Anarchism as a political philosophy: QCE Philosophy and Reason
“Explain and evaluate anarchism as a political philosophy, including its rejection of state authority, its key thinkers and the main objections to it”
Anarchism holds that the state, understood as a body claiming the right to rule and to enforce its rules by coercion, has no legitimate authority over free and rational people, and that society can and should be organised without it. Anarchists differ on how: some want voluntary cooperative communities (social anarchism), others private property and free markets (individualist or libertarian anarchism). The best objections are that without a state there is no reliable protection against violence and exploitation, and that cooperation on large scales needs enforceable rules.
Jump to a section
What this dot point is asking
Anarchism is one of the four political philosophies in Unit 4 Topic 2 (Political philosophy). You must explain what anarchists claim about political authority, distinguish the main strands, use the arguments of named thinkers, and evaluate whether the position is defensible. The thinkers named below are examples, not a syllabus list, so confirm the exact wording and any required thinkers in the current QCAA Philosophy & Reason syllabus and with your teacher.
The core claim
Anarchism is often misread as "chaos". In philosophy it is a claim about legitimate authority. A state says two things: that it may command its citizens, and that citizens are obliged to obey. The anarchist denies both. Authority that rests on force, inherited privilege or an imagined contract with no real consent cannot, they argue, bind anyone morally.
Anarchists usually add that the state is not only unjustified but harmful: it concentrates power, protects the wealthy, and teaches people to obey rather than think.
Strands of anarchism
- Philosophical anarchism
- The view, defended by Robert Paul Wolff in In Defense of Anarchism (1970), that no state can have legitimate authority over an autonomous person, because obeying a command simply because it is a command gives up one's duty to decide for oneself. Wolff does not necessarily call for revolution. One may still comply with a law when the content is sensible.
- Social anarchism
- Thinkers such as Mikhail Bakunin (collectivist) and Peter Kropotkin (communist) argued for a society of voluntary associations and mutual aid, with common ownership of productive resources. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, who coined the self-description "anarchist", defended a mutualist version based on small-scale cooperative exchange. Kropotkin argued that cooperation is a natural and evolved human trait, not only competition.
- Individualist and market anarchism
- Individualist anarchists such as Max Stirner, an egoist, stress the self-owning individual against every collective authority. Market anarchists such as Murray Rothbard, in the twentieth century, defend private property and voluntary exchange, with services such as protection supplied by private agencies.
- Early philosophical statement
- William Godwin (1793) argued that political institutions corrupt reason and that people guided by reason would not need government.
Arguments for
- Autonomy. Free rational agents answer to their own judgement, so a duty to obey a ruler is incompatible with moral autonomy (Wolff).
- Consent. No existing state was founded by the real consent of those it governs. Tacit consent through residence or voting is too weak to create an obligation.
- Power corrupts. Concentrated coercive power is abused. Better to spread power through voluntary, local groups.
- Human nature. If people are naturally sociable and cooperative, as Kropotkin and Rousseau-style views suggest, the state is not needed to restrain them.
Objections
- The Hobbesian objection. Without a common power, people face insecurity and conflict. Hobbes argued that the state of nature is a war of all against all and that almost any government is better. See social contract theory.
- Coordination and public goods. Roads, clean air and defence are hard to provide when each person can free ride. Some enforceable system of rules and taxation seems necessary.
- Protecting the vulnerable. Without general rules and courts, the strong may dominate. Private protection agencies may simply become a new state.
- Instability. Even if an anarchic order were established, people may reconstitute authority. Anarchists reply that this misses how voluntary institutions can resolve disputes.
- Assumptions about human nature. The optimistic view of cooperation may be unreliable. Whether the assumption is reliable is a typical evaluation point.
Worked response
Question. To what extent is anarchism's rejection of state authority justified?
Model approach.
Thesis. Anarchism is persuasive as a challenge to the state's claim to authority, but it is less convincing as a practical alternative, so it succeeds in part.
Explain. The anarchist argues that authority requires the consent of free agents and that no state has real consent. Wolff adds the autonomy argument: to obey a command because it is a command surrenders one's responsibility to judge.
Analyse. The argument is valid if its premises are true: (P1) legitimate authority requires actual consent or autonomy-respecting justification; (P2) no state has this; so (C) no state has legitimate authority. Premise P1 is the vulnerable one, since a social contract theorist can reply that hypothetical consent or fairness may justify authority.
Evaluate. The Hobbesian reply shows that without a coordinating authority, the costs of insecurity may be worse than the costs of obedience. Anarchists respond with examples of voluntary cooperation, but these tend to work at small scales. Therefore the philosophical claim is stronger than the claim that a stateless society is workable.
Practice questions
1. Distinguish philosophical anarchism from social anarchism.
Answer. Philosophical anarchism is a claim about the lack of legitimate authority (Wolff), and may accept practical compliance. Social anarchism is a positive programme for a society of voluntary cooperative associations with common ownership (Kropotkin).
2. Explain one reason anarchists give for thinking people do not consent to the state.
Answer. No one signed or agreed to be governed. Living in a territory and using public services does not amount to real consent, because leaving is costly and unrealistic, so the consent argument for obedience fails.
3. Outline a Hobbesian objection to anarchism and a possible anarchist reply.
Answer. Objection: without a sovereign, people live in fear and conflict, so a state is necessary for security. Reply: people are cooperative and can build voluntary institutions for dispute resolution, and states themselves cause much violence.
- Treating anarchism as "no rules"
- Anarchists reject coercive state authority, not all order or cooperation.
- Lumping every anarchist together
- Social and market anarchists disagree sharply about property.
- Stopping at description
- Evaluation needs an assessment of the key premise, not a list of thinkers.