Why does anarchy occur

Anarchy in the context of the international system implies there are no higher authorities, and because nation states are considered by many as primary actors in international relations, an anarchical world would be one where there is no higher authority than that of the state Bull, The state exists as a full sovereign of its people and territory, and which enjoys the ultimate power of being completely self-determined.

For the neorealist two of these elements never change. To some extent, states retain the same rights, the principal one being the right to do as they wish because no institution has the capacity or power to control their actions. Therefore, no order is established in this system because all actors can do whatever they want, because nothing prevents them.

Nonetheless, even though states have the same rights it does not mean they have the same capabilities. Distinct states have different powers, and the significance of these powers shift from one to another. States exist in a hostile global environment because nothing will hinder the possible aggression of a powerful state, and the future of a state is never certain as its power can wane.

Hence, when states try to survive in such a world, their survival becomes their principal motivation. In order to survive, a state will try to reduce any external threats that could endanger its existence.

As seen before, the distribution of power within the system is not equal, as some states enjoy more influence than others. Therefore, wars happen when states fear for their safety. Thus, if the balance of power is well managed, the status quo of the system would remain static.

As long as states do not feel threatened by others, stability follows because the balance of power will not change. Nevertheless, keeping the balance of power is not an easy task for nation states. States are naturally very competitive, and an anarchical international system just intensifies interstate competition as they are allowed to act freely. State behaviour is related to competition, and in order to survive states need to show they are acting in a way where they can benefit the most from competing with other states.

For instance, states constantly compete over various issues to satisfy national needs. In correlation to that, the security dilemma intensifies as well Sheehan, 8. Let us say two states are competing militarily, such as the arms race between the U. One state would face a security dilemma which was dependant on whether the other state is increasing its military capabilities.

The main problem with the security dilemma is the misinterpretation of neighbouring states activities. Hence, if states have a slight misunderstanding regarding intentions, it could eventually evolve into a full scale war.

Therefore, wars happen because the international system is anarchic. Rational choice or not, war is the only solution to reduce security threats because the decision to make war imposes itself as the only option. This is the tragic element of this system, because even if states are considered as rational actors, they do not have the possibility to choose another alternative.

It sounds very paradoxical if one thinks about the state in the system, but we have only to think about the structure of the system, which puts the state in a particular situation that forces it to go to war.

Nonetheless, states do cause wars by themselves. We cannot deny the anarchic system, but causes of war can also be found on a domestic level, rather than on a systemic one. These causes are very much correlated with structural ones, and they can be emphasized or intensified by anarchy, yet states are ultimately the ones generating wars. States are rational actors and everything they do is related to how much they want increased security, power, and wealth.

The policies they adopt are essentially based on short-term needs and they will do anything to pursue their own interests Levy in Carlsnaes, Risse and Simmons, Their main interest is essentially power, and as classical realists such as Morgenthau believe, states will engage in an endless struggle for power. Hence, states will feel a need to accumulate more resources so that they can increase their wealth, which they can use to strengthen their military capacities ibid: 16, As a consequence of clashing interests they will become warier of their neighbours and begin to distrust all states.

Therefore, because states are driven by power and self-interest, they will not act morally, and will pragmatically choose war over diplomatic solutions because the advantages of doing so are much greater if they win.

Machiavelli is one of the main advocates of pragmatism. Do they know how many rules there are and what they all mean? Does anyone know? And if we don't all know all the rules and the meaning of all the rules, does that mean we are guilty if we don't live by all the rules? Are we all guilty and who are we to judge even ourselves? How many bricks are there? Isn't the thought of a world without walls and manmade divisions, barbed wire fences, rules and regulations appealing to everyone?

An indivisible thought, a just thought of liberty, as just is the equity of freedom, a thought that might just lead us there. Isn't that where we are meant to be, free? There is one sign the Soviets can make that would be unmistakable, that would advance dramatically the cause of freedom and peace.

General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization, come here to this gate. Gorbachev, open this gate. Gorbachev, tear down this wall! Beliefs become reality. For it cannot withstand faith; it cannot withstand truth. The wall cannot withstand freedom. Wednesday, February 4, -- PM.

It really seems time you noticed this! Without "? Liberty is license or privilege over possessions. Freedom is a response of need. We need each other free if we wish to understand and be understood. There is nothing unilateral freedom is.

