage people in many places of America, except the government of small families, the concord whereof dependeth on natural lust, have no government at all, and live at this day in that brutish manner'' <ref></ref>.Hobbes finds three basic causes of the conflict in this ]: competition, diffidence and glory, ''The first maketh men invade for gain; the second, for safety; and the third, for reputation''. His first ] is that ''that every man ought to endeavour peace, as far as he has hope of obtaining it; and when he cannot obtain it, that he may seek and use all helps and advantages of war''. In the state of nature, ''every man has a right to every thing, even to one another's body'' but the second law is that, in order to secure the advantages of peace, ''that a man be willing, when others are so too… to lay down this right to all things; and be contented with so much liberty against other men as he would allow other men against himself''. This is the beginning of contracts/covenants; performing of which is the third law of nature. ''Injustice,'' therefore, is failure to perform in a covenant; all else is just. | |||
During the ], the word "anarchia" came into use in Latin, in order to describe the ] of the ]. It later came to reconstitute its original political definition, describing a society without government.{{Sfn|Marshall|2008|p=3}} | |||
Christian theologists came to claim that ] and ought to submit to the ] of higher power, with the French Protestant reformer ] declaring that even the worst form of ] was preferable to anarchy.{{Sfn|Marshall|2008|p=74}} The Scottish Quaker ] also denounced the "anarchy" of ]s such as the ].{{Sfn|Marshall|2008|pp=106-107}} In contrast, ] such as the ] advocated for anarchist societies based on ].{{Sfn|Marshall|2008|pp=98-100}} Although following attempts to establish such a society, the Digger ] came to advocate for an ] of ].{{Sfn|Marshall|2008|p=100}} | |||
*] ] ('']'') uses the term to describe a situation where the ] use force to impose a government on an economic base composed of either solitary land ownership (absolute ]), or land in the ownership of a few (mixed Monarchy). He distinguishes it from ], the situation when both land ownership and governance shared by the population at large, seeing it as a temporary situation arising from an imbalance between the form of government and the form of property relations. | |||
During the 16th century, the term "anarchy" first came into use in the ].{{Sfnm|1a1=Davis|1y=2019|1pp=59-60|2a1=Marshall|2y=2008|2p=487}} It was used to describe the disorder that results from the absence of or opposition to authority, with ] writing of "the waste/Wide anarchy of Chaos" in '']''.{{Sfn|Marshall|2008|p=487}} Initially used as a pejorative descriptor for ], the two terms began to diverge following the ], when democracy took on a positive connotation and was redefined as a form of ], ].{{Sfn|Davis|2019|pp=59-60}} | |||
===French Revolution=== | |||
{{main|French Revolution}} | |||
===Enlightenment philosophy=== | |||
] | |||
Political philosophers of the ] contrasted the ] with what they called the "]", a hypothetical description of stateless society, although they disagreed on its definition.{{Sfn|Morris|2020|pp=39-40}} ] considered the state of nature to be a "nightmare of permanent war of all against all".{{Sfnm|1a1=Marshall|1y=2008|1p=x|2a1=Sensen|2y=2020|2pp=99-100}} In contrast, ] considered it to be a harmonious society in which people lived "according to reason, without a common superior". They would be subject only to ], with otherwise "perfect freedom to order their actions".{{Sfn|Marshall|2008|p=x}} | |||
{{seealso|Reign of Terror}} | |||
In depicting the "state of nature" to be a free and equal society governed by natural law, Locke distinguished between society and the state.{{Sfn|Marshall|2008|pp=13-14}} He argued that, without established laws, such a society would be inherently unstable, which would make a ] necessary in order to protect people's ].{{Sfn|Marshall|2008|pp=13-14, 129}} He likewise argued that limiting the reach of the state was reasonable when peaceful cooperation without a state was possible.{{Sfn|Chartier|Van Schoelandt|2020|p=3}} His thoughts on the state of nature and limited government ultimately provided the foundation for the ] argument for '']''.{{Sfn|Marshall|2008|p=14}} | |||
During the French Revolution, the period of brutal violence in which many members of high-ruling families were killed has been described as anarchy. The ] was mainly conducted by the radical egalitarian wing of the revolution. Targets were not only aristocrats but also fellow revolutionaries who were deemed too moderate, and were sent to guillotine. ], Scottish essayist of the Victorian era known foremost for his widely influential work of history, '']'', wrote that the French Revolution was a war against both ] ''and'' anarchy: | |||
====Kant's thought experiment==== | |||
<blockquote>Meanwhile, we will hate Anarchy as Death, which it is; and the things worse than Anarchy shall be hated more! Surely Peace alone is fruitful. Anarchy is destruction: a burning up, say, of Shams and Insupportabilities; but which leaves Vacancy behind. Know this also, that out of a world of Unwise nothing but an Unwisdom can be made. Arrange it, Constitution-build it, sift it through Ballot-Boxes as thou wilt, it is and remains an Unwisdom,-- the new prey of new quacks and unclean things, the latter end of it slightly better than the beginning. Who can bring a wise thing out of men unwise? Not one. And so Vacancy and general Abolition having come for this France, what can Anarchy do more? Let there be Order, were it under the Soldier's Sword; let there be Peace, that the bounty of the Heavens be not spilt; that what of Wisdom they do send us bring fruit in its season!-- It remains to be seen how the quellers of Sansculottism were themselves quelled, and sacred right of Insurrection was blown away by gunpowder: wherewith this singular eventful History called French Revolution ends.<ref name="Carlyle">], '']''</ref></blockquote> | |||
] philosopher ], who looked at anarchy as a thought experiment to justify government]] | |||
] defined "anarchy", in terms of the "state of nature", as a lack of government. He discussed the concept of anarchy in order to question why humanity ought to leave the state of nature behind and instead submit to a "]".{{Sfn|Sensen|2020|p=99}} In contrast to Thomas Hobbes, who conceived of the state of nature as a "war of all against all" which existed throughout the world, Kant considered it to be only a ]. Kant believed that ] drove people to not only seek out ] but also to attempt to attain a ].{{Sfn|Sensen|2020|pp=99-100}} | |||
While Kant distinguished between different forms of the state of nature, contrasting the "solitary" form against the "social", he held that there was no means of ] in such a circumstance. He considered that, without ], a ] and means for ], the danger of violence would be ever-present, as each person could only judge for themselves what is right without any form of arbitration. He thus concluded that human society ought to leave the state of nature behind and submit to the authority of a state.{{Sfn|Sensen|2020|p=100}} Kant argued that the threat of violence incentivises humans, by the need to preserve their own safety, to leave the state of nature and submit to the state.{{Sfn|Sensen|2020|pp=100-101}} Based on his "]", he argued that if humans desire to secure their own safety, then they ought to avoid anarchy.{{Sfn|Sensen|2020|p=101}} But he also argued, according to his "]", that it is not only ] but also a ] and ] to avoid anarchy and submit to a state.{{Sfn|Sensen|2020|pp=101-102}} Kant thus concluded that even if people did not desire to leave anarchy, they ought to as a matter of duty to abide by universal laws.{{Sfn|Sensen|2020|pp=107-109}} | |||
