The Anarchists’ Claims About State Power And Human Nature ✓ Solved

The Anarchists' Claims About State Power and Human Nature

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. The readings for this assignment are: Eric Hobsbawm, How to Change the World, Chapter 3; Noam Chomsky, A Brief History of Anarchism, 2014; Mikhail Bakunin, “The State and Marxism,” 1872. The modern Left in countries of developed capitalism has since the middle 19th century been deeply divided between Anarchists and Marxists with Anarchists claiming that the Marxists wish to seize state power and use that power to impose their vision of socialism that would inevitably become another form of repression and dictatorship precisely because it would depend on state power.

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 debate surrounding the role of the state in society has long been a contentious issue, particularly in the context of the ideological rift between Anarchism and Marxism. Central to this debate is the Anarchists’ contention that state power invariably leads to oppression and that true freedom can only be achieved through voluntary cooperation devoid of coercion. This essay seeks to analyze this perspective through the works of Eric Hobsbawm, Noam Chomsky, and Mikhail Bakunin, assessing the strengths and weaknesses of the Anarchist stance on state power, and considering the viability of their claims in relation to human nature.

Eric Hobsbawm, in his book How to Change the World, articulates Marxist views of the state, emphasizing that the state is a tool of class oppression (Hobsbawm, 2011). Hobsbawm argues that the Marxists believe in using state power to enact social change, positing that the proletariat can utilize the state to dismantle bourgeois structures of power. This perspective is often critiqued by Anarchists who argue that any exercise of state power is destined to replicate the same forms of oppression it aims to dismantle. Bakunin, a preeminent figure in Anarchist thought, posits that Marxists’ reliance on state authority is fundamentally flawed, concluding that “the state is a principle of force” that cannot lead to genuine liberation (Bakunin, 1872). In this regard, Bakunin presents a compelling critique of the Marxist reliance on state intervention in achieving social justice.

Noam Chomsky expands on this critique in A Brief History of Anarchism, where he emphasizes the dangers inherent in centralized power structures, arguing that they inevitably lead to authoritarianism (Chomsky, 2014). This aligns with the Anarchists’ view that people, when left to their own devices, can organize themselves cooperatively. The Anarchists make a bold assertion that in a society free from state coercion, humans would inherently gravitate toward rational and cooperative organization over domination. Chomsky, like Bakunin, reinforces the idea that genuine cooperation is achievable, given that societal structures minimize coercive practices. This invites a consideration of the underlying assumptions regarding human nature that both perspectives present.

The strengths of the Anarchist argument lie in its emphasis on human agency and the potential for cooperative organization. By positing that people possess an inherent capacity for self-organization and mutual aid, Anarchism rejects the deterministic view that humans require external control. This perspective empowers individuals and communities to develop social systems that prioritize autonomy and collective decision-making. Moreover, historical examples of cooperative organizations, such as worker cooperatives and communal societies, lend credence to the Anarchist claim that rational cooperation is possible (Graeber, 2004). These institutions demonstrate the potential for equitable systems that function without centralized authority.

However, the Anarchist perspective also faces significant challenges. Critics argue that history has shown a tendency for human societies to gravitate towards hierarchical structures, often due to the complexities of large-scale social organization. The rise of authoritarian regimes and the persistence of coercive institutions can be seen as reflecting a facet of human social dynamics that the Anarchists overlook. Social psychologists suggest that certain aspects of human nature, such as the desire for control or the need for security, may indeed predispose societies towards hierarchical organization (Fromm, 1941). While Anarchism presents an idealistic vision of human coexistence, practical realities may complicate the efficacy of such frameworks when considering societal governance on a broader scale.

The question of whether “human nature” necessitates supervision and control is crucial in evaluating the viability of Anarchism. The traditional view often posits that a certain level of authority is needed to maintain order and prevent conflict, a perspective that suggests that without oversight, societal breakdown is inevitable. However, this notion is contested by Anarchists who argue that cooperative behavior is more reflective of human nature than competitive behavior (Kropotkin, 1902). Their belief is predicated on the idea that humans have evolved through social cooperation and that this innate trait can manifest in a society devoid of coercive structures.

In assessing the practical realities of Anarchism, it is essential to acknowledge the varying contexts in which these ideals have been attempted. While historical instances of Anarchist practices, such as those seen during the Spanish Civil War, illustrate the potential for cooperative organization (Benson, 2004), they also faced significant external pressures that challenged their sustainability. The interactions between Anarchist-led movements and existing power structures often led to violent suppression, indicating that the road to an anarchistic society may be fraught with obstacles. Nevertheless, these practical experiments highlight the ongoing relevance of Anarchist theory in contemporary society.

Ultimately, the viability of Anarchism as a sustainable social model lies in a nuanced understanding of both human nature and the contextual factors influencing societal organization. While Anarchists present a compelling case against the reliance on state power, there remains a need for critical engagement with the complexities of human behavior and societal dynamics. The challenge is to reconcile the Anarchist vision of cooperation with the realities of human interactions, exploring avenues that promote autonomy while addressing the factors that lead to domination and coercion.

References

• Bakunin, M. (1872). The State and Marxism.
• Benson, L. (2004). The Anarchist Movement in the Spanish Civil War.
• Chomsky, N. (2014). A Brief History of Anarchism. New York: AK Press.
• Fromm, E. (1941). The Fear of Freedom.
• Graeber, D. (2004). The New Anarchists.
• Hobsbawm, E. J. (2011). How to Change the World: Tales of Marx and Marxism.
• Kropotkin, P. (1902). Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution.
• Netz, R. (2015). Anarchist Politics: An Introduction.
• Rocker, R. (1938). Anarcho-Syndicalism: Theory and Practice.
• Ward, C. (1990). Anarchism: A Very Short Introduction.