As such it is liberty equated with freedom, not government per se, that is its enemy. As for Reagan, he was an atrocity as a president. He invented and promoted the Jim Crow economics we live under today.

He negotiated with Iran to keep our people hostage until after the election, in return for a promise of illegal weapons sales. And he stalled the fall of the Soviet Union even as he pretended to seek its ruin. He could easily have come to terms with Gorbachev, but used the Star Wars program as a pretext to scuttle talks.

The speech he gave in Berlin was given at a time when Gorbachev was already in separate negotiations with Western Europe to open the Eastern Bloc countries.

The "tear down this wall" remark was just another of Reagan's monumental hoaxes, he knew it was imminent anyway. Turning and turning in the widening gyre The falcon cannot hear the falconer; Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold; Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world, The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere The ceremony of innocence is drowned; The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity.

Free Birds I saw some birds fly by today and wondered why they are free to fly and live as they please and we, mankind, needs to be governed, ruled and controlled? If birds can be free then why can't we? And if our manmade rules are there as we are led to believe for our own protection, why is it that we continue to self-destruct? If the innumerable rules we already have can't keep us from destroying ourselves and this planet, are more rules the solution?

How many more do we need to survive? Or rather, is it the rules themselves that are the cause of our own demise? If you believe in bible stories, hmmm, wasn't it a single rule, not to eat a certain fruit that lost paradise?

Had there been no rules, might paradise still be here today? Today we have more rules than can be counted and the effect seems to be very much the same, Earth lost. If there were no rules would we live in harmony? Are rules the problem? Is freedom the ultimate solution we are searching for? It seems to be working for everything else but us. Wouldn't it be nice to try freedom and see. Imagine to be as free as a bird and live and fly as you please.

Thursday, February 5, -- PM. Some rules help us keep from bumping into each other. But even as we stop at the stop-sign we are free to critique whether it is needed at that intersection.

If that critique had no plausible hope of being heeded we would be less free. But the power of legislation, not the absence of law, is what freedom is. Birds, by the way, all live under a highly developed and strictly enforced ranking system. It's called pecking order. As for me, as attractive as flying without mechanical support may be, I would not trade arms and hands and opposable thumbs for wings and a barrel chest. But one odd thing keeps coming out in your posts, you clearly have some implicit sense of what I've been getting at, even if you repudiate this explicitly.

The first thing you wrote months ago was that the universe is immeasurable which it isn't. Yesterday you referred to a wall of countless bricks how many bricks make a wall, anyway. From a man who takes all one this seems strange. But more to the point, it expresses a sense that number gets lost in a more encompassing meaning.

Your mistake in this, I think, is that you regard this loss as a mode of induction rather than, as I would argue, reduction.

How extensive must the count be before we recognize that there is a more encompassing meaning? How extensive must the count be before the notion of number gets lost to the meaning of it? The answer is not the most extensive term, but the least. The reduction that at first finds solidity evaporating before probabilistic flux between matter and energy, and ultimately a meaning even such probabilities cannot calculate.

The result is meaning. The least term of time is that differing that can only be described as the lost enumerator. The least term of time is all the differing it is. It is not until we have pressed through all the question that we can achieve satisfactory answers. It is the rigor of that count, and the loss of any sense in the notion of its enumeration, that we learn the meaning of words and come to know each other the person each is in that character of loss.

But like any loss, it is only the response recognized it not its own and yet of worth is that meaning articulated in the world, however real that loss is. But we need each other free for this completion to the drama of loss and recognition that meaning, and person, is.

There is no freedom alone or unilateral. It is not letting be or being at liberty, it is a need fulfilled in the freedom enabled through that need. Freedom is the product of not being alone in loss. And if I may ask again, how many rules are there in your measurable Universe? Friday, February 6, -- PM. Monday, February 9, -- PM. Hawking wrote: "philosophy is dead" and that was the end of that.

Philosophy is truth and truth will set us FREE! Tuesday, February 10, -- PM. Leafology Socates whilst walking through the park came across his friend Enstein standing in the shade under a tree.

After some greetings Socates asked,? Enstein replied,? I am here doing some very important scientific work scientifically measuring the number of leaves that have fallen from this tree.? For what reason? Socates asked, Einstein answered,?

Is Nature measurable? Socates asked? Then asked further,? Enstein replied? Are you absolutely certain of you measurement? Enstein responded,? As he counted a light breeze came up and flipped a leaf over exposing yet another leaf.

