Anarchism

Kinds of Anarchism

Anarchists make two types of claims: that the state is illegitimate and that a society without the state is preferable to the alternative. The anarchist typically [Page 88]contends that the state is intrinsically coercive and, therefore, unjust. (Some anarchists, such as Mikhail Bakunin, have accepted the state as necessary in some historical circumstances.) The injustice of the state is explained in terms of how the state transgresses liberty or autonomy, violates rights, or exploits one group or class against another. Others (such as the contemporary economist David Friedman) have argued that the state is immoral on broadly consequentialist grounds: All things considered, anarchy is preferable to government. The anarchist critique of the state is sometimes coupled with attacks on justifications of the state, including the theory of the social contract or the contention that public goods cannot exist without the state. Against the social contract, anarchists remark that almost all states have arisen through acts of violence or conquest. Against the public goods argument, it is pointed out that there may be fewer such goods than commonly claimed and that the public goods that the state arrogates to itself could be generated (if not improved!) through voluntary activities.

One might distinguish two broad classes of anarchists—those on the left and those on the right. Left anarchists have argued for communally based forms of society (socialist or communist anarchists) or for federations of worker-owned firms (anarchosyndicalists); more recent types of left anarchists include ecological anarchists. Left anarchists emphasize equality and solidarity and seek to overcome not only the coercion of the state but also other forms of domination that may occur between rich and poor, employer and employee, and so on. By eliminating or diminishing the property relations and other unequal social structures created and enforced by the state, individuals will realize their humanity and antisocial behavior will diminish. On the right are individualist anarchists, including market anarchists or anarchocapitalists, who contend that private property allows for freedom, individual flourishing, and pluralism. The anarcho-capitalist maintains that the protective functions now assumed by the state can be provided by private firms competing to sell both security and adjudication services.

From the perspective of either the left or the right, the anarchist argument runs counter to Thomas Hobbes's well-known argument that a state of nature (anarchy) would be so horrible that all would agree to institute an absolute sovereign. Hobbes's account suggests that without the state certain public goods (indivisible goods from which nonpayers cannot be excluded) would not come into existence. Under conditions of anarchy, even if individuals desire these goods (e.g., security), no one has an incentive to provide them. However, if anarchists are correct, voluntary cooperation is possible. For example, left anarchists suggest that human nature is not, in fact, as corrupt as it has become under the conditions of state capitalism. And individualist anarchists maintain, following the conclusions of game theory, that iterated interactions among individuals provide incentives for cooperation. In this way, so-called public goods could be provided by voluntary contract; for example, private security firms could compete peacefully to provide protective services and adjudication.

...