Examine Eric Hobsbawm's Discussion Of Marxist Views ✓ Solved

Examine Eric Hobsbawm's discussion of Marxist views of th

This assignment should be written as a coherent essay of approximately three to four typed double-spaced pages with one-inch margins and carefully reviewed before submission of spelling, grammar, content and style. Examine Eric Hobsbawm's discussion of Marxist views of the state in chapter 3 of How to Change the World, Noam Chomsky's A Brief History of Anarchism, and Mikhail Bakunin's “The State and Marxism.” Assess what you see as the strengths and weaknesses of the Anarchists' claims about the dangers presented by state power in general and about the Marxists' desire to seize that power in particular. The Anarchists' hostility to the state is based on their theory that in a genuinely free society without forms of coercion most people would choose a rational and cooperative organization of their own work, their communities and of public affairs without the need of force and other forms of domination to compel them. To what degree do you see this claim as viable or as contrary to practical realities? In other words, does “human nature” require that most people be supervised, controlled, policed, and punished for bad behaviors or is it at least theoretically possible for people to organize their lives through rational, voluntary, and cooperative ways? Be specific about your claims and the basis of your reasoning about how people.

Paper For Above Instructions

The ideological divide between Anarchism and Marxism has been a prominent aspect of the political landscape since the mid-19th century. Anarchists have long criticized Marxists for their desire to seize state power in their pursuit of socialism, suggesting that such an endeavor would lead to a new form of oppression and dictatorship. Eric Hobsbawm, in chapter 3 of "How to Change the World," along with Noam Chomsky's "A Brief History of Anarchism" and Mikhail Bakunin's “The State and Marxism,” provide substantial insights into this discourse. This essay examines the strengths and weaknesses of Anarchists' claims regarding state power and Marxist intentions while also exploring the viability of their vision for a cooperative and non-coercive society.

To grasp the Anarchist perspective, it's essential to understand their fundamental belief that state power is inherently coercive and oppressive. Anarchists argue that the formation of a state leads inevitably to domination, hierarchies, and the imposition of authority that infringes upon individual freedoms. This assertion is critical in Bakunin's examination, where he posits that Marxists believe in using state authority to implement their vision of socialism. According to Bakunin, this reliance on state power contradicts the very essence of socialism, which should prioritize freedom and cooperation rather than coercion and control (Bakunin, 1872).

Hobsbawm's exploration of Marxist views of the state provides context to the Anarchist critique. He illustrates how Marxists perceive the state as a necessary mechanism for transition toward a classless society. Marxists argue that the state can be utilized as a tool to dismantle existing capitalist structures and facilitate the establishment of a societal framework founded on democratic socialist principles. However, this approach raises concerns among Anarchists about the potential for the state to corrupt revolutionary intentions, leading to a dictatorship that ultimately betrays the ideals of socialism (Hobsbawm, 2002).

One of the primary strengths of the Anarchist argument is their emphasis on the dangers of concentrated power. History offers numerous examples where revolutionary movements have led to the establishment of oppressive regimes in the name of socialism. The Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, which Marxists viewed as a pathway to a communist society, eventually resulted in a totalitarian state that suppressed dissent and individual freedoms. Anarchists highlight this phenomenon as evidence that entrusting significant power to any state apparatus is perilous and likely to result in repression (Chomsky, 2014).

However, the Anarchist position is not without its weaknesses. It may oversimplify complex sociopolitical realities. While the concept of a stateless society is appealing in theory, the absence of a governing authority raises questions regarding the maintenance of order and the resolution of conflicts. Critics argue that human societies have historically developed some form of governance, indicating a tendency towards organization and structure (Wolin, 1960). The critical question then becomes whether humans possess an inherent need for supervision and control, or if they can indeed organize their lives through rational cooperation.

Marxism's view of human nature differs from Anarchism's. Marxists contend that individuals are shaped by the material conditions of their existence, and thus, a transformation of these conditions is imperative for achieving a just society. They view the state as a necessary instrument in this transformation. Conversely, Anarchists believe in the capacity of individuals to self-organize and cooperate without coercive forces. This conceptual divide raises important questions regarding the feasibility of a fully cooperative society built on voluntary association (Bakunin, 1872).

The theoretical possibility of a society functioning without state oversight rests on the assumptions about human nature. If one adopts a pessimistic view of humanity, arguing that self-interest and competition dominate human behavior, then the need for supervision and regulation becomes apparent. Alternatively, a more optimistic perspective suggests that individuals are capable of altruism, cooperation, and collective decision-making. This optimistic view is foundational to the Anarchist vision and its assertion that societal organization can emerge from rational and voluntary agreements among individuals (Kropotkin, 1902).

Moreover, the practical realities of cultivating a cooperative society are significant. While small communities may operate on principles of mutual aid and cooperation, scaling these practices to larger societies presents challenges. Examples like the Zapatista communities in Mexico illustrate the potential for creating alternative models of governance rooted in autonomy and horizontal organization. Yet, such examples often lack the resources and security necessary to challenge larger, more powerful state structures (Memmi, 1969).

In conclusion, the Anarchist critique of state power and Marxist ambitions raises essential discussions about governance, authority, and human nature. While Anarchists articulate valid concerns regarding the potential for state power to become oppressive, their proposed alternative requires careful consideration of human behavior and the complexities of societal organization. To what extent can people truly structure their lives without coercion? This remains an open question, invoking debates on the nature of power, freedom, and cooperation in human societies. Both Marxist and Anarchist perspectives offer valuable insights into the intricate dynamics of governance and the quest for a just society.

References

• Bakunin, M. (1872). "The State and Marxism."
• Chomsky, N. (2014). "A Brief History of Anarchism."
• Hobsbawm, E. J. (2002). "How to Change the World."
• Kropotkin, P. (1902). "Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution."
• Memmi, A. (1969). "The Colonizer and the Colonized."
• Wolin, S. (1960). "Politics and Vision: Continuity and Innovation in Western Political Thought."
• Marshall, P. (1992). "Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism."
• Bookchin, M. (1990). "Post-Scarcity Anarchism."
• Rocker, R. (1938). "Anarcho-Syndicalism: Theory and Practice."
• Graeber, D. (2011). "Debt: The First 5,000 Years."