Well well well? Enstein smiled and counted again and said,? Would you wager everything you know Enstein that scientifically your measurement is absolutely correct?? Enstein showing some discomfort now said,? I am certain there are 6. And to prove it to you I will right here and now count them again.? As he began to count a bit of a wind came by and blew all of the leaves away, much to Enstein?

Now it was Socates time to smile and ask,? Eistein turned to Socates and said, " hmmm, smart question, is it measure that is in need of measure?? Socates replied,?

Michael, You have both Einstein and Socrates quite wrong. Socrates was a Pythagorean. Einstein had a very highly developed sense of humor. Have you ever heard of Michaelson-Morley?

Or the Lorentz transformation? By the way, the universe is something like fifteen billion years old, as I recall, and that sets an outer limit of that many light years in radius. A good deal less, I expect, since it is has almost certainly not expanded that fast for that long. But physics and I parted company, for the most part, many years ago, it was not where my fascination lay. Not sufficiently, at least, to justify the work of getting as good at it as I felt I could have been.

If you take offence athiestic assertions, you'll love section of Nietzsche's The Gay Science. Wednesday, February 11, -- PM. Tuesday, February 24, -- PM. Contrary to what James Martell posits, "anarchy" seems foolish both in theory and in practice. Throughout the discussion, he and Ken and John were selective in the situations they considered, elided over how collective decisions are made in an anarchic society, and did not acknowledge the value of coordination by leaders and the import of the protection of intellectual property.

I agree that anarchy is not chaos. I just had the pleasure of spending a week in Bali, and a relatively undeveloped part of Bali. No traffic signals, limited road space. The "rules" of the road needed no enforcement mechanism -- it was understood that any car or truck could stop in a lane to deliver goods and the cars and scooters behind would pile up until the way became clear.

Scooters weaved, safely, in and around. In the week, not only did I not see an accident, or evidence of an accident, but I did not see any dented cars. Of course, speeds were approximately 20 mph so it took an hour to make a trip that in a modern society with ample roads would take half that or less.

How well then does anarchy scale? Worse, neither James nor Ken nor John acknowledge, at least not explicitly, the value of leadership and coordination -- which is the essence of an entrepreneur.

There are many goods and services that require considerable knowledge and coordination ability, which requires some authority and hierarchy. In the same vein, it is naive to believe that most innovation occurs by individuals who have an intrinsic desire to innovate. Sure, artists and inventors love to create and tinker, but without education -- which necessarily builds upon knowledge and skills developed across generations and would be unlikely to be generated let alone protected and disseminated, without an authority to protect.

There is little doubt that the most innovative societies -- in engineering, medicine, the arts and music, Which itself is to say that anarchic societies will produce fewer public goods, and basic economic theory and experience show that the private market does not produce enough public goods. Such a dearth of public goods would prevent each individual from realizing his potential. As to the police, James referred to disputes that exist within the society, stating that anarchic societies policing themselves.

This analysis is incomplete; omitted are assignments of duties to protect the society from outside attacks. How does an anarchic society determine who risks their "property" or, even if there is no private property, their lives, to defend when an external threat besets the society? Whether that threat be another group of individuals, or something from Nature, such as a snowstorm or hurricane or drought. Ken and John took this bait and claimed, without evidence, that the police often exacerbate situations.

Almost certainly, without getting into a semantic discussion, the police in democratic socities that protect civil liberties, are almost always responding to disputes that already exist -- intra-family squabbles, robberies, rapes, What form of justice is meted out to parents who do not vaccinate their children and thus your child, who is too young to be vaccinated, becomes infected?

Which leads me to my last point: James never stated the criteria or procedure to arrive at a collective decision. Meting out punishment, resources and time from each individual to be contributed to the production of public goods, Majority rule is only one possible solution method, which still begs the question of who gets to vote; moreover, it is a well-known in economics and political science that majority-rules criterion is not transitive.

Which means that when there are three options, the option that the majority selects, a majority may prefer an option that was not selected! By way of example, even a small group of friends may have difficulty deciding where to go for dinner or what movie to see. Oftentimes, majority rules or some form of reciprocity -- majority rules however may run into the problem stated above, and reciprocity requires that there be a future interaction.

Now, consider a larger group of individuals who are anonymous in that they may not encounter each other in the future. Such reciprocal behaviors are unlikely to arise, and what are the incentives of individuals to form bonds with other individuals when those bonds are so easily dissolved, if the formation of such bonds does not entail obligations?

