Free Term Papers and Essays
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. Both theories look good on paper but once they hit the real world they
change due to alternating conceptions and individual influences. The root of the
word anarchism comes from the Greek word "anarchos," which means "without
ruler." The main philosophy behind anarchism is that people can reside in an
unregulated community with no real authority and maintain a sustainable life.
Anarchists see government and capitalism as an institution that creates liberty
for the rich and enslavement of the masses. Emma Goldman best describes
anarchism as: "The philosophy of a new social order based on liberty
unrestricted by man-made law; the theory that all forms of government rest on
violence and are therefore wrong and harmful, as well as unnecessary." With
anarchism there is a belief that once all government is abolished by the people
that everyone will come together in a community of mutual aid and understanding
without laws or authority to direct. Their philosophy can be considered opposite
of most other ideologies, especially that of contemporary liberalism.
Contemporary liberalism strives to hold on to the classic liberal's ideals
pertaining to political, economic, and social liberties but it tends to look at
democratic government as a tool rather than a hindrance. John Stuart Mill, John
Dewey, and Franklin D. Roosevelt are established ideologues of contemporary
liberalism. Just opposite of anarchism, modern liberalism puts its' faith in
government to change and adapt to the failures of capitalism. The emergence of
this political philosophy started around the end of the nineteenth century with
John Stuart Mill's ideas in his book Principles of Political Economy. The
philosophy became an ideology in the twentieth century with the main points of
enhanced democracy, widening the role of the government, and rethinking
capitalism. The original liberals were reacting to the aristocracy, their
domination over the masses, and a lack of opportunity of the individual to
pursue happiness and freedom from the tyranny from above. Contemporary
liberalism is a reaction to the problems that arose following the failures of
democracy and capitalism in a changing world. They are still seeking to insure
liberties but to do this they believe there needs to be more involvement from
government. Authority to anarchist is looked at as being a tool for the rich and
powerful. It creates a sense of competitiveness for power which intern creates
social disorder, and can lead to moral depravity which inhibits a well ordered
society. Kropotkin wrote on the use of authority by the rich and he says: "Three
quarters of all the acts which are brought before our courts every year have
their origin, either directly or indirectly, in the present disorganized stated
of society with regard to the production and distribution of wealth- not in the
perversity of human nature." This means that because society and capitalism
create these classes, the people on the bottom sometimes commit crimes because
they have to fulfill essential needs that are denied to them do to uneven
distribution of resources. If a woman that is homeless with three children and
has no other choice but to steal food to feed her family, she is considered a
criminal. Contemporary liberals would say it is because she hasn't been given
the resources through the government to get herself out of that situation. The
anarchist would say that if there wasn't any uneven distribution and more mutual
aid from the community the woman would be taken care of and wouldn't be in that
position. Anarchists believe that competitiveness for power creates a social
disorder and cruelty to anyone standing in the way of a person in the search of
authority. Anarchists see the struggle to get into the position of power
creating more disorder than if there was no authority at all. Government
authority can also be corrupted under certain leaders and therefore it becomes
the authority of whoever controls the position and is not protecting the liberty
of all. According to the anarchist government laws lead to a basic
demoralization of society which inhibits an efficient society. The masses only
follow these laws in fear of being caught and not for the better good of the
community. Therefore if a person feels they can get away with a crime they have
no morals to fall back on to prevent them from infringing on someone else's
liberty. Paul Wolff claims in his In Defense of Anarchism that there is a
contentious conflict between authority and autonomy. Conservatism and liberalism
contend that authority of government is needed to insure stability of the
society. Governments can't make laws that fit all of its' peoples' morals and
standards therefore the people have to give up some of their liberty. Wolff
states that if there were no laws people would act in a responsible way through
a "process of reflection, investigation, deliberation about how [they] ought to
act." Social laws are the morals or standards that would support accord in
society through social pressure from other members in society rather than
through fear of the government. Contemporary liberals are on the opposite side
when it comes to the role of government authority. They think that the
government needs to expand its' role to help the economy grow, increase the
