 |
This article or section has multiple issues. Please help improve the article or discuss these issues on the talk page.
|
Criticisms of anarchism originate from the interest groups it opposes as well as related theories such as Marxism. Specific ideas within anarchism have been criticized, as has anarchism generally. Some charges leveled against anarchism by its critics are utopianism, authoritarianism, tendency towards violence, hypocrisy and being an expression of the class interests of the petite bourgeoisie.
Contents |
Allegation of utopianism
Anarchism is often labeled by some of its critics as unfeasible, or plain utopian, even by those who agree that it is a nice idea in principle. For example, former European history professor Carl Landauer, in his book European Socialism claimed that anarchism is unrealistically utopian, and holds that government is a "lesser evil" than a society without "repressive force." He holds that the belief that "ill intentions will cease if repressive force disappears" is an "absurdity."[1] However, not all anarchists hold the Utopian view that conflict can be eliminated. Many anarchists view anarchy as a continuing goal that in fact cannot be reached, but should be continuously worked toward. For example, Rudolf Rocker once said, "I am an anarchist not because I believe anarchism is the final goal, but because there is no such thing as a final goal" [2]. William Godwin addressed the "anarchism as Utopia" criticism by suggesting people are "perfectible," or always capable of improvement. However, other anarchists, such as Sir Herbert Read, proudly accept the characterization "utopian."
Tacit authoritarianism
In recent decades anarchism (chiefly the Bakuninist concept of the revolutionary secret society) has been criticized by Situationists and others of preserving tacitly statist, authoritarian or bureaucratic tendencies.[3] Many anarchists consider it a strawman as the organization proposed by Bakunin has only been used in times of repression where clandestine activity is needed for survival (for example, during the last Argentinian dictatorship by Resistencia Libertaria Anticapitalista).
The anarcho-capitalist economist Bryan Caplan argues that the treatment of fascists and fascist sympathizers by Spanish anarchists in the Spanish Civil War was a form of illegitimate coercion, making the anarchists "ultimately just a third faction of totalitarians," alongside the communists and fascists. He also criticizes the willingness of the CNT to join the Republican government during the civil war, and references Stanley G. Payne's book on the Franco regime which claims that the CNT entered negotiations with the government of Spain six years after the war.[4] Many anarcho-syndicalists, anarcho-communists, and other types of anarchists have criticized the CNT's mistakes during and since the events of the Spanish Civil War.[5] Caplan's political writing and scholarship, and the essay containing these points of view has been criticized as "mostly false reporting, based upon selective presentation of evidence in order to paint a radically false picture of the Spanish Anarchist movement", by Iain McKay.[6]
Violence
Since a section of the anarchist movement has often been associated with violence and destruction, it has been portrayed by its opponents as being inherently violent. This is a matter of much debate between anarcho-pacifists and those who argue for the right to use violence in self-defense, whether of individuals or of class interests.
Friedrich Engels criticized anarchists for not being violent enough:
- "A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon – authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois?"[7]
This is considered dishonest by many anarchists as Bakunin and most anarchists in the past have historically advocated for the use of revolutionary violence. The true difference lies in the way anarchists have organized to defend the revolution, that is, voluntary popular militias with elected officers and without the use of coercion to impose obedience to orders from a centralized command (see Nestor Makhno and Buenaventura Durruti for two anarchist military leaders), contrast this with forced conscription with unelected officers (and political officers to control them, as they were reactionaries most of the time) in a centralized and hierarchical chain of command, and death penalty for insubordination and desertion (see Trotsky and Stalin for two Marxist military leaders). Also, anarchists advocate revolutionary pluralism instead of one-party dictatorship (as Lenin imposed, although allegedly as a temporary measure, and Stalin and Mao defended as the form of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat), not taking revenge towards reactionaries for being reactionaries (only taking measures in the case of active opposition, like sabotage, spying, or murder, and when the person had acted ruthlessly against workers previously to the revolution) and convincing others to join collectivities by example instead of under threat (this can be seen in the Spanish revolution, most collectivities were partial, individualists were allowed to work land plots without hired labor, compare it with Mao's Great Leap Forward or Stalin's forced collectivization). The collectivist anarchist Mikhail Bakunin disagreed with Marx's ideas of violent revolt, and argued that not all revolutions must be violent.
Alleged hypocrisy
Some critics point to the alleged sexist[8] and racist views of some prominent anarchists, notably Proudhon and Bakunin, as examples of alleged hypocrisy. While many anarchists, however, dismiss that the personal prejudices of some 19th century theorists influence the beliefs of present-day anarchists, others criticise modern anarchism for continuing to be Eurocentric and reference the impact of anarchist thinkers like Proudhon on fascism through groups like Cercle Proudhon.[9] However, the tremendous number of anarchist opponents of fascism in its earliest history, plus the large number of Jewish anarchist followers of Bakunin from the past 120 years appears to attest to the power of his positive ideas about basic human freedom and the rejection by anarchists of his and Proudhon's negative statements (both in their times, like Dejacques and today). Anarchists point out that the people who focus on this area of these two people's writings tend to be Marxists trying to discredit anarchism, or nationalists pursuing a racist agenda, and not anarchists. The Jewish anarchist position has been to argue that while the stupidity of anti-semitism whom many otherwise progressive intellectuals possessed should not be forgotten or overlooked, it should not make us forget the positive work some who fell into this trap in past history have contributed to humanity. The argument that anarchism is Eurocentric or "Western" in philosophical orientation have largely been disproved by the large histories of Cuban anarchism (see Frank Fernández), Chinese anarchism (see Ba Jin) and African anarchism, Latin American anarchism (see Augusto César Sandino & Ricardo Flores Magón) movements in the 1920s.
Class character
Marxists have characterized anarchism as an expression of the class interests of the petite bourgeoisie or perhaps the lumpenproletariat. For example, Georgi Plekhanov supplied a Marxist critique in 1895.[10] Anarchists point out how Marxist revolutions create a new bourgeoisie based on being a bureaucrat. Marxists will make the counter-point that this criticism relies on the ahistorical assumption that the State produces social classes, which further implies that all States are basically the same regardless of the historical mode of production supporting them, when according to Marx's analyses the State emerges only as a function of class-struggle and the mode of production[11][clarification needed]
References
- ^ Landauer, Carl. European Socialism: A History of Ideas and Movements (1959)
- ^ Rocker, Rudolf (1956). The London Years.
- ^ Debord, Guy. "paragraph 91". Society of the Spectacle. translated by Ken Knabb. London: Rebel Press. ISBN 0-946061-12-2.
- ^ Caplan, Bryan. "The Anarcho-Statists of Spain", An Anarchy FAQ
- ^ Dolgoff, Sam. "Controversy: Anarchists in the Spanish Revolution"
- ^ Iain McKay, A Reply to Bryan Caplan's Essay "The Anarcho-Statists of Spain: An Historical, Economic, and Philosophical Analysis", or Objectivity and Right-Libertarian Scholarship, accessed 2006-05-30
- ^ On Authority
- ^ Jenny P. d'Hericourt, "Contemporary feminist critic of Proudhon"
- ^ Anarchist Integralism
- ^ G. V. Plekhanov Anarchism and Socialism
- ^ "http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/bio/robertson-ann.htm"
External links
- "What criticisms have been made of anarchism?" from Bryan Caplan's Anarchy F.A.Q.
This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)