In short, anarchic societies are greatly limited in size, which means that they are incapable of making significant advancements and of protecting the society from many external threats, which together inhibit if not prevent individuals from realizing their potential, which Rawls stated as one of the primary goals of justice.

Even the most basic unit of a society, the family, is almost always hierarchical. Saturday, November 3, -- AM. In an ideal society where all people have a highly ethical and educational background, anarchy would be the obvious way to go. However, societies consist of all kinds of people, most or too many of which do not have these basic personalty requirements enabling them to live in a society of anarchy. Soonner or later such people will want to depart from agreed principles of co-existence without laws and this is what will cause major disturbances.

We have enough people breaking laws as societis are; can we imagine what it would be like if we remove the laws that discourage many people from causing harm to others? Skip to main content. Search form Search. Laura Maguire. Anarchy: Utopian Dream or Dystopian Nightmare? Jan 25, Democracy in Crisis Mar 22, Democratic systems of government are supposed to reflect the interests of ordinary citizens, and not some shadowy political elite.

The Radical Democracy Movement Jul 03, Liberal democracy has its problems, including the fact that in trying to build consensus, it often ends up oppressing minorities or those who dissent.

Jan 15, Americans value democracy, and expect others to value it. The Allure of Authoritarianism Oct 06, Authority and Resistance Apr 21, Authority can refer to people or institutions that have the political power to make decisions, give orders, and enforce rules. Tags anarchism anarchy Democracy political theory. Blog Archive November Socially Intelligent Robots. Persons, Community, and the Akan. Why Is Math So Useful?

On Awesomeness. Is Facebook Morally Responsible? Microaggressions and Intention. The Slow Miracles of Thought. Literary Minds. Summer Dylan Reading. Unnecessary Necessities. The Philosophy of the Vienna Circle. Cracking Down on Disinformation. What Montaigne Knew. Is Meritocracy Possible? A Solution. What Makes A Man? Replacing Freud. What Tech Says. The Mathematics of Democracy.

When Do False Beliefs Exculpate? Gaining Knowledge without Learning. December The Year in Poetry. Finding Minds in a Material World. Should the Arts Be for All? Whose Fault Is It Anyway? Why We Argue About Fiction. Why Games Matter. Reasons to Hate. Abortion and Humanity.

Skepticism and Trust in Science. Philosophy for the Apocalypse. Who Gets to be a Citizen? Does Meritocracy Have Merit? Discriminating Streets. Abortion and Dehumanization. On Jerks and Ethicists. A Cat's Life. The Value of Metaphor in a Pandemic. Benjamin and Modern Enchantment. The Ethics of Pet Keeping. Celebrating Our th Episode.

Covid and the Veil of Ignorance. Your Racist Mental Habits. Demonizing Black Men. Listener Covidundrums. Puzzle 3: Kant on Lying to Robots.

Can Philosophy Help in a Crisis? Narrative Burnout. A Pandemic of Dreams. More Money Matters. FrancisOnFilm: Crip Camp. Money Matters. Proust and Social Distance. Puzzle 2: What is an Identity? Philosophy and the Superhero. Trying to Let Go of the Past.

Thinking and Mental Action. Puzzle 1: Are Beliefs Voluntary? Viral Xenophobia. Sorry, Critics: Parasite is a Good Movie. Anti-Sacred Spaces. Is the Self Real? FrancisOnFilm: Dionysus for Docs. Rough Humor.

Comedy on the Edges. What the Future Holds. How Much Thought Is Inactive? A Tribute to Ken Taylor. Nonhuman Persons, Nonhuman Rights. Francis-on-Film: Parasite. Sanctuary Cities. Part II. Hobbes and the Absolute State. Real Horror. Machine Consciousness. FrancisOnFilm: Downton Abbey. Should We Trust Polls? The Appeal of Authoritarianism.

Music as a Way of Knowing. Explanation at Its Best. What's In a Picture? Changing Minds on Climate Change. Against Introspection. Self Knowledge on Trial. The Doomsday Doctrine. A Simple Test for Fake News. Postmodernism: The Decline of Truth. How to Think Two Thoughts at Once. JS Mill and the Good Life. Letting Go of Human Nature. Tolerance and Radical Disagreement. A Licentious Lannister?