], duke of Aiguillon came before the ] in 1789 and shared his views on the anarchy: | |||
====Defense of the state of nature==== | |||
<blockquote>I may be permitted here to express my personal opinion. I shall no doubt not be accused of not loving liberty, but I know that not all movements of peoples lead to liberty. But I know that great anarchy quickly leads to great exhaustion and that despotism, which is a kind of rest, has almost always been the necessary result of great anarchy. It is therefore much more important than we think to end the disorder under which we suffer. If we can achieve this only through the use of force by authorities, then it would be thoughtless to keep refraining from using such force.<ref name="Duke"></ref></blockquote> | |||
In contrast, ]'s 1756 work '']'', argued in favour of anarchist society in a defense of the state of nature.{{Sfn|Marshall|2008|p=133}} Burke insisted that reason was all that was needed to govern society and that "artificial laws" had been responsible for all social conflict and inequality, which led him to denounce the church and the state.{{Sfn|Marshall|2008|pp=133-134}} Burke's anti-statist arguments preceded the work of classical anarchists and directly inspired the political philosophy of ].{{Sfn|Marshall|2008|p=134}} | |||
], an early proponent of anarchy as a political regime]] | |||
Armand II was later exiled because he was viewed as being opposed to the revolution's violent tactics. | |||
In his 1793 book '']'', Godwin proposed the creation of a more just and free society by abolishing government, concluding that order could be achieved through anarchy.{{Sfnm|1a1=Marshall|1y=2008|1p=206|2a1=McLaughlin|2y=2007|2pp=117-118}} Although he came to be known as a founding father of anarchism,{{Sfn|Marshall|2008|p=488}} Godwin himself mostly used the word "anarchy" in its negative definition,{{Sfn|Marshall|2008|pp=214, 488}} fearing that an immediate dissolution of government without any prior political development would lead to disorder.{{Sfn|Marshall|2008|p=214}} Godwin held that the anarchy could be best realised through gradual evolution, by cultivating reason through education, rather than through a sudden and violent revolution.{{Sfn|McLaughlin|2007|p=132}} But he also considered transitory anarchy to be preferable to lasting ], stating that anarchy bore a distorted resemblance to "true liberty"{{Sfn|Marshall|2008|pp=214, 488}} and could eventually give way to "the best form of human society".{{Sfn|Marshall|2008|p=214}} | |||
This positive conception of anarchy was soon taken up by other political philosophers. In his 1792 work '']'', ] came to consider an anarchist society, which he conceived of as a community built on voluntary contracts between educated individuals, to be "infinitely preferred to any State arrangements".{{Sfn|Marshall|2008|pp=154-155}} The French political philosopher ], in his 1797 novel '']'', questioned what form of government was best.{{Sfn|Marshall|2008|p=146}} He argued that it was passion, not law, that had driven human society forward, concluding by calling for the abolition of law and a return to a state of nature by accepting anarchy.{{Sfn|Marshall|2008|pp=146-147}} He concluded by declaring anarchy to be the best form of political regime, as it was law that gave rise to ] and anarchic revolution that was capable of bringing down bad governments.{{Sfn|Marshall|2008|p=147}} After the ], ] suggested that a stateless society might lead to greater happiness for humankind and has been attributed the maxim "that government is best which governs least". Jefferson's political philosophy later inspired the development of ], with contemporary ] proposing that private property could be used to guarantee anarchy.{{Sfn|Marshall|2008|p=497}} | |||
Professor Chris Bossche commented on the role of anarchy in the revolution: | |||
==Anarchist thought== | |||
<blockquote>In The French Revolution, the narrative of increasing anarchy undermined the narrative in which the revolutionaries were striving to create a new social order by writing a constitution.<ref></ref></blockquote> | |||
===Proudhon=== | |||
], the first person to self-identify with the term "anarchist" and one of the first to redefine "anarchy" in a positive sense]] | |||
] was the first person known to self-identify as an anarchist, adopting the label in order to provoke those that took anarchy to mean disorder.{{Sfn|Marshall|2008|p=234}} Proudhon was one of the first people to use the word "anarchy" ({{langx|fr|anarchie}}) in a positive sense, to mean a free society without government.{{Sfn|Prichard|2019|p=71}} To Proudhon, as anarchy did not allow coercion, it could be defined synoymously with ].{{Sfn|Prichard|2019|p=84}} In arguing against ], he claimed that "the ] is a positive anarchy ... it is the liberty that is the MOTHER, not the daughter, of order."{{Sfn|Prichard|2019|p=71}} While acknowledging this common definition of anarchy as disorder, Proudhon claimed that it was actually authoritarian government and wealth inequality that were the true causes of social disorder.{{Sfn|Marshall|2008|p=239}} By counterposing this against anarchy, which he defined as an absence of rulers,{{Sfnm|1a1=Marshall|1y=2008|1pp=5, 239|2a1=McKay|2y=2018|2pp=118-119|3a1=McLaughlin|3y=2007|3p=137}} Proudhon declared that "just as man seeks justice in equality, society seeks order in anarchy".{{Sfnm|1a1=Marshall|1y=2008|1pp=5, 239|2a1=McLaughlin|2y=2007|2p=137}} Proudhon based his case for anarchy on his conception of a just and moral state of nature.{{Sfn|Marshall|2008|p=39}} | |||
Proudhon posited ] as an organizational form and ] as an economic form, which he believed would lead towards the end goal of anarchy.{{Sfn|Marshall|2008|p=7}} In his 1863 work ''The Federal Principle'', Proudhon elaborated his view of anarchy as "the government of each man by himself," using the English term of "self-government" as a synonym for it.{{Sfn|Marshall|2008|pp=252, 254}} According to Proudhon, under anarchy, "all citizens reign and govern" through ] in decision-making.{{Sfn|McKay|2018|p=120}} He proposed that this could be achieved through a system of ] and ],{{Sfnm|1a1=Marshall|1y=2008|1p=252|2a1=McKay|2y=2018|2p=120}} in which every community is self-governing and any delegation of decision-making is subject to ].{{Sfn|McKay|2018|p=120}} He likewise called for the economy to be brought under ], which would abolish ].{{Sfn|McKay|2018|pp=120-121}} Proudhon believed that all this would eventually lead to anarchy, as individual and collective interests aligned and ] is achieved.{{Sfn|Marshall|2008|pp=254-255}} | |||
===Jamaica 1720=== | |||
Sir ], Governor of ], wrote to ], the ], in ]: | |||
:"As to those ] that came as mechanics hither, very young and have now acquired good estates in ] ] and ]& co., of course they know no better than what maxims they learn in the ]. To be now short & plain Your Lordship will see that they have no maxims of ] but what are absolutely anarchical." | |||
In the letter Lawes goes on to complain that these "estated men now are like ]'s ]" and details the humble origins of the "]" largely lacking an education and flouting the rules of church and state. In particular, he cites their refusal to abide be the Deficiency Act, which required ] owners to procure from ] one ] person for every 40 enslaved ]s, thereby hoping to expand their own estates and inhibit further English/] immigration. Lawes describes the government as being "anarchical, but nearest to any form of ]". "Must the King's good subjects at home who are as capable to begin plantations, as their Fathers, and themselves were, be excluded from their ] of settling Plantations in this noble Island, for ever and the King and Nation at home be deprived of so much riches, to make a few upstart ] Princes?."<ref>''Jamaica: Description of the Principal Persons there'' (about 1720, Sir Nicholas Lawes, Governor) in'']'' Vol. III (1911), edited by ]</ref>. | |||
