Anarchism as Merely Nineteenth Century Liberalism Taken to Its Logical Extreme

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’.

View on state and authority:

- This is the main distinction between classical liberals and
anarchists. Whereas liberals have a fear of power (‘Power corrupts,
and absolute power corrupts absolutely’ – Lord Acton), they still
believe in a need for a state. Anarchists on the other hand believe
that any state is punitive, corrupt, sovereign etc. and poses a
threat. ‘The best government is one that does not govern at all’
(Thoreau adaptation of Thomas Jefferson who stated that the best
government is one that governs the least – i.e. should be checked)

- Paine – state = ‘necessary evil’. Anarchists refute this liberal
view and would argue that all states are UNNECESSARY and EVIL. They
have a total rejection of any sort of authority.

- Locke – minimal/night watchman state. Proudhon argued on the other
hand that the state is coercive, compulsory, punitive, sovereign and
does not allow any freedom for the individual, but rather offers a
façade in creating the that government is minimal.

- Liberals believe in constitutionalism and consent and the Social
contract theory. They believe that through this, the government is
checked, and that they in return, protect our rights by limiting a
small percent of our freedom. Anarchists on the other hand argue that
the Social contract theory is a façade and gives the myth that we are
born into this world where our liberties are protected. Instead, they
say the SCT is a way for the government to exercise even more control
by taking away even more liberty. Godwin criticises this and argues
that if left alone, we as humans will benefit and no one will suffer.
(As we are all rational and equal humans in the first place).

- Liberals believe that a state can protect ‘life, liberty and
property’ and freedom. However, anarchists (ALL not just
individualistic ones) believe that we can only be truly free when the
state has been abolished.

View on democracy:

- Classical liberals support REPRESENTATIVE democracy, albeit limited.
Anarchists on the other hand advocate DIRECT DEMOCRACY (Rousseau)
which is considered to be the only form that can guarantee freedom by
having direct influence themselves. ‘Obedience to a law that once
prescribes to oneself’ – only laws that we have to answer to are the
ones we place on ourselves.

- Anarchists argue that representative democracy is a FAÇADE and an
attempt to disguise the oppressive and exploitative state and nature
of political authority. Locke argues that we should have protective
democracy which is designed to protect our natural rights. (Thus a
state is needed to help ensure this) – Representative democracy
upholds principle of consent, which liberals believe is a check on
power and anarchists believe to be useless.

- Class. Liberals have more faith that democratic rule can protect
against despotic rule. Whereas, anarchists argue that any
representation is no better than any other system that depends on a
sovereign state and political authority.

View on economy:

- Free market/Adam Smith versus TOTAL free market where individuals
should be entirely free to let the market do as it wants without any
interference from a state.

- Liberals believe that some public goods need to be supplied by a
state whereas anarchists argue (Rothbard and Friedman) that even
public goods can be supplied privately (Anarcho-capitalism). (highly
optimistic view of free market/Warren and Tucker – pursuit of self
interest can be more enlightened and mutually beneficial)

However there are differences between liberalism and anarchism that
proves that anarchism can be seen as 19th century liberalism to its
logical extreme:

- Instead of limited government – NO STATE.

- FREE market, no intervention.

- Individuals can work together without the state as a ‘protector’.
(more optimistic view of human nature)

- Constitutionalism and consent are not necessarily accountable ways
of legitimising a government. All governments are bad in anarchist
point of view.

In addition, Collectivist anarchism is far from being similar to
liberalism, and arguably is socialism taken to its logical extreme.
Thus, anarchism partly is liberalism taken to its logical extreme,
however there is a huge distinction between liberalism and
collectivist anarchism.

Classical Liberalism

Collectivist Anarchism

Humans are atomistic/egotistical/individualism (view on human nature)

Humans are sociable and cooperative (Bakunin)/collectivism (refute the
idea of primacy of the individual) Positive view of human nature.
‘Social solidarity is the first law, freedom is the second’

Defend capitalism/private property/free market (view on economy)

‘Property is theft’ (Proudhon). A belief in common
ownership/communism. End vision of a communist society with no state
rather than a capitalist society.

Prioritise Freedom

Freedom is only attainable when full emancipation is achieved.

Reformist (based on progress)

Revolutionary action to achieve goals.

Conclusion:

Individualist anarchism can be considered as an extreme form of
liberalism, but with some key distinctions. For example, view on the
state differs greatly (protects freedom vs. removes freedom).

Anarchists tend to value both EQUALITY and FREEDOM more or less
equally, and thus is a distinction from liberals who advocate freedom
as the core principle.

Finally, it can be seen that collectivist anarchism is far from being
an extreme form of liberalism, but rather and extreme form of
socialism.