Working for Faith. What Is Reading? Anti-Semitism is Racism. FrancisOnFilm: Shazam! Philanthropy vs. Authority and Resistance. Wanting to Want for Its Own Sake. Hacking Our Sense Perceptions. Sexy Beasts. Ken's Big Announcement. FrancisOnFilm: Green Book. Your Question: Integrate or Assimilate? Controversy About Climate Denial.

Immigration and Multiculturalism. Mind the Gaps! FrancisOnFilm: Minding the Gap. Five Types of Climate Change Deniers. Finding Yourself in a Virtual Fiction.

FrancisOnFilm: Aquaman. The Puzzle of the Unconscious. Is Envy Always a Vice? FrancisOnFilm: Brexit. Getting Clear on the Replication Crisis. How Not to Fall Asleep. Freud's Philosophical Challenges. December The Examined Year: — Uncut. On Morally Condemning the Past. Philosophical Freud. Foucault on Power. The Creative Life. Does Reputation Matter? Anti-Semitism The Wrong Abortion Question. How MeToo Helps Men. Can Reason Save Us? The Philosophy of Westworld. Do They Believe in God?

The Psychology of Cruelty. Lessons from Lobsters. Athletics and the Philosophical Life. Should Algorithms Decide? Failing Successfully. FrancisOnFilm: Mission Impossible. Does Science Over-reach? The Truly Beautiful Game. Radical Ideas about Markets. Enlightenment Peddlers. The Ethics of Homeschooling. One Person, One Vote? Puppet Philosophers. Why America is not a Nation. Distortion in Philosophy.

Philosophers and the Meaning of Life. The Ethics of Care. Should Robots Be Caregivers? How a Glitch Caused a Crisis. An Antidote to Bullshit. Repugnant Markets. Is Kanye a Philosopher? The Twilight Zone and the Human Condition. What is it Like to Lose Your Identity? Against Marriage. The Morality of Big Business. On Deepities and Bullshit. Consciousness Deniers? Faith and Humility. Happy th, Karl Marx! May the Fourth Be With You. Is There Life on Mars? Toppling the Dehumanization Thesis.

Are We Really All Equals? Every institution today rests on violence; our very atmosphere is saturated with it. Goldman [ 59]. Goldman views anarchist violence as merely reactive. In response to state violence, the anarchists often argued that they were merely using violence in self-defense. Another defender of violence is Malatesta who wrote that the revolution against the violence of the ruling class must be violent. He explained:.

I think that a regime which is born of violence and which continues to exist by violence cannot be overthrown except by a corresponding and proportionate violence. Malatesta [ 48]. Like Goldman, Malatesta warned against violence becoming an end in itself and giving way to brutality and ferocity for its own sake. He also described anarchists as preachers of love and advocates of peace. He said,. Malatesta [ 46]. Anarchist violence appears as the violence of an individual against the state.

It is easy to see why such violence would be characterized as terroristic and criminal. For an individual to declare war against the state and take action to disrupt the state is criminal. And thus anarchists have also been interested in a critique of crime and criminality—arguing that it is the law and the legal system that creates and produces crime and criminality.

Similar ideas are found in Foucault and in more recent criticisms of mass incarceration. Contemporary anarchists will argue that mass incarceration is an example of state power run amok.

The question of violence leads us to a further issue: the question of obedience, disobedience, resistance, and political obligation. Much could be said here about the nature of political obligation and obedience: including whether obedience is merely pragmatic and strategic or based upon notions about loyalty and claims about identification with the nation and its laws.

But it is clear that anarchists have no principled reason for political obedience. If the anarchist views the state as illegitimate, then obedience and participation are merely a matter of choice, preference, and pragmatism—and not a matter of loyalty or duty. Christian anarchists will look, for example, to the case of Jesus and his idea of rendering unto Caesar what is due to Caesar Matthew — Jesus does not recognize the ultimate moral and religious authority of Caesar or Pilate.

But he goes along with the political regime. Thus some anarchists may simply be compliant and submissive. But politically motivated anarchists encourage resistance to state power, including strategic and principled disobedience. Such disobedience could involve symbolic actions—graffiti and the like—or acts of civil resistance, protests, tax resistance and so on—up to, and possibly including, sabotage, property crime, and outright violence. One important example is found in Thoreau, who famously explained his act of disobedience by tax resistance as follows:.