Proudhon thus came to be known as the "father of anarchy" by the anarchist movement, which emerged from the ] faction of the ] (IWA).{{Sfn|Marshall|2008|pp=235-236}} Until the establishment of IWA in 1864, there had been no anarchist movement, only individuals and groups that saw anarchy as their end goal.{{Sfn|Graham|2019|p=326}} | |||
===Spain 1936=== | |||
] | |||
After General Franco declared war on the Spanish government in 1936 (]) the government largely collapsed. Much of the resistance to the fascists was organised throught the confedaration of ] trade unions, the '']'' (CNT) and the Iberian Anarchist Federation, the '']'' (FAI). The ] occurred almost immediately after the failed coup of Franco, leading to the formation of worker's collectives all over Republican Spain. This has been hailed as the best example of a functioning anarchist system. The anarchists were able to keep the country running and hold back the fascists, until they were attacked by the Republican government and their Communist allies. The government were subsequently defeated by Franco, leading to 40 years of fascism in Spain. | |||
=== |
===Bakunin=== | ||
], who infused the term "anarchy" with simultaneous positive and negative definitions]] | |||
Before the ] took control, Somalia was the only country in the world without a functioning state (See ]). Abdo Vingaker, a Somalian living in ], was quoted in an article by ] as saying: "I am from Somalia and to live without government is the most dangerous system." The article went on to discuss the abject poverty experienced by the citizens of this country.<ref>, accessed on December 29th, 2005.</ref> | |||
One of Proudhon's keenest students was the Russian revolutionary ], who adopted his critiques of private property and government, as well as his views on the desirability of anarchy.{{Sfn|Marshall|2008|pp=269-270}} During the ], Bakunin wrote of his hopes of igniting a revolutionary upheaval in the ], writing to the German poet ] that "I do not fear anarchy, but desire it with all my heart". Although he still used the negative definition of anarchy as disorder, he nevertheless saw the need for "something different: passion and life and a new world, lawless and thereby free."{{Sfn|Marshall|2008|p=271}} | |||
Bakunin popularised "anarchy" as a term,{{Sfn|Marshall|2008|p=5}} using both its negative and positive definitions,{{Sfn|Marshall|2008|p=265}} in order to respectively describe the disorderly destruction of revolution and the construction of a new social order in the post-revolutionary society.{{Sfnm|1a1=Graham|1y=2019|1p=330|2a1=Marshall|2y=2008|2pp=5, 285, 306}} Bakunin envisioned the creation of an "International Brotherhood", which could lead people through "the thick of popular anarchy" in a ].{{Sfn|Graham|2019|p=330}} Upon joining the IWA, in 1869, Bakunin drew up a programme for such a Brotherhood, in which he infused the word "anarchy" with a more positive connotation:{{Sfn|Marshall|2008|pp=281-282}} | |||
==Anarchist communities== | |||
{{main|Anarchist communities}} | |||
{{blockquote|We do not fear anarchy, we invoke it. For we are convinced that anarchy, meaning the unrestricted manifestation of the liberated life of the people, must spring from liberty, equality, the new social order, and the force of the revolution itself against the reaction. There is no doubt that this new life – the popular revolution – will in good time organize itself, but it will create its revolutionary organization from the bottom up, from the circumference to the center, in accordance with the principle of liberty, and not from the top down or from the center to the circumference in the manner of all authority. It matters little to us if that authority is called ], ], ], ], or even ]. We detest and reject all of them equally as the unfailing sources of exploitation and despotism.}} | |||
*] (late ]) | |||
<!--To be expanded with 19th and 20th century developments --> | |||
*] (January ] - ]) | |||
*] (] - ]) | |||
*] (], ] - ], ]) | |||
== See also == | |||
*More: ] | |||
{{cols}} | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
{{colend}} | |||
== References == | |||
==Political philosophy== | |||
{{reflist}} | |||
<!-- Note to editors: Liberalism comes first because the sections are in chronological order by when the political philosophy developed. --> | |||
===Liberalism=== | |||
] wrote on how ] aims for a ] between ] and anarchy: | |||
<Blockquote>Every community is faced with two dangers, anarchy and despotism. The ], especially ], were most impressed by the danger of despotism. ], on the contrary, was obsessed by the fear of anarchy. The liberal philosophers who arose after ] and acquire control after 1688, realized both dangers; they disliked both ] and the ]s. This led ] to the doctrine of ] and of ].<ref>Bertrand Russel's '']'', pg. 555.</ref></blockquote> | |||
===Anarchism=== | |||
{{anarchism}} | |||
{{main|anarchism}} | |||
Anarchists are those who advocate the absence of the state, arguing that common sense would allow for people to come together in agreement to form a functional society allowing for the participants to freely develop their own sense of morality, ethics or principled behaviour. The rise of anarchism as a philosophical movement occurred in the mid ], with its notion of ] as being based upon political and economic self-rule. This occurred alongside the rise of the ] and large-scale industrial ], and the ] that came with their successes. | |||
Although anarchists share a rejection of the state, they differ about economic arrangements and possible rules that would prevail in a stateless society, ranging from complete common ownership and distribution according to need, to supporters of private ] and ] competition. For example, most forms of anarchism, such as that of ], ], or ] not only seek rejection of the state, but also other systems which they perceive as authoritarian, which includes capitalism, wage labor, and private property. In opposition, another form known as ] argues that a society without a state is a free market capitalist system that is ] in nature. Most anarchists reject the claim that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism as it is marked by authoritarian structures. | |||
The word "anarchy" is often used by non-anarchists as a pejorative term, intended to connote a lack of control and a negatively chaotic environment. Because of this, some activists have self-identified as ]. In more recent times ] has offered another similar self-identification. However, anarchists still argue that anarchy does not imply ], ], or the total absence of rules, but rather an anti-authoritarian society that is based on the ] of free individuals in autonomous communities, operating on principles of ], ], and ]. | |||
==Anthropology== | |||
{{see also|Anarcho-primitivism}} | |||
Some anarchist anthropologists, such as ] and ], consider societies such as those of the ], ] and the ] to be anarchies in the sense that they explicitly reject the idea of centralized political authority. <ref>{{cite book |last=Graeber |first=David |authorlink=David Graeber |title=Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology |url=http://www.prickly-paradigm.com/paradigm14.pdf |format=PDF |year=2004 |publisher=] |location=] |language=] |isbn=0-9728196-4-9}}</ref> However, others point out that tribal societies of the past have often been more violent than modern technological societies, on average.<ref name="BlankSlate">See ]'s '']'', Chapter 4, ] for a survey of the mainstream anthropological opinion.</ref> | |||
