Anarchism as Merely Nineteenth Century Liberalism Taken to Its Logical Extreme
- Belief in primacy of the individual, freedom (negative freedom),
democracy, free-market.
It can be argued that INDIVIDUALIST anarchism is classical liberalism
to its logical extreme.
Individualist Anarchism:
- FREE market.
- Highly individualistic.
- Optimistic view of human nature
- Stateless society.
- Emphasis on freedom and civil liberties (as well as emphasis on
equality)
Comparison between individualist anarchism and liberalism:
View on Human nature/individual:
- Both believe in the primacy of the individual – highly atomistic
(atomism and Stirner-egoism) Egoism implies that the individual is at
the centre of the moral universe with everything revolving around
them. (Taking liberalism to the extreme – individual is free to do
what they want, without regard to anyone, and are capable and rational
of doing so.)
- Hobbes and Locke – ‘reason guided creatures’ but also self serving
and highly egotistical. This differs to anarchists slightly who hold a
much more POSITIVE view of human nature and say that we are not only
reason guided and know what we want and capable of doing so, but we
are also able to live according to universal moral laws. i.e. live
harmoniously amongst one another.
- Mill – ‘other regarding acts’. This implies that there are certain
things that we, as humans should not be able to do e.g. physical harm
(harm principle). Anarchists on the other hand believe that people are
reason guided to know what is right or wrong for themselves, and will
thus know what is best not to do to someone else. (i.e. don’t need to
be told what we can/can’t do by authority)
- NATURAL ORDER (Godwin) – Anarchists believe that everything can fit
into place and emerges if left alone (links with view on economy and
state – i.e. a belief in a stateless and free market society). Hobbes
and liberals regard the need for a state to prevent ‘a war of all
against all’.
Moshe Chaim Luzzatto, a Jewish rabbi, wrote extensively about many topics. Luzzatto’s writings can be applied to us today and from which we can learn a great deal. Two of the topics that we discussed in seminar that Luzzatto addresses were vigilance and alacrity. Vigilance is the process of regarding someone's actions and affairs and about knowing if your actions are right or wrong. In order to be vigilant, two parts are necessary. The first part involves determining what is considered evil and what is good. By doing this, you can make the right decision and do the right thing. The second part is to “see if his own deeds are good or evil,” which means that you have to decide if your actions were good or evil. This applies at
However, three ethical decisions that this learning will make after viewing the film is to always assist individual to the best of your ability, despite personal issues with loved ones or friends; next, always report crimes, no matter the consequence they may have; and last but not least, stand up for what’s right, even if it leads to misfortune. The pros of each of these decisions is peace within yourself. However, one of the cons is dealing with negative pressures. For example, when you report a crime, you may be summoned to court, and have to deal with the negative criticism.
...and “shame”. Being able to develop this values will build a character strong enough to control your temper in hard, circumstantial situations, and what’s even more important, itll guide you through the correct path between choosing whats best vs. what’s the right thing to do.
In George Orwell 's "Nineteen Eighty-Four," the main storyline revolves around a dystopian society whose self-thought has been corrupted by an over empowered governing body. Orwell’s intention was to bring Hitler’s ideas to life. Smith is a middle-aged frail man who is ambivalent towards his government, however is unable to resist the strength of the indoctrination he has been subjected to, during the entirety of his life. As the reader progresses through the novel, ideas of totalitarianism are illustrated throughout the story via Smith’s internal and external conflicts with his government. It quickly becomes apparent that there is an uncopiable amount of government power which is something that is seen as early as the second paragraph. Propaganda
Perhaps one of the largest contributors who helped shape what anarchism is regarded as today is Emma Goldman. Goldman was born in 1869 in Russia to a Jewish family, and later went on to come to prominence as a modern anarchist, with her ideas being highly valued in Europe and the United States. One of the earliest anarchist rebellions Goldman was a part of was the Homestead Strike. It was there that she developed her relationship with long-term lover and fellow anarchist thinker, Alexander Berkman. The Homestead Strike was a strike between the Amalgamated Association of Iron and Steel Workers and the Carnegie Steel Company. The labor union refused to put up with the high working demands of Andrew Carnegie, and resulted in the plant manager
People aim to act based on what is good to them, but what seems good to them is something
When one thinks of Anarchy they will immediately think of destruction and chaos. Of course, one who knows the beliefs of Anarchy will know otherwise. Anarchism is a political philosophy that upholds the belief that no one should be able to coerce anyone and no society should contain a wide variety of groups who coordinate social functions. It is the opportunity to live the life that you decide is best for you. In the eyes of Anarchy, government is corrupt and the people of society should govern themselves. There should not be any rules, laws, or police officers to chastise or enforce anything on any individual. Anyone who knows Greek will know that the term Anarchy means no rulers; so an anarchist society is a society without rulers, not a chaotic society. Anarchy believes in liberty, solidarity, and equality.