In fact, I quietly declare war with the State, after my fashion, though I will still make what use and get what advantage of her I can, as is usual in such cases. Thoreau [ ]. He recognizes that a declaration of war against the state is a criminal act. He willingly goes to jail. But he also admits that he will cooperate with the state in other cases—since there is something advantageous about cooperation. This indicates the complexity of the question of cooperation, protest, and disobedience.

Kropotkin discussed him as an anarchist Kropotkin []. And Tolstoy admired his act of civil disobedience—as did Gandhi. Anarchists continue to discuss strategies and tactics of disobedience. One problem throughout this discussion is the degree to which disobedience is effective. If there were to be successful anarchist campaigns of disobedience they would have to be organized and widespread.

Whether such campaigns would actually work to disassemble the state apparatus remains an open question. Perhaps there are reforms and short-term gains that can be obtained through traditional political means: voting, lobbying legislators, etc. But anarchists have often held to an all-or-nothing kind of approach to political participation. We noted above that the Christian anarchist Jacques Ellul has said that he does not vote because anarchy implies conscientious objection.

But herein lies a strategic conundrum. If progressively minded anarchists opt out of the political system, this means that less enlightened policies will prevail. By not voting or otherwise engaging in ordinary politics, the anarchist ends up with a system that he or she will be even less happy with than if he or she had actively participated in the system. This is, really, a problem of revolution versus reform. The revolutionary wants revolution now, believing that it will occur by way of direct action of various sorts.

Perhaps the revolutionary is also thinking that the psychological, cultural, and spiritual evolution toward revolutionary consciousness can only occur when direct action is taken: in order for anarchism to emerge, the anarchist may think, one ought to behave and think like an anarchist.

Meanwhile those reform-minded folks who work within the system of political power and legality can end up supporting a system that they have doubts about. This philosophical problem of reform vs.

Davis Many anarchists are revolutionaries who want change to be created through direct action. But given our preceding discussion of violence, disobedience, and the potential for success of revolutionary activity, the question arises about opting-out of political life. The Epicureans and Cynics pointed in this direction. The history of anarchism is replete with efforts to construct anarchist communes that are independent and separated from the rest of state centered political life.

We might pick up the history here with the Christian anarchists and pacifists of the Reformation: the Mennonites, for example; or the Quakers who refused to doff their hats for political authorities and who sought a refuge in Pennsylvania. In the Seventeenth Century, Anne Hutchinson was cast out of the Massachusetts Bay Colony and forced to found a new community, when she concluded that the idea of government was flawed.

Hutchinson is considered as one of the first anarchists of North America see Stringham Separatist communities were founded by the New England abolitionists and transcendentalists, by Josiah Warren, and by others. Anarchist communes were formed in Europe during the Nineteenth Century and in Spain during the s. There have been ongoing movements and organizations of indigenous peoples and others who inhabit the margins of mainstream political life. In the s and 70s, anarchist separatism was reiterated in the Hippy communes and attempts to live off the grid and get back to nature.

Alternative communes, squats, and spontaneous gatherings continue to occur. Separatist communities have to consider: the degree to which they give up on anarchist direct action against dominant political forces, the extent to which they have to accommodate themselves to political reality, and the risk that customary hierarchies will be reinstated within the commune. For the revolutionary anarchist, separatism is a strategy of avoidance that impedes political action.

Separatist communes must often obey the rules of the dominant political organization in order to trade and get connected to the rest of the world. Finally, a complaint made about separatist communes is that they can end up being structured by sexist, classist, and other hierarchical organizing principles.

One might argue that until the dominant culture is revolutionized, separatism will only be a pale reflection of the anarchist ideal. And yet, on the other hand, advocates of separatism will argue that the best way for anarchist ideals to take hold is to demonstrate that they work and to provide an inspiration and experimental proving ground for anarchism.

If revolutionary activity is taken off the table, then anarchists are left with various forms of gradualism and reformism. Along these lines David Graeber provides a description of the cultural and spiritual work that would be required in order to prepare the way for anarchist revolution. Revolutionary anarchists will respond to this by arguing that liberation in the imaginary is simply imaginary liberation: without actual change in the status quo, oppression and inequality continue to be a problem.

Objection: This objection holds that anarchism is merely another name for chaos and for a rejection of order. This objection holds that anarchists are violent and destructive and that they are intent on destroying everything, including morality itself. Reply: This objection does not seem to recognize that anarchists come in many varieties.