For example, more than a third of the ] males, on average, died from warfare.<ref name="Keeley">Keeley: ''War before civilization: The myth of the peaceful savage''</ref> Men who participated in killings had more wives and kids than those who did not.<ref name="Chagnon">(Chagnon 1998; Chagnon 1992)</ref> Some Yanomamo men, however, reflected on the futility of their feuds and made it known that they would have nothing to do with the raiding.<ref name="Chagnon" /> These findings, originally reported by the anthropologist ], have been empirically replicated several times.<ref name="replicated">(Ember, 1978; Keeley, 1996; Knauft, 1987)</ref> | |||
Some more recent antropologists, such as ] and ], have defied the notion of hunter-gatherer societies as being a source of scarcity and brutalization, describing them as - in the words of Sahlins - "affluent societies". <ref>{{cite book | first=Marshall | last=Sahlins | authorlink=Marshall Sahlins | title=Stone Age Economics | publisher=] | year=2003 | isbn=0415320100 | accessdate=2007-04-27 }}</ref> | |||
However the ] ] writes: | |||
<blockquote>Adjudication by an armed authority appears to be the most effective violence-reduction technique ever invented. Though we debate whether tweaks in criminal policy, such as executing murderers versus locking them up for life, can reduce violence by a few percentage points, there can be no debate on the massive effects of having a criminal justice system as opposed to living in anarchy. The shockingly high homicide rates of pre-state societies, with 10 to 60 percent of the men dying at the hands of other men, provide one kind of evidence. Another is the emergence of a violent culture of honor in just about any corner of the world that is beyond the reach of law. ..The generalization that anarchy in the sense of a lack of government leads to anarchy in the sense of violent chaos may seem banal, but it is often over-looked in today's still-romantic climate.<ref name="BlankSlate">]'s '']'', pages 330-331.</ref></blockquote> | |||
{{originalresearch}} | |||
Some ] thinkers<ref></ref> do not share this vision of evolution, where man was able to reinvent himself in the last ten thousand years, to better fulfill his needs. They believe that this concept represents a way that current culture justifies the values of modern industrial society and as a manner in which civilization was able to move individuals further from their natural necessities.<ref></ref> Besides the consideration of authors, such as ], to the existence in tribal society having less violence altogether<ref>{{cite book | first=John | last=Zerzan | authorlink=John Zerzan | title=Running on Emptiness: The Pathology of Civilization | publisher=] | year=2002 | isbn=092291575X | accessdate=2007-05-x }}</ref>, he and other authors such as ] talk about other forms of violence on the individual in advanced countries, generally expressed by the term "social anomie", that results from the system of monopolized security<ref>{{cite book | first=John | last=Zerzan | authorlink=John Zerzan | title=Future Primitive: And Other Essays | publisher=Autonomedia | year=1994 | isbn=1570270007 | accessdate=2007-05-x }}</ref>. These authors do not dismiss the fact that man is changing while adapting to his different social realities<ref></ref>, but consider them an anomaly, nevertheless. The two end results being that we either disappear or become something very different, distant from what we have come to value in our nature. It has been suggested by experts that this shift towards civilization, through domestication, has caused an increase in diseases, labor and psychological disorders<ref>{{cite book | first=Sigmund | last=Freud | authorlink=Sigmund Freud | title=Civilization and Its Discontents | publisher=W. W. Norton & Company | year=2005 | isbn=0393059952 | accessdate=2007-05-x }}</ref><ref>{{cite book | first=Paul | last=Shepard | authorlink=Paul Shepard | title=Traces of an Omnivore | publisher=Island Press | year=1996 | isbn=1559634316 | accessdate=2007-05-x }}</ref><ref></ref>. On the other hand, concerning the necessity of violence in the primitive world, anthropologist ] expresses that violence in primitive societies is a natural way for each community to maintain its political independence, while dismissing the state as a natural outcome of the evolution of human societies.<ref>{{cite book | first=Pierre | last=Clastres | authorlink=Pierre Clastres | title=Archeology of Violence | publisher=Semiotext(e) | year=1994 | isbn=0936756950 | accessdate=2007-05-x }}</ref> | |||
In 2005 Thomas D. Beaner gathered an army of people who believed in anarchy. He took his army to the mayors’ offices with intentions of starting a revolution in L.A. Ca. soon after arriving to the office, he and his army was stormed by LAPD and sheriffs. He was sentenced to 10 years in prison. Later in the proceeding he was offered prison or join the army. He took the army in haste and excelled. He still believes in anarchy and is being watched by the FBI. | |||
== See also == | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
== |
== Bibliography == | ||
{{ |
{{refbegin|30em}} | ||
* {{cite book|last=Amster|first=Randall |author-link=Randall Amster |chapter=Anti-Hierarchy |editor-last1=Franks |editor-first1=Benjamin |editor-last2=Jun |editor-first2=Nathan |editor-last3=Williams |editor-first3=Leonard |year=2018 |title=Anarchism: A Conceptual Approach |publisher=] |isbn=978-1-138-92565-6 |lccn=2017044519 |pages=15–27}} | |||
* {{cite book|last1=Bell|first1=Tom W.|chapter=The Forecast for Anarchy|year=2020|editor-first1=Gary|editor-last1=Chartier|editor-first2=Chad|editor-last2=Van Schoelandt|title=The Routledge Handbook of Anarchy and Anarchist Thought|pages=309–324 |location=]|publisher=]|isbn=9781315185255|doi=10.4324/9781315185255-22|s2cid=228898569 }} | |||
* {{cite book|last1=Boettke|first1=Peter J.|author-link1=Peter Boettke|last2=Candela|first2=Rosolino A.|chapter=The Positive Political Economy of Analytical Anarchism|year=2020|editor-first1=Gary|editor-last1=Chartier|editor-first2=Chad|editor-last2=Van Schoelandt|title=The Routledge Handbook of Anarchy and Anarchist Thought|pages=222–234 |location=]|publisher=]|isbn=9781315185255|doi=10.4324/9781315185255-15|s2cid=228898569 }} | |||
* {{cite book|last1=Chartier|first1=Gary|author-link1=Gary Chartier|last2=Van Schoelandt|first2=Chad|chapter=Introduction|year=2020|editor-first1=Gary|editor-last1=Chartier|editor-first2=Chad|editor-last2=Van Schoelandt|title=The Routledge Handbook of Anarchy and Anarchist Thought|pages=1–12 |location=]|publisher=]|isbn=9781315185255|doi=10.4324/9781315185255|s2cid=228898569 }} | |||
* {{cite book|last=Davis|first=Lawrence|chapter=Individual and Community|editor-last1=Adams|editor-first1=Matthew S.|editor-last2=Levy|editor-first2=Carl|year=2019|title=The Palgrave Handbook of Anarchism|location=London|publisher=Palgrave Macmillan|isbn=978-3319756196|pages=47–70|doi=10.1007/978-3-319-75620-2_3|s2cid=158605651 }} | |||
* {{cite book|last=Dupuis-Déri|first=Francis|author-link=Francis Dupuis-Déri|year=2010|chapter=Anarchy in Political Philosophy|title=New Perspectives on Anarchism|editor-last1=Jun|editor-first1=Nathan J.|editor-last2=Wahl|editor-first2=Shane|publisher=]|lccn=2009015304|isbn=978-0-7391-3240-1|pages=9–24}} | |||
* {{cite book|last=Graham|first=Robert|author-link=Robert Graham (historian)|chapter=Anarchism and the First International|editor-last1=Adams|editor-first1=Matthew S.|editor-last2=Levy|editor-first2=Carl|year=2019|title=The Palgrave Handbook of Anarchism|location=London|publisher=Palgrave Macmillan|isbn=978-3319756196|pages=325–342|doi=10.1007/978-3-319-75620-2_19|s2cid=158605651 }} | |||
* {{cite book|first=Peter H.|last = Marshall|author-link=Peter Marshall (author, born 1946)|title=]|year=2008|orig-year=1992|location=]|publisher=]|isbn=978-0-00-686245-1|oclc=218212571}} | |||
