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’.
The decline of aristocracy in The Communist Manifesto began with Karl Marx’s statement, “The history of all hitherto existing societies is the history of class struggles.”1 Marx recognized the ideals of the social rank, which has influenced every society throughout history. The two social classes described by Marx were the Bourgeoisie, or the upper class, and the Proletariats, or the lower class. Before the Bourgeoisie came to social power, landowners and corporate organizations ran the society. Marx believed that the severe separation of the two classes greatly troubled society and that the two classes must coexist as one with each other.2
though, that we don't know as much as we think we do. A person doesn't really
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
blind" and to "not let the wrong things influence their minds". Examples of this would be
Question: What means did reformers and radicals use to communicate their messages and how did these means influence their ideologies?
In “Can We Teach Character? An Aristotelian Answer” by Edwin M. Hartman, Hartman discussed about how one can improve another’s ethics by teaching them about good characters. (Hartman 68) and by teaching them “techniques for deciding what the right thing is” (Hartman 69). As Hartman mentioned, “ a person of good character in Aristotle's sense knows genuine strength and cowardice when s/he sees it.” (Hartman 75) meaning that a good character should be able to tell and recognize the difference between what’s good and what's bad. I agree with Hartman I believe that being able to identify what is right or wrong is very important. I grew up learning to do only the right things and not the wrong. However, if I cannot identify which
Social activist Lucy Parsons once said, “Anarchism has but one infallible, unchangeable motto, "Freedom." Freedom to discover any truth, freedom to develop, to live naturally and fully." Anarchism then, is being able to live and not be ruled by a government, but instead to live by one’s own means in order to increase the good for oneself and others who share the common belief. Human beings are capable of making the decisions. Instead of being ruled by one, anarchists live by agreement on decisions that will work for everyone.
People aim to act based on what is good to them, but what seems good to them is something
Every day, in a plethora of different situations, virtually every person has to make a multitude of decisions regarding how to interact with other people. Despite many centuries of intense study and theorizing by some of the most brilliant philosophers in the world, there is no single consensus on how people should choose to act towards others. What have been developed, however, are different systems of ethics describing idealized ideas of how human beings should treat themselves, treat others, and what they should strive for both personally and for society as a whole. In addition, many people cobble together their own personal systems of ethics based on personal experience and various degrees of formal ethical education.
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.
“Those who care for others… live a life , in a divine way, above others” -Anonymous. Even as small children, we are taught to treat others as we would like to be treated, but as we grow older, the world becomes more complex, and the length to which we should stretch ourselves for others becomes unclear. Some people may believe that one must always put others first, while others put other people’s worries and safety far behind their own. Throughout this year I have gathered artifacts, some support these theories, while others do not, and a rew support my own theory. I believe that the most healthy and appropriate way to approach this moral grey area is to always consider other’s needs and feelings, but you must also consider your needs and know
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.
Freedom and equality are intertwined with one another. Freedom is defined as the custom of being free, political independence, and the possession of civil rights. When reflecting upon the history of the twentieth century many people all over the world were not afforded the luxury of being born with freedom or born with equal rights. In most cases, those people were often oppressed or subjugated by various forms of systematic state sponsored authoritarianism and terror. In order to receive the freedom necessary to survive and the equality required to live a happy and successful life the oppressed people had to take action. Often times the action took on various forms such as, revolts or nonviolent campaigns. Because the governments reliance on authoritarianism and terror to control their citizens, often times revolts and/or nonviolent campaigns were the consequence. Therefore, any advances towards gaining freedom and equality cannot happen without some form of systematic state-sponsored authoritarianism and terror taking place first. It is no coincidence because the two phenomena are linked.
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
to get to know it a lot better, and apply it to you own life all