Many anarchists are also pacifists—and so do not advocate violent revolution. Many other anarchists are firmly committed to moral principles such as autonomy, liberty, solidarity, and equality. But one can be committed to anarchism, while advocating for caring communities. Indeed, many of the main authors in the anarchist tradition believed that the state and the other hierarchical and authoritarian structures of contemporary society prevented human flourishing.

Objection : This objection holds that anarchism is inherently unstable. Hobbes and other early modern social contract theories maintain that the state emerges as a necessary response to natural anarchy which keeps order and protects our interests.

Some anarcho-primitivists will argue that things were much better for human beings in the original state of nature in small communities living close to the land. Other anarchists might argue that the disadvantages of state organizations—the creation of hierarchies, monopolies, inequalities, and the like—simply outweigh the benefits of state structures; and that rational agents would choose to remain in anarchy rather than allow the state to evolve.

Some anarchists may argue that each time a state emerges, it would have to be destroyed. But others will argue that education and human development including technological development would prevent the reemergence of the state.

Objection : This objection holds that there simply is no way to destroy or deconstruct the state. So exercises in anarchist political theory are fruitless. It would be better, from this point of view to focus on critiques of hierarchy, inequality, and threats to liberty from within liberal or libertarian political theory—and to engage in reforms that occur within the status quo and mainstream political organization.

Reply : Ideal theory is always in opposition to non-ideal theory. But utopian speculation can be useful for clarifying values. Thus philosophical anarchism may be a useful exercise that helps us understand our values and commitment, even though political anarchism has no hope of succeeding. Furthermore, there are examples of successful anarchist communities on a small local scale for example, in the separatist communities discussed above.

These concrete examples can be viewed as experiments in anarchist theory and practice. Objection : This objection holds that a political theory that abolishes political structures makes no sense. A related concern arises when anarchism is taken to be a critique of authority in every case and in all senses. This sort of criticism is related to standard criticisms of relativism and nihilism.

Related to this is a more concrete and mundane objection that holds that there can be no anarchist movement or collective action, since anarchism is constitutionally opposed to the idea of a movement or collective since under anarchism there can be no authoritative ruler or set of rules. Reply : This objection only holds if anarchism is taken to be an all-or-nothing theory of the absolutist variety.

Political anarchists do not necessarily agree with the skeptical post-foundationalist critique which holds that there can be no ruling principle or authority whatsoever. Rather, political anarchists hold that there are legitimate authorities but that political power quickly loses its authoritativeness and legitimacy.

From this point of view anarchist communities can work very well, provided that they avoid coercive authority. To support this point anarchists will point to historical examples of successful anarchist communes. They will also point to ordinary human relations—in families and civil society relationship—which operate quite well apart form coercive and hierarchical political authority.

Objection : One objection to philosophical anarchism of the sort discussed throughout this essay is that it remains merely theoretical. Some political anarchists have little patience for abstract discourses that do not engage in direct action. One worry about philosophical anarchism is that in failing to act—and in failing to take responsibility for the actions that ought to follow from thought—philosophical anarchism remains a bourgeois convenience that actually serves the status quo.

Thus when philosophical anarchists remain uncommitted in terms of the concrete questions raised by anarchism—whether they should obey the law, whether they should vote, and so on—they tend to support the interests of defenders of the status quo.

Reply : In response to this objection, one might defend the importance of philosophical reflection. It is important to be clear about principles and ideas before taking action. And with anarchism the stakes are quite high. The puzzles created by philosophical anarchism are profound. They lead us to question traditional notions of sovereignty, political obligation, and so on. They lead us to wonder about cultural and ethical conventions, including also our first principles regarding the theory and organization of social life.

Given the difficulty of resolving many of these questions, the philosophical anarchist may hold that caution is in order. Moreover, the philosophical anarchist might also defend the importance of wonder. The anarchist critique gives us reason to wonder about much that we take for granted. Wonder may not change the world in immediate ways or lead to direct action. But wonder is an important step in the direction of thoughtful, ethical action. Varieties of Anarchism 1. Anarchism in Political Philosophy 2.

Anarchism and Political Activity 3. Utopian Communities and Non-Revolutionary Anarchism 4. Objections and Replies 4. Varieties of Anarchism There are various forms of anarchism. Bakunin provides a paradigm historical example, saying: If there is a State, there must be domination of one class by another and, as a result, slavery; the State without slavery is unthinkable—and this is why we are the enemies of the State.