* {{cite book|last=McKay|first=Iain |chapter=Organisation |editor-last1=Franks |editor-first1=Benjamin |editor-last2=Jun |editor-first2=Nathan |editor-last3=Williams |editor-first3=Leonard |year=2018 |title=Anarchism: A Conceptual Approach |publisher=] |isbn=978-1-138-92565-6 |lccn=2017044519 |pages=115–128}} | |||
* {{cite book | last = McLaughlin | first = Paul | title = Anarchism and Authority: A Philosophical Introduction to Classical Anarchism | url = https://books.google.com/books?id=kkj5i3CeGbQC | publisher = ] | location = Aldershot | year = 2007 | isbn = 978-0-7546-6196-2 |lccn=2007007973}} | |||
* {{cite book|last=Morris|first=Christopher W.|author-link=Christopher W. Morris|year=2020|chapter=On the Distinction Between State and Anarchy|editor-first1=Gary|editor-last1=Chartier|editor-first2=Chad|editor-last2=Van Schoelandt|title=The Routledge Handbook of Anarchy and Anarchist Thought|pages=39–52 |location=]|publisher=]|isbn=9781315185255|doi=10.4324/9781315185255-3|s2cid=228898569 }} | |||
* {{cite book|last=Prichard|first=Alex|chapter=Freedom|editor-last1=Adams|editor-first1=Matthew S.|editor-last2=Levy|editor-first2=Carl|year=2019|title=The Palgrave Handbook of Anarchism|location=London|publisher=Palgrave Macmillan|isbn=978-3319756196|pages=71–89|doi=10.1007/978-3-319-75620-2_4|hdl=10871/32538 |s2cid=158605651 }} | |||
* {{cite book|last=Sensen|first=Oliver|author-link=Oliver Sensen|year=2020|chapter=Kant on Anarchy|editor-first1=Gary|editor-last1=Chartier|editor-first2=Chad|editor-last2=Van Schoelandt|title=The Routledge Handbook of Anarchy and Anarchist Thought|pages=99–111 |location=]|publisher=]|isbn=9781315185255|doi=10.4324/9781315185255-7|s2cid=228898569 }} | |||
{{refend}} | |||
== |
==Further reading== | ||
{{ |
{{refbegin|2}} | ||
* {{cite book|last1=Crowe|first1=Jonathan|author-link=Jonathan Crowe|chapter=Anarchy and Law|year=2020|editor-first1=Gary|editor-last1=Chartier|editor-first2=Chad|editor-last2=Van Schoelandt|title=The Routledge Handbook of Anarchy and Anarchist Thought|pages=281–294 |location=]|publisher=]|isbn=9781315185255|doi=10.4324/9781315185255-20|s2cid=228898569 }} | |||
* {{cite book|last=Gabay|first=Clive|year=2010|chapter=What Did the Anarchists Ever Do for Us? Anarchy, Decentralization, and Autonomy at the Seattle Anti-WTO Protests|title=New Perspectives on Anarchism|editor-last1=Jun|editor-first1=Nathan J.|editor-last2=Wahl|editor-first2=Shane|publisher=]|lccn=2009015304|isbn=978-0-7391-3240-1|pages=121–132}} | |||
* {{cite book|last=Gordon|first=Uri|author-link=Uri Gordon (anarchist)|year=2010|chapter=Power and Anarchy: In/equality + In/visibility in Autonomous Politics|title=New Perspectives on Anarchism|editor-last1=Jun|editor-first1=Nathan J.|editor-last2=Wahl|editor-first2=Shane|publisher=]|lccn=2009015304|isbn=978-0-7391-3240-1|pages=39–66}} | |||
* {{cite journal|last=Hirshleifer|first=Jack|author-link=Jack Hirshleifer|year=1995|title=Anarchy and its Breakdown|journal=]|volume=103|issue=1|pages=26–52|issn=1537-534X|doi=10.1086/261974|s2cid=154997658 |url=http://www.econ.ucla.edu/workingpapers/wp674.pdf }} | |||
* {{cite book|last1=Huemer|first1=Michael|author-link=Michael Huemer|chapter=The Right Anarchy: Capitalist or Socialist?|year=2020|editor-first1=Gary|editor-last1=Chartier|editor-first2=Chad|editor-last2=Van Schoelandt|title=The Routledge Handbook of Anarchy and Anarchist Thought|pages=342–359 |location=]|publisher=]|isbn=9781315185255|doi=10.4324/9781315185255-24|s2cid=228898569 }} | |||
* {{cite journal|last=Leeson|first=Peter T.|author-link=Peter Leeson|year=2007|title=Better off stateless: Somalia before and after government collapse|url=https://www.peterleeson.com/Better_Off_Stateless.pdf|journal=]|volume=35 |issue=4|pages=689–710|doi=10.1016/j.jce.2007.10.001|issn=0147-5967}} | |||
* {{cite book|last=Levy|first=Carl|author-link=Carl Levy (political scientist)|chapter=Anarchism and Cosmopolitanism|editor-last1=Adams|editor-first1=Matthew S.|editor-last2=Levy|editor-first2=Carl|year=2019|title=The Palgrave Handbook of Anarchism|location=London|publisher=Palgrave Macmillan|isbn=978-3319756196|pages=125–148|doi=10.1007/978-3-319-75620-2_7|s2cid=158605651 |chapter-url=https://research.gold.ac.uk/id/eprint/23630/1/LevyPalgraveLevyFinal%20%281%29.pdf }} | |||
* {{cite book|last=McLaughlin|first=Paul|year=2020|chapter=Anarchism, Anarchists and Anarchy|editor-first1=Gary|editor-last1=Chartier|editor-first2=Chad|editor-last2=Van Schoelandt|title=The Routledge Handbook of Anarchy and Anarchist Thought|pages=15–27 |location=]|publisher=]|isbn=9781315185255|doi=10.4324/9781315185255-1|s2cid=228898569 }} | |||
* {{cite journal|last1=Powell|first1=Benjamin|author-link1=Benjamin Powell|last2=Stringham|first2=Edward P.|author-link2=Edward Stringham|year=2009|title=Public choice and the economic analysis of anarchy: a survey|journal=]|volume=140|issue=3–4 |pages=503–538|issn=1573-7101|doi=10.1007/s11127-009-9407-1|s2cid=189842170 |url=https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/26097/1/MPRA_paper_26097.pdf }} | |||
* {{cite book|last=Newman|first=Saul|author-link=Saul Newman|chapter=Postanarchism|editor-last1=Adams|editor-first1=Matthew S.|editor-last2=Levy|editor-first2=Carl|year=2019|title=The Palgrave Handbook of Anarchism|location=London|publisher=Palgrave Macmillan|isbn=978-3319756196|pages=293–304|doi=10.1007/978-3-319-75620-2_17|s2cid=158605651 }} | |||
* {{cite book|last=Shannon|first=Deric |chapter=Economy |editor-last1=Franks |editor-first1=Benjamin |editor-last2=Jun |editor-first2=Nathan |editor-last3=Williams |editor-first3=Leonard |year=2018 |title=Anarchism: A Conceptual Approach |publisher=] |isbn=978-1-138-92565-6 |lccn=2017044519 |pages=142–154}} | |||
* {{Cite book|last1=Shantz|first1=Jeff|last2=Williams|first2=Dana M.|year=2013|title=Anarchy and Society: Reflections on Anarchist Sociology|publisher=]|doi=10.1163/9789004252998|lccn=2013033844|isbn=978-90-04-21496-5}} | |||
* {{cite journal|last=Tamblyn |first=Nathan |date=30 April 2019 |title=The Common Ground of Law and Anarchism |journal=Liverpool Law Review |volume=40 |number=1 |pages=65–78 |doi=10.1007/s10991-019-09223-1|s2cid=155131683 |doi-access=free |hdl=10871/36939 |hdl-access=free }} | |||
* {{cite book|last=Taylor|first=Michael|author-link=Michael Taylor (political scientist)|year=1982|title=Community, Anarchy and Liberty|publisher=]|isbn=0-521-24621-0|lccn=82-1173}} | |||
* {{cite book|last=Verter|first=Mitchell|year=2010|chapter=The Anarchism of the Other Person|title=New Perspectives on Anarchism|editor-last1=Jun|editor-first1=Nathan J.|editor-last2=Wahl|editor-first2=Shane|publisher=]|lccn=2009015304|isbn=978-0-7391-3240-1|pages=67–84}} | |||
{{refend}} | |||
{{anarchism}} | |||
* | |||
{{Portal bar|Anarchism|Politics|Society}} | |||
* | |||
{{authority control}} | |||
* | |||
* (requires ]) | |||
* http://www.crimethinc.com | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] |
Latest revision as of 18:36, 28 December 2024
Society without rulers For other uses, see Anarchy (disambiguation). This article is about the state of government without authority. For the philosophy against authority, see Anarchism.Part of the Politics series | ||||||||
Basic forms of government | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
List of forms · List of countries | ||||||||
Source of power
|
||||||||
Power ideology
|
||||||||
Power structure |
||||||||
Related |
||||||||
Politics portal | ||||||||
Anarchy is a form of society without rulers. As a type of stateless society, it is commonly contrasted with states, which are centralised polities that claim a monopoly on violence over a permanent territory. Beyond a lack of government, it can more precisely refer to societies that lack any form of authority or hierarchy. While viewed positively by anarchists, the primary advocates of anarchy, it is viewed negatively by advocates of statism, who see it in terms of social disorder.