liberty of all, and to create means of figuring out what these needs are by use
of the scientific method. They believe that the government first needs to find
out exactly what social problems attribute to the blocking of liberal goals. To
do this there needs to be a system of identification of these problems by
utilizing economic and social indicators. Through monthly reports of statistics
the contemporary liberals believe they can create government programs to fix
these inequalities. They do not want a micro-managment of these problems but
more of a broad framework made up of laws, conditions, and programs to coerce
people and organizations into stopping these problems. The Anarchist would see
this as trimming the branches of the problem not cutting the roots. In the
economic realm the modern liberals would like to see a mixed economy of
government influence and stimulate the private sphere in order to produce an
effective economy. They highly support any government agency or program that
will "help" the society in a unilateral way. Anarchists are right in the sense
that excessive government agencies only inhibit progression. Our tax money is
taken, mainly from the middle class, and is spent throughout the bureaucratic
system with little money going to the intended cause. In theory I think if
people were stripped of government and had to start from scratch without any
recollection of government or structured society, people would mutually help
each other. Unfortunately, we are here today with a government in place and
regulations up and working. That is where I agree with the liberals in that
there needs to be a change in the system to try to help those oppressed by
capitalism. Both ideologies have one main flaw in their thinking and that is the
faith in human beings. The anarchist's theory is dependent on humans having
intrinsic mutual aid and the liberals are dependent on the morals of capitalist
society and the ability of it to want to help the less fortunate. There will
always be people that will want to dominate and there will always be people to
follow. Contemporary liberals like the classic liberals see a need for
representative democracy and seek to find new ways to strengthen the
representation. They would like to see more representation of minority groups.
They are aware of the unequal distribution of power. To balance this inequality
out the liberals propose to have more interest groups to represent the labor
force, minority groups, and any apathetic and helpless citizens. The presence of
sub-government groups, such as big industry, are recognized as being
insufficient in representing the public's interest and so the liberals call for
more regulations to control these sub-governments from abusing their power. This
goes right along with the whole philosophy of contemporary liberals in that they
don't want to start over and rebuild the government, but rather reform it and ad
more regulations to control it. The idea of a ruler goes against the basic
stance of anarchism. Proudhon best describes this view when he said, "Whoever
puts his hand on me to govern me is usurper and a tyrant; I declare him my
enemy." The only kind of authority that the anarchists see as being legitimate
is that of unanimous direct democracy. This would entail decision making by a
small community in which all people can be involved in the process. They
emphasize that all people must be able to rule themselves. According to the
anarchist the two aspects of democracy that threaten individual rights are
representative governments that can't cover everyone's view and majority rule
implies that there is a minority to be oppressed. Human nature is a complex
thing. Environment plays an important part in defining what human nature is.
This does not mean that human beings are infinitely plastic, with each
individual born a blank slate waiting to be formed by "society" (which in
practice means those who run it). I do not wish to enter the debate about what
human characteristics are and are not innate. Anarchist will say that human
beings have an innate ability to think and learn, that much is obvious, they
also feel that humans are sociable creatures, needing the company of others to
feel complete and to prosper. These two features suggest the viability of an
anarchist society. The innate ability to think for oneself automatically makes
all forms of hierarchy illegitimate, and our need for social relationships
implies that we can organize without the state. The deep unhappiness and
alienation afflicting modern society reveals that the centralization and
authoritarianism of capitalism and the state are denying some innate needs
within us. For the great majority of its existence the human race has lived in
anarchic communities, with little or no hierarchy. Anarchists like to emphasize
the human malleability. If someone is put into a capitalist society they are
going to form to the standards of the capitalist. If someone is put into a free
society with no external pressures then they will cooperate and help the
community in the way best suited for them. Contemporary liberals unlike the
classic liberals believe that human nature is not a set of standards that we are
all born with. They assert, like the anarchist, that humans are malleable and
are influenced by the community around them. They believe that all humans have a
need to obtain all the things that a good life entails. In other words humans