Throughout history, revolutions have started because of new ideas that change thinking and disrupt what has come to be considered normal. During 1700s, the American, French, and Haitian Revolutions were no exception. The Enlightenment ideas that were spreading around this time lead people of these three nations to question their ruling elites, and to begin considering breaking free. Of these three, though, no one revolt can be seen as more radical when compared to the other two. Each was faced with the challenging task of successfully separating from the oppression that had been brought upon them by to powerful empires and monarchies who had lost sight of what the American, French, and Haitian people alike considered important, as well as being some of the first revolts to use radical Enlightenment ideas to justify each of their rebellions. They considered these rebellions their one shot at being able to break free.
Jean-Paul Sartre claims that there can be no human nature, or essence, without a God to conceive of it. This claim leads Sartre to formulate the idea of radical freedom, which is the idea that man exists before he can be defined by any concept and is afterwards solely defined by his choices. Sartre presupposes this radical freedom as a fact but fails to address what is necessary to possess the type of freedom which would allow man to define himself. If it can be established that this freedom and the ability to make choices is contingent upon something else, then freedom cannot be the starting point from which man defines himself. This leaves open the possibility of an essence that is not necessarily dependent upon a God to conceive it. Several inconsistencies in Sartre’s philosophy undermine the plausibility of his concept of human nature. The type of freedom essential for the ability to define oneself is in fact contingent upon something else. It is contingent upon community, and the capacity for empathy, autonomy, rationality, and responsibility.
1. In his essay “Anarchical Fallacies,” Jeremy Bentham argues that “Natural rights is simple nonsense: natural and imprescriptible [i.e. inalienable] rights, rhetorical nonsense,—nonsense upon stilts.” Bentham will eventually conclude not only that these ideas are meaningless, but also quite dangerous. How does Bentham support these conclusions.
Such is the fast-paced world and style of Hakim Bey’s writings. Sporadic and rarely rounded up for interrogation, Bey’s Ontological Anarchism pervades all his writings, on topics as varied as “Islam and Eugenics”[1], “The Information War”[2], “The Evil Eye”[3], a critique of multiculturalism[4], and Celtic-African entheogens[5]. Hakim Bey’s zine writings and early 90’s hipsterism have made him known to some as “The Marco Polo of the Subunderground”[6] and a counter-cultural guru to many more.
Prudence is defined as the quality of being prudent; where prudent is the quality of having good judgement or wisdom. Moreover, wisdom is the quality of good judgement gained through experience and knowledge. Thus, prudence is the quality of using one’s experience and knowledge towards good judgement. Synonymous with caution, prudence involves awareness and concern for one’s actions or words. However, this caution does not incorporate blindly enforcing contemporary societal beliefs; caution necessitates wisdom in order to differentiate fair protection from keeping things the same. The common example of prudence displays how ‘it is sometimes better to say nothing at all than to say anything.’ This phrase can additionally be substituted for ‘it is sometimes better to do nothing at all than to do anything.’ Therefore, prudence is the virtue where one examines a circumstance and determines their proper
have regard for another man’s well-being. Just like the duty to self-preservation, this principle may
An individual's internal values have the capacity to persuade them into doing what they otherwise wouldn’t be inclined to do. These sacrifices are made in the name of the "Greater Good", when a person's ideals lead them to visualize only what they want to protect, rather than themselves. Often humans are perceived as a selfish species, but as other species do, we also have protective instincts, and when those instincts kick in, we have the capacity to be remarkably self-abnegating. Self-abnegation is a quality that all of us obtain for something, but that something depends entirely on our person's values. Our values are the motivator for sacrificing ourselves. This selfless quality reveals itself when the circumstances
Contemporary liberal and anarchist philosophy are both two very different ways of trying to see what would be the best way to run society. While discussing these two ideologies I will try to show how both, in their purist sense, are not able work in today's society effectively. Contemporary liberals are involved in every day politics but through over regulation and dependence on government they loose their chances of running a reliable democracy. Anarchist have very good ideas of how a natural society could function without government or modern institutions but the biggest problem they have is how to get to that point.