The word "anarchy" was first defined by Ancient Greek philosophy, which understood it to be a corrupted form of direct democracy, where a majority of people exclusively pursue their own interests. This use of the word made its way into Latin during the Middle Ages, before the concepts of anarchy and democracy were disconnected from each other in the wake of the Atlantic Revolutions. During the Age of Enlightenment, philosophers began to look at anarchy in terms of the "state of nature", a thought experiment used to justify various forms of hierarchical government. By the late 18th century, some philosophers began to speak in defence of anarchy, seeing it as a preferable alternative to existing forms of tyranny. This lay the foundations for the development of anarchism, which advocates for the creation of anarchy through decentralisation and federalism.
Definition
As a concept, anarchy is commonly defined by what it excludes. Etymologically, anarchy is derived from the Greek: αναρχία, romanized: anarchia; where "αν" ("an") means "without" and "αρχία" ("archia") means "ruler". Therefore, anarchy is fundamentally defined by the absence of rulers.
While anarchy specifically represents a society without rulers, it can more generally refer to a stateless society, or a society without government. Anarchy is thus defined in direct contrast to the State, an institution that claims a monopoly on violence over a given territory. Anarchists such as Errico Malatesta have also defined anarchy more precisely as a society without authority, or hierarchy.
Anarchy is often defined synonymously as chaos or social disorder, reflecting the state of nature as depicted by Thomas Hobbes. By this definition, anarchy represents not only an absence of government but also an absence of governance. This connection of anarchy with chaos usually assumes that, without government, no means of governance exist and thus that disorder is an unavoidable outcome of anarchy. Sociologist Francis Dupuis-Déri has described chaos as a "degenerate form of anarchy", in which there is an absence, not just of rulers, but of any kind of political organization. He contrasts the "rule of all" under anarchy with the "rule of none" under chaos.
Since its conception, anarchy has been used in both a positive and negative sense, respectively describing a free society without coercion or a state of chaos.
Conceptual development
Classical philosophy
When the word "anarchy" (Greek: αναρχία, romanized: anarchia) was first defined in ancient Greece, it initially had both a positive and negative connotation, respectively referring to spontaneous order or chaos without rulers. The latter definition was taken by the philosopher Plato, who criticised Athenian democracy as "anarchical", and his disciple Aristotle, who questioned how to prevent democracy from descending into anarchy. Ancient Greek philosophy initially understood anarchy to be a corrupted form of direct democracy, although it later came to be conceived of as its own form of political regime, distinct from any kind of democracy. According to the traditional conception of political regimes, anarchy results when authority is derived from a majority of people who pursue their own interests.
Post-classical development
During the Middle Ages, the word "anarchia" came into use in Latin, in order to describe the eternal existence of the Christian God. It later came to reconstitute its original political definition, describing a society without government.
Christian theologists came to claim that all humans were inherently sinful and ought to submit to the omnipotence of higher power, with the French Protestant reformer John Calvin declaring that even the worst form of tyranny was preferable to anarchy. The Scottish Quaker Robert Barclay also denounced the "anarchy" of libertines such as the Ranters. In contrast, radical Protestants such as the Diggers advocated for anarchist societies based on common ownership. Although following attempts to establish such a society, the Digger Gerard Winstanley came to advocate for an authoritarian form of communism.
During the 16th century, the term "anarchy" first came into use in the English language. It was used to describe the disorder that results from the absence of or opposition to authority, with John Milton writing of "the waste/Wide anarchy of Chaos" in Paradise Lost. Initially used as a pejorative descriptor for democracy, the two terms began to diverge following the Atlantic Revolutions, when democracy took on a positive connotation and was redefined as a form of elected, representational government.
Enlightenment philosophy
Political philosophers of the Age of Enlightenment contrasted the state with what they called the "state of nature", a hypothetical description of stateless society, although they disagreed on its definition. Thomas Hobbes considered the state of nature to be a "nightmare of permanent war of all against all". In contrast, John Locke considered it to be a harmonious society in which people lived "according to reason, without a common superior". They would be subject only to natural law, with otherwise "perfect freedom to order their actions".
In depicting the "state of nature" to be a free and equal society governed by natural law, Locke distinguished between society and the state. He argued that, without established laws, such a society would be inherently unstable, which would make a limited government necessary in order to protect people's natural rights. He likewise argued that limiting the reach of the state was reasonable when peaceful cooperation without a state was possible. His thoughts on the state of nature and limited government ultimately provided the foundation for the classical liberal argument for laissez-faire.
Kant's thought experiment
Immanuel Kant defined "anarchy", in terms of the "state of nature", as a lack of government. He discussed the concept of anarchy in order to question why humanity ought to leave the state of nature behind and instead submit to a "legitimate government". In contrast to Thomas Hobbes, who conceived of the state of nature as a "war of all against all" which existed throughout the world, Kant considered it to be only a thought experiment. Kant believed that human nature drove people to not only seek out society but also to attempt to attain a superior hierarchical status.
While Kant distinguished between different forms of the state of nature, contrasting the "solitary" form against the "social", he held that there was no means of distributive justice in such a circumstance. He considered that, without law, a judiciary and means for law enforcement, the danger of violence would be ever-present, as each person could only judge for themselves what is right without any form of arbitration. He thus concluded that human society ought to leave the state of nature behind and submit to the authority of a state. Kant argued that the threat of violence incentivises humans, by the need to preserve their own safety, to leave the state of nature and submit to the state. Based on his "hypothetical imperative", he argued that if humans desire to secure their own safety, then they ought to avoid anarchy. But he also argued, according to his "categorical imperative", that it is not only prudent but also a moral and political obligation to avoid anarchy and submit to a state. Kant thus concluded that even if people did not desire to leave anarchy, they ought to as a matter of duty to abide by universal laws.
Defense of the state of nature
In contrast, Edmund Burke's 1756 work A Vindication of Natural Society, argued in favour of anarchist society in a defense of the state of nature. Burke insisted that reason was all that was needed to govern society and that "artificial laws" had been responsible for all social conflict and inequality, which led him to denounce the church and the state. Burke's anti-statist arguments preceded the work of classical anarchists and directly inspired the political philosophy of William Godwin.
In his 1793 book Political Justice, Godwin proposed the creation of a more just and free society by abolishing government, concluding that order could be achieved through anarchy. Although he came to be known as a founding father of anarchism, Godwin himself mostly used the word "anarchy" in its negative definition, fearing that an immediate dissolution of government without any prior political development would lead to disorder. Godwin held that the anarchy could be best realised through gradual evolution, by cultivating reason through education, rather than through a sudden and violent revolution. But he also considered transitory anarchy to be preferable to lasting despotism, stating that anarchy bore a distorted resemblance to "true liberty" and could eventually give way to "the best form of human society".
This positive conception of anarchy was soon taken up by other political philosophers. In his 1792 work The Limits of State Action, Wilhelm von Humboldt came to consider an anarchist society, which he conceived of as a community built on voluntary contracts between educated individuals, to be "infinitely preferred to any State arrangements". The French political philosopher Donatien Alphonse François, in his 1797 novel Juliette, questioned what form of government was best. He argued that it was passion, not law, that had driven human society forward, concluding by calling for the abolition of law and a return to a state of nature by accepting anarchy. He concluded by declaring anarchy to be the best form of political regime, as it was law that gave rise to tyranny and anarchic revolution that was capable of bringing down bad governments. After the American Revolution, Thomas Jefferson suggested that a stateless society might lead to greater happiness for humankind and has been attributed the maxim "that government is best which governs least". Jefferson's political philosophy later inspired the development of individualist anarchism in the United States, with contemporary right-libertarians proposing that private property could be used to guarantee anarchy.