Feyerabend explains: Science is an essentially anarchic enterprise: theoretical anarchism is more humanitarian and more likely to encourage progress than its law-and-order alternatives. Feyerabend [ 9] His point is that science ought not be constrained by hierarchically imposed principles and strict rule following. In the anarcho-vegan literature we find the following description of a broad and inclusive anarchism: Anarchism is a socio-political theory which opposes all systems of domination and oppression such as racism, ableism, sexism, anti-LGBTTQIA, ageism, sizeism, government, competition, capitalism, colonialism, imperialism and punitive justice, and promotes direct democracy, collaboration, interdependence, mutual aid, diversity, peace, transformative justice and equity.

Anderson and Samudzi write, While bound to the laws of the land, Black America can be understood as an extra-state entity because of Black exclusion from the liberal social contract.

Anderson and Samudzi no page numbers This implies that the experience of Black people unfolds in a social and political world that its defined by its exclusion from power. Parsons said, Most anarchists believe the coming change can only come through a revolution, because the possessing class will not allow a peaceful change to take place; still we are willing to work for peace at any price, except at the price of liberty.

Parsons [] 2. Anarchism in Political Philosophy Anarchism in political philosophy maintains that there is no legitimate political or governmental authority. Crispin Sartwell concludes: Even accepting more or less all of the assumptions Rawls packs into the original position, it is not clear that the contractors would not choose anarchy. He claimed, It is earnestly to be desired that each man should be wise enough to govern himself, without the intervention of any compulsory restraint; and, since government, even in its best state, is an evil, the object principally to be aimed at is that we should have as little of it as the general peace of human society will permit.

He argued that liberty required anarchy, concluding, The government of man by man under whatever name it be disguised is oppression. Wolff concludes: If all men have a continuing obligation to achieve the highest degree of autonomy possible, then there would appear to be no state whose subjects have a moral obligation to obey its commands.

This approach has been articulated by Noam Chomsky, who explains: [This] is what I have always understood to be the essence of anarchism: the conviction that the burden of proof has to be placed on authority, and that it should be dismantled if that burden cannot be met. Chomsky Chomsky accepts legitimate authority based in ordinary experience: for example, when a grandfather prevents a child from darting out into the street. He explains: Such institutions face a heavy burden of proof: it must be shown that under existing conditions, perhaps because of some overriding consideration of deprivation or threat, some form of authority, hierarchy, and domination is justified, despite the prima facie case against it—a burden that can rarely be met.

Chomsky Chomsky does not deny that the burden of proof could be met. He writes: Above all we should not forget, that government is an evil, an usurpation upon the private judgment and individual conscience of mankind; and that, however we may be obliged to admit it as a necessary evil for the present.

Bentham More principled deontological anarchism will maintain that states violate fundamental rights and so are not justified. Kropotkin [ 31] Kropotkin argues that the communal impulse already exists and that the advances in social wealth made possible by the development of individualistic capitalism make it likely that we will develop in the direction of communal sharing. Anarchism and Political Activity Anarchism forces us to re-evaluate political activity.

She explains, it is ethical in the best sense, since it helps society to get rid of its worst foe, the most detrimental factor of social life. Goldman [ 94] Goldman struggled with the question of violence through the course of her career. She writes: I believe that Anarchism is the only philosophy of peace, the only theory of the social relationship that values human life above everything else.

Goldman [ 59] Goldman views anarchist violence as merely reactive. He explained: I think that a regime which is born of violence and which continues to exist by violence cannot be overthrown except by a corresponding and proportionate violence. Malatesta [ 48] Like Goldman, Malatesta warned against violence becoming an end in itself and giving way to brutality and ferocity for its own sake. He said, what distinguishes the anarchists from all others is in fact their horror of violence, their desire and intention to eliminate physical violence from human relations.

Malatesta [ 46] But despite this rejection of violence, Malatesta advocates violence as a necessary evil. One important example is found in Thoreau, who famously explained his act of disobedience by tax resistance as follows: In fact, I quietly declare war with the State, after my fashion, though I will still make what use and get what advantage of her I can, as is usual in such cases.

Utopian Communities and Non-Revolutionary Anarchism Many anarchists are revolutionaries who want change to be created through direct action. They will also point to ordinary human relations—in families and civil society relationship—which operate quite well apart form coercive and hierarchical political authority 4. Bibliography Anderson, William C.

Shatz trans. Edinburgh: Tait.