Criticisms of anarchism
5349432
225222143
2008-07-12T15:20:42Z
Skomorokh
1749684
far too much context on the source
{{Articleissues| OR = October 2007| weasel = April 2007| refimprove = October 2007}}
{{anarchism}}
'''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 [[utopia]]nism, [[authoritarianism]], tendency towards [[nonviolence]], [[hypocrisy]] and being an expression of the class interests of the [[petite bourgeoisie]].
==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."<ref name="landauer">Landauer, Carl. ''European Socialism: A History of Ideas and Movements'' (1959)</ref> 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"
<ref name=Rocker> {{cite book | last = Rocker | first = Rudolf | authorlink = Rudolf Rocker | year = 1956 | title = The London Years}}</ref>. [[William Godwin]] addressed the "anarchism as Utopia" criticism by suggesting people are "perfectible," or always capable of improvement. Godwin's belief, shared by many anarchists, is a key difference between Anarchism and attitudes of [[Nihilism]].{{Or|date=October 2007}} However, other anarchists, such as Sir [[Herbert Read]], proudly accept the characterization "utopian."
[[Anarchist communists]] have historically fought for social change that is neither utopian nor unfeasible.{{cn|date=December 2007}} The key difference being in who has the power, Marxists and statists in general agree that a centralized and hierarchical (although with elected leaders in democratic governments) apparatus is needed to keep peace and organize social life, anarchists on the other hand believe that the people are perfectly capable of doing both things by their local organizations in a direct democratic and federalist way and that a centralized government is inefficient, bureaucratic and authoritarian. Critics counter that anarchists have never produced a compelling explanation of how those decentralized local organizations could resist the organized fascist movement that the critics believe would inevitably step into the power vacuum to seize control,<ref name="landauer"/> although decentralized armies might be mustered should the need arise, as in [[Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army of Ukraine|Ukraine]] or the [[Anarchism in Spain|anarchist resistance observed in Spain]].
==Tacit authoritarianism==
In recent decades anarchism (chiefly the [[Bakunin]]ist concept of the revolutionary secret society) has been criticized by [[Situationist International|Situationists]] and others of preserving tacitly statist, authoritarian or bureaucratic tendencies.<ref name=Spectacle>{{cite book
| last = Debord | first = Guy | authorlink = Guy Debord | others= translated by Ken Knabb | title = [[Society of the Spectacle]] | publisher = Rebel Press | location = London | id = ISBN 0-946061-12-2 | chapter= paragraph 91
}}</ref> 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]]).
[[Post-anarchism|Post-anarchists]] share similar concerns regarding the methods, rather than intentions, of some anarchists.{{Fact|date=February 2007}} For instance, they reject [[revolution]], seeing means of forceful anarchism as effectively authoritarian and only transforming power rather than eliminating it. Many anarchists do believe in the need of revolution (taking over the means of work, abolishing the State) and the violent nature of the struggle to overthrow capitalism.{{Fact|date=February 2007}} However, they consider that violence has to be very focused and limited or else it would engender a new dictatorship.{{Fact|date=February 2007}}
The libertarian 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.<ref>[[Bryan Caplan|Caplan]], Bryan. ''"[http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/spain.htm The Anarcho-Statists of Spain]"''</ref> Many [[anarcho-syndicalist]]s, [[Anarchist communism|anarcho-communists]], and other types of anarchists have criticized the CNT<ref>[[Sam Dolgoff|Dolgoff]], Sam. ''"[http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/dolgoff-controv.html Controversy: Anarchists in the Spanish Revolution]"''</ref>'s mistakes during and since the events of the [[Spanish Civil War]]. Caplan himself has shown some hypocrisy in supporting the right of capitalists to attack or kill others in the name of defense of private property, which in itself has been called a form of illegitimate coercion and authoritarianism by some anarchists. 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.<ref name=CaplanRebutal>[[Iain McKay]], [http://www.spunk.org/texts/places/spain/sp001532.html''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</ref>
===Market anarchism===
{{details|Criticisms of anarcho-capitalism}}
[[Anarcho-capitalism]] (as well as other forms of [[market anarchism]]) has come under criticism for supposedly being representations of traditional "[[Republicanism|republican]] [[liberalism]]"{{Fact|date=February 2007}} ([[propertarianism]]) — [[capitalism]] that is the same as it was before, yet far worse: with the taxes, government social services, health regulations and socialized medical care programs removed and resulting in a society similar to the way it is depicted in movies like [[Blade Runner]] and most [[Cyberpunk]] literature. Such modern industrial societies were illustrated in books like [[Upton Sinclair]]'s ''[[The Jungle]]'' and much of the writing of [[Charles Dickens]]. However, positive views are portrayed in novels like [[Robert A. Heinlein]]'s 1966 novel ''[[The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress]]'' and [[Vernor Vinge]]'s ''[[Marooned in Realtime]]''. It is argued by anarcho-communists that in such societies without a state in which all material resources (including land and [[capital goods]]) are owned privately by individuals and businesses the poor would be left to their own devices and the gap between the rich and the poor would naturally exacerbate.{{Fact|date=February 2007}} This was not what happened during the [[Spanish revolution]],{{Fact|date=February 2007}} as solidarity was widespread (for example, the Barbers union donated 100,000 pesetas to the Asco collectivity for irrigation works{{Fact|date=February 2007}}). Also, in most places there was a family salary (and all salaries were more or less equal) which varied in accordance to the number of persons dependent of the worker. In other places money was abolished and replaced with quotas of consumption.{{Fact|date=February 2007}}
==Violence==
{{main|Anarchism and violence}}
Since anarchism has often been associated with violence and destruction, it has been portrayed 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 [[Social class|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?"<ref name=Engels>[http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm ''On Authority'']</ref>
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 [[sexist]]<ref>[[Jenny P. d'Hericourt]], ''"[http://www.pinn.net/~sunshine/whm2003/hericourt2.html Contemporary feminist critic of Proudhon]"''</ref> and [[racist]] views of some prominent anarchists, notably [[Pierre-Joseph Proudhon|Proudhon]] and [[Mikhail Bakunin|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]].<ref>[http://www.stewarthomesociety.org/ai.htm ''Anarchist Integralism]</ref> However, the tremendous number of anarchist [[Anti-fascism|opponents of fascism]] in its earliest history, plus the large number of [[Jewish anarchism|Jewish anarchist]] followers of [[Mikhail Bakunin|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 [[Pierre-Joseph Proudhon|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 [[nationalism|nationalists]] pursuing a racist agenda, and not anarchists. The [[Jewish anarchism|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==
{{seealso|Anarchism and Marxism}}
[[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.<ref>[[Georgi Plekhanov|G. V. Plekhanov]] ''[http://www.marxists.org/archive/plekhanov/1895/anarch/index.htm Anarchism and Socialism]''</ref> Anarchists point out how Marxist revolutions create a new [[bourgeoisie]] based on being a [[Bureaucracy|bureaucrat]].
==References==
{{reflist}}
[[Category:Issues in anarchism]]
[[Category:Criticisms|Anarchism]]
[[es:Críticas al anarquismo]]