Anarchist thought
Proudhon
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon was the first person known to self-identify as an anarchist, adopting the label in order to provoke those that took anarchy to mean disorder. Proudhon was one of the first people to use the word "anarchy" (French: anarchie) in a positive sense, to mean a free society without government. To Proudhon, as anarchy did not allow coercion, it could be defined synoymously with liberty. In arguing against monarchy, he claimed that "the Republic is a positive anarchy ... it is the liberty that is the MOTHER, not the daughter, of order." While acknowledging this common definition of anarchy as disorder, Proudhon claimed that it was actually authoritarian government and wealth inequality that were the true causes of social disorder. By counterposing this against anarchy, which he defined as an absence of rulers, Proudhon declared that "just as man seeks justice in equality, society seeks order in anarchy". Proudhon based his case for anarchy on his conception of a just and moral state of nature.
Proudhon posited federalism as an organizational form and mutualism as an economic form, which he believed would lead towards the end goal of anarchy. In his 1863 work The Federal Principle, Proudhon elaborated his view of anarchy as "the government of each man by himself," using the English term of "self-government" as a synonym for it. According to Proudhon, under anarchy, "all citizens reign and govern" through direct participation in decision-making. He proposed that this could be achieved through a system of federalism and decentralisation, in which every community is self-governing and any delegation of decision-making is subject to immediate recall. He likewise called for the economy to be brought under industrial democracy, which would abolish private property. Proudhon believed that all this would eventually lead to anarchy, as individual and collective interests aligned and spontaneous order is achieved.
Proudhon thus came to be known as the "father of anarchy" by the anarchist movement, which emerged from the libertarian socialist faction of the International Workingmen's Association (IWA). Until the establishment of IWA in 1864, there had been no anarchist movement, only individuals and groups that saw anarchy as their end goal.
Bakunin
One of Proudhon's keenest students was the Russian revolutionary Mikhail Bakunin, who adopted his critiques of private property and government, as well as his views on the desirability of anarchy. During the Revolutions of 1848, Bakunin wrote of his hopes of igniting a revolutionary upheaval in the Russian Empire, writing to the German poet Georg Herwegh that "I do not fear anarchy, but desire it with all my heart". Although he still used the negative definition of anarchy as disorder, he nevertheless saw the need for "something different: passion and life and a new world, lawless and thereby free."
Bakunin popularised "anarchy" as a term, using both its negative and positive definitions, in order to respectively describe the disorderly destruction of revolution and the construction of a new social order in the post-revolutionary society. Bakunin envisioned the creation of an "International Brotherhood", which could lead people through "the thick of popular anarchy" in a social revolution. Upon joining the IWA, in 1869, Bakunin drew up a programme for such a Brotherhood, in which he infused the word "anarchy" with a more positive connotation:
We do not fear anarchy, we invoke it. For we are convinced that anarchy, meaning the unrestricted manifestation of the liberated life of the people, must spring from liberty, equality, the new social order, and the force of the revolution itself against the reaction. There is no doubt that this new life – the popular revolution – will in good time organize itself, but it will create its revolutionary organization from the bottom up, from the circumference to the center, in accordance with the principle of liberty, and not from the top down or from the center to the circumference in the manner of all authority. It matters little to us if that authority is called Church, Monarchy, constitutional State, bourgeois Republic, or even revolutionary Dictatorship. We detest and reject all of them equally as the unfailing sources of exploitation and despotism.
See also
- Anti-authoritarianism
- Criticisms of electoral politics
- Libertarian socialism
- List of anarchist organizations
- Outline of anarchism
- Power vacuum
- Rebellion
- Relationship anarchy
- State of nature
References
- Bell 2020, p. 310.
- Dupuis-Déri 2010, p. 13; Marshall 2008, p. 3.
- Chartier & Van Schoelandt 2020, p. 1; Dupuis-Déri 2010, p. 13; Marshall 2008, pp. 19–20; McKay 2018, pp. 118–119.
- Chartier & Van Schoelandt 2020, p. 1; Dupuis-Déri 2010, pp. 14–15.
- Marshall 2008, p. 3; Morris 2020, p. 40; Sensen 2020, p. 99.
- Amster 2018, p. 15; Bell 2020, p. 310; Boettke & Candela 2020, p. 226; Morris 2020, pp. 39–42; Sensen 2020, p. 99.
- Bell 2020, p. 310; Boettke & Candela 2020, p. 226; Morris 2020, pp. 43–45.
- Marshall 2008, p. 42; McLaughlin 2007, p. 12.
- Amster 2018, p. 23.
- Bell 2020, p. 309; Boettke & Candela 2020, p. 226; Chartier & Van Schoelandt 2020, p. 1.
- Boettke & Candela 2020, p. 226; Morris 2020, pp. 39–40; Sensen 2020, p. 99.
- Boettke & Candela 2020, p. 226.
- Dupuis-Déri 2010, pp. 16–17.
- Dupuis-Déri 2010, pp. 17–18.
- ^ Marshall 2008, p. 3.
- Marshall 2008, p. 66.
- Dupuis-Déri 2010, p. 9.
- Dupuis-Déri 2010, p. 11.
- Marshall 2008, p. 74.
- Marshall 2008, pp. 106–107.
- Marshall 2008, pp. 98–100.
- Marshall 2008, p. 100.
- Davis 2019, pp. 59–60; Marshall 2008, p. 487.
- Marshall 2008, p. 487.
- Davis 2019, pp. 59–60.
- Morris 2020, pp. 39–40.
- Marshall 2008, p. x; Sensen 2020, pp. 99–100.
- Marshall 2008, p. x.
- Marshall 2008, pp. 13–14.
- Marshall 2008, pp. 13–14, 129.
- Chartier & Van Schoelandt 2020, p. 3.
- Marshall 2008, p. 14.
- Sensen 2020, p. 99.
- Sensen 2020, pp. 99–100.
- Sensen 2020, p. 100.
- Sensen 2020, pp. 100–101.
- Sensen 2020, p. 101.
- Sensen 2020, pp. 101–102.
- Sensen 2020, pp. 107–109.
- Marshall 2008, p. 133.
- Marshall 2008, pp. 133–134.
- Marshall 2008, p. 134.
- Marshall 2008, p. 206; McLaughlin 2007, pp. 117–118.
- Marshall 2008, p. 488.
- ^ Marshall 2008, pp. 214, 488.
- ^ Marshall 2008, p. 214.
- McLaughlin 2007, p. 132.
- Marshall 2008, pp. 154–155.
- Marshall 2008, p. 146.
- Marshall 2008, pp. 146–147.
- Marshall 2008, p. 147.
- Marshall 2008, p. 497.
- Marshall 2008, p. 234.
- ^ Prichard 2019, p. 71.
- Prichard 2019, p. 84.
- Marshall 2008, p. 239.
- Marshall 2008, pp. 5, 239; McKay 2018, pp. 118–119; McLaughlin 2007, p. 137.
- Marshall 2008, pp. 5, 239; McLaughlin 2007, p. 137.
- Marshall 2008, p. 39.
- Marshall 2008, p. 7.
- Marshall 2008, pp. 252, 254.
- ^ McKay 2018, p. 120.
- Marshall 2008, p. 252; McKay 2018, p. 120.
- McKay 2018, pp. 120–121.
- Marshall 2008, pp. 254–255.
- Marshall 2008, pp. 235–236.
- Graham 2019, p. 326.
- Marshall 2008, pp. 269–270.
- Marshall 2008, p. 271.
- Marshall 2008, p. 5.
- Marshall 2008, p. 265.
- Graham 2019, p. 330; Marshall 2008, pp. 5, 285, 306.