will work to obtain the good things in life but these needs could change
depending on what that person has learned are essential. It seems that the
liberal's view is somewhat compatible with the anarchist. It almost affirms the
anarchist view. According to the liberal idea of human nature, if someone were
to be born into an anarchical society their needs would be formed by that
community therefore the whole society would have the same needs. In other words
the only reason that democracy and capitalism function is because we are taught
that it does. The only problem is getting from one frame of mind to another. The
contemporary liberals feel that change is good. Through change, policies can be
implemented to reform economic and government problems. They also believe that
power can be distributed more evenly but the liberals have certain ideas about
how to achieve change. The most ideal way for change to take place for the
contemporary liberals is through democratic, non-revolutionary reform. The only
time that revolution is seen as being useful is if a nation is not democracy
already established. They hold to their system is reliable and in no need of
drastic reformation but gradual transformation through the institutions already
in power. Many American presidents have used reform to largely change the
government in order to increase the liberty of many deprived citizens. Franklin
D. Roosevelt's New Deal was one of the most impressive reforms of the federal
government. After the depression had crushed the economy he helped people get
back on their feet through public works programs. He also put into place other
government organizations to prevent another depression from happening. The
modern liberals work towards change gradually through due process but in the end
could reach a state of revolution. Change for the anarchists is much more
drastic. They do not look to violence as a tool of change but rather rebellion.
Revolution would only call for the changing of the institutions already in place
but the anarchists want all government to be done away with. There are four
basic steps to rebellion that the anarchists call for. The first one would be
that all people would have to voluntarily choose to rebel against government not
rebel just out of popular movement. Not only does it need to be voluntary, but
the second step is that it should happen spontaneously. A country would have to
completely fall apart for all to agree to rebel spontaneously. The third
qualification is for the rebellion to be total. This proposes a total
destruction of all conventional institutions that may promote values or allow
anyone to have power over someone else. The final step in this grand scheme is
after the rebellion begins that it should swiftly move to the international
level. For an anarchist society to exist there would have to be no threat of
violence by another state because anarchy does not call for a military to
protect itself. The anarchists stand on change is fairly drastic. I see how in
theory this is the only way that there could ever be an anarchical society. In
my eyes it seems a little to far fetched for it to ever happen this way. Some
anarchists call for some violence when it is against property of a business
because property to an anarchist is considered unjust. Bakunin believes that
violence is sometimes unavoidable in human history and is a good means for
resisting authority. Regardless of how the conventional institutions are
destroyed, be it violent or not, it needs to be done. To reach a utopian
anarchical society the government and religions of today need to be done away
with. Anarchy and contemporary liberalism are far from being compatible
ideologies. They both are drastically opposite on most of there stances. Anarchy
reaching for a non-government communal society and contemporary liberalism
seeking to extend the role of government to fix what is wrong with the existing
pollicies. Anarchy in theory seems like a very good idea. I would love to live
in a society where you just did what was good for you and helped others while
they helped you. I don't know why anyone wouldn't want to live in a society like
that. The only problem is that to get to this utopian society the whole world
would have to spontaneously decide they wanted it and I can guarantee there are
many politicians and CEOs that would not like that. Contemporary liberals are
right in wanting to reform institutions of today but I can't see how over
regulation of government in all areas is going to help fix things. I do see the
need for some government action towards the eradication of poverty, equal
rights, and unemployment. The biggest problem I see with the help in these areas
is the government trying to cure the problem not the cause. I attribute most of
the social problems of today to big business, the lack of family, and the lost
sense of community.
Bibliography
Citations "What is anarchism," An
Anarchist FAQWebpage,www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/, Internet Explorer,
5/4/98. Schumaker Paul, Dwight C. Kiel, Thomas Heilke, Great Ideas/Grand
Schemes: Political Ideologies in the 19th and 20th Centuries, New York, The
McGraw-Hill Companies Inc., 1996. Schumaker Paul, Dwight C. Kiel, Thomas W.
Heilke, Ideological Voices: An Anthology in Modern Political Ideas, New York,
The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 1997.
Word Count: 2711