- Graham 2019, p. 330.
- Marshall 2008, pp. 281–282.
Bibliography
- Amster, Randall (2018). "Anti-Hierarchy". In Franks, Benjamin; Jun, Nathan; Williams, Leonard (eds.). Anarchism: A Conceptual Approach. Routledge. pp. 15–27. ISBN 978-1-138-92565-6. LCCN 2017044519.
- Bell, Tom W. (2020). "The Forecast for Anarchy". In Chartier, Gary; Van Schoelandt, Chad (eds.). The Routledge Handbook of Anarchy and Anarchist Thought. New York: Routledge. pp. 309–324. doi:10.4324/9781315185255-22. ISBN 9781315185255. S2CID 228898569.
- Boettke, Peter J.; Candela, Rosolino A. (2020). "The Positive Political Economy of Analytical Anarchism". In Chartier, Gary; Van Schoelandt, Chad (eds.). The Routledge Handbook of Anarchy and Anarchist Thought. New York: Routledge. pp. 222–234. doi:10.4324/9781315185255-15. ISBN 9781315185255. S2CID 228898569.
- Chartier, Gary; Van Schoelandt, Chad (2020). "Introduction". In Chartier, Gary; Van Schoelandt, Chad (eds.). The Routledge Handbook of Anarchy and Anarchist Thought. New York: Routledge. pp. 1–12. doi:10.4324/9781315185255. ISBN 9781315185255. S2CID 228898569.
- Davis, Lawrence (2019). "Individual and Community". In Adams, Matthew S.; Levy, Carl (eds.). The Palgrave Handbook of Anarchism. London: Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 47–70. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-75620-2_3. ISBN 978-3319756196. S2CID 158605651.
- Dupuis-Déri, Francis (2010). "Anarchy in Political Philosophy". In Jun, Nathan J.; Wahl, Shane (eds.). New Perspectives on Anarchism. Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 9–24. ISBN 978-0-7391-3240-1. LCCN 2009015304.
- Graham, Robert (2019). "Anarchism and the First International". In Adams, Matthew S.; Levy, Carl (eds.). The Palgrave Handbook of Anarchism. London: Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 325–342. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-75620-2_19. ISBN 978-3319756196. S2CID 158605651.
- Marshall, Peter H. (2008) . Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism. London: Harper Perennial. ISBN 978-0-00-686245-1. OCLC 218212571.
- McKay, Iain (2018). "Organisation". In Franks, Benjamin; Jun, Nathan; Williams, Leonard (eds.). Anarchism: A Conceptual Approach. Routledge. pp. 115–128. ISBN 978-1-138-92565-6. LCCN 2017044519.
- McLaughlin, Paul (2007). Anarchism and Authority: A Philosophical Introduction to Classical Anarchism. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing. ISBN 978-0-7546-6196-2. LCCN 2007007973.
- Morris, Christopher W. (2020). "On the Distinction Between State and Anarchy". In Chartier, Gary; Van Schoelandt, Chad (eds.). The Routledge Handbook of Anarchy and Anarchist Thought. New York: Routledge. pp. 39–52. doi:10.4324/9781315185255-3. ISBN 9781315185255. S2CID 228898569.
- Prichard, Alex (2019). "Freedom". In Adams, Matthew S.; Levy, Carl (eds.). The Palgrave Handbook of Anarchism. London: Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 71–89. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-75620-2_4. hdl:10871/32538. ISBN 978-3319756196. S2CID 158605651.
- Sensen, Oliver (2020). "Kant on Anarchy". In Chartier, Gary; Van Schoelandt, Chad (eds.). The Routledge Handbook of Anarchy and Anarchist Thought. New York: Routledge. pp. 99–111. doi:10.4324/9781315185255-7. ISBN 9781315185255. S2CID 228898569.
Further reading
- Crowe, Jonathan (2020). "Anarchy and Law". In Chartier, Gary; Van Schoelandt, Chad (eds.). The Routledge Handbook of Anarchy and Anarchist Thought. New York: Routledge. pp. 281–294. doi:10.4324/9781315185255-20. ISBN 9781315185255. S2CID 228898569.
- Gabay, Clive (2010). "What Did the Anarchists Ever Do for Us? Anarchy, Decentralization, and Autonomy at the Seattle Anti-WTO Protests". In Jun, Nathan J.; Wahl, Shane (eds.). New Perspectives on Anarchism. Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 121–132. ISBN 978-0-7391-3240-1. LCCN 2009015304.
- Gordon, Uri (2010). "Power and Anarchy: In/equality + In/visibility in Autonomous Politics". In Jun, Nathan J.; Wahl, Shane (eds.). New Perspectives on Anarchism. Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 39–66. ISBN 978-0-7391-3240-1. LCCN 2009015304.
- Hirshleifer, Jack (1995). "Anarchy and its Breakdown" (PDF). Journal of Political Economy. 103 (1): 26–52. doi:10.1086/261974. ISSN 1537-534X. S2CID 154997658.
- Huemer, Michael (2020). "The Right Anarchy: Capitalist or Socialist?". In Chartier, Gary; Van Schoelandt, Chad (eds.). The Routledge Handbook of Anarchy and Anarchist Thought. New York: Routledge. pp. 342–359. doi:10.4324/9781315185255-24. ISBN 9781315185255. S2CID 228898569.
- Leeson, Peter T. (2007). "Better off stateless: Somalia before and after government collapse" (PDF). Journal of Comparative Economics. 35 (4): 689–710. doi:10.1016/j.jce.2007.10.001. ISSN 0147-5967.
- Levy, Carl (2019). "Anarchism and Cosmopolitanism" (PDF). In Adams, Matthew S.; Levy, Carl (eds.). The Palgrave Handbook of Anarchism. London: Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 125–148. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-75620-2_7. ISBN 978-3319756196. S2CID 158605651.
- McLaughlin, Paul (2020). "Anarchism, Anarchists and Anarchy". In Chartier, Gary; Van Schoelandt, Chad (eds.). The Routledge Handbook of Anarchy and Anarchist Thought. New York: Routledge. pp. 15–27. doi:10.4324/9781315185255-1. ISBN 9781315185255. S2CID 228898569.
- Powell, Benjamin; Stringham, Edward P. (2009). "Public choice and the economic analysis of anarchy: a survey" (PDF). Public Choice. 140 (3–4): 503–538. doi:10.1007/s11127-009-9407-1. ISSN 1573-7101. S2CID 189842170.
- Newman, Saul (2019). "Postanarchism". In Adams, Matthew S.; Levy, Carl (eds.). The Palgrave Handbook of Anarchism. London: Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 293–304. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-75620-2_17. ISBN 978-3319756196. S2CID 158605651.
- Shannon, Deric (2018). "Economy". In Franks, Benjamin; Jun, Nathan; Williams, Leonard (eds.). Anarchism: A Conceptual Approach. Routledge. pp. 142–154. ISBN 978-1-138-92565-6. LCCN 2017044519.
- Shantz, Jeff; Williams, Dana M. (2013). Anarchy and Society: Reflections on Anarchist Sociology. Brill. doi:10.1163/9789004252998. ISBN 978-90-04-21496-5. LCCN 2013033844.
- Tamblyn, Nathan (30 April 2019). "The Common Ground of Law and Anarchism". Liverpool Law Review. 40 (1): 65–78. doi:10.1007/s10991-019-09223-1. hdl:10871/36939. S2CID 155131683.
- Taylor, Michael (1982). Community, Anarchy and Liberty. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-24621-0. LCCN 82-1173.
- Verter, Mitchell (2010). "The Anarchism of the Other Person". In Jun, Nathan J.; Wahl, Shane (eds.). New Perspectives on Anarchism. Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 67–84. ISBN 978-0-7391-3240-1. LCCN 2009015304.