ANARCHISM  VS. GOVERNMENT,
PART ONE

[This essay is in two parts. Notes and a bibliography follow the end of Part Two.]

Here you have the state, of shameful origin; for the greater part of men a well of suffering that is never dried, a flame that consumes them in its frequent crises. And yet when it calls, our souls become forgetful of themselves; at its bloody appeal the multitude is urged to courage and uplifted to heroism.

Friedrich Nietzsche¹

Introduction: The Ubiquity of Governments

In 2000, organizations called governments control nearly every portion of this planet's land. They enforce their laws over large areas of coastal seas. By international agreements like the Law of the Sea, they extend their influence far across oceans to combat piracy and pollution, and into the depths of the oceans to claim sunken ships and treasure. The force of governments extends into the air, to regulate air travel, and even into outer space where they send vessels to other planets. And, through conventions between Earth's nations, governments have set up rules to determine how they may claim far-distant bodies in space.

In a few regions on Earth -- Somalia, Ethiopia, and Sri Lanka, for example -- the question is not settled which government shall dominate which geographical territory. Thus military factions are currently at war to decide the issue. Otherwise, nearly every region and people of the earth seems to be dominated by, or to aspire to be dominated by, a single government.

Even in frozen Antarctica, where there is not and has never been a central government or permanent human population, there are nonetheless bases for scientific research. These are controlled by distant governments. Twelve distant nations have claimed portions of the Antarctic landmass; some of these claims overlap. The governments, however, have avoided conflict by agreeing between themselves to suspend their claims for some years.

Must we not ask, How did this curious situation come about?

How did so many governments come to exist -- comfortably or uncomfortably with their neighbours -- and to exclusively dominate regions of the Earth?

The short answer would appear to be: by war.

Should Governments Exist?

Should governments have monopolistic control over regions? Is this a good way for Earth to be controlled? Is there a better way?

And what about Somalia, and regions like it? Surely Somalia is a region without practical, effective central government; that is, what most people call an anarchy. For Somalia's current status involves several tribal militias -- each controlling a fraction of the previous unified state -- in disorderly conflict and civil war with each other.

How do regions like Somalia fit into the picture?

What Anarchists Believe

Despite the abundance of governments in the world, and apparent widespread support for them everywhere, a small minority of persons nevertheless believes governments are an evil. Some do so because they believe that governments are necessarily an abomination; are necessarily a source of violations of human rights. Others believe that governments, as a practical matter, simply cannot be approved and must be abandoned. Together, such people are called anarchists. They advocate the elimination of government. Are they right? What reasons do anarchists have for their beliefs?

If only the situation were even this simple. Unfortunately, there is a further complication. Some anarchists are repudiated by others, also calling themselves anarchists; the second group calls the first one phonies.

So clearly we have no alternative but to define our terms and try to clarify this confusing situation.

What is Government?

To make a start: What is government?

Let us first define government, in a basic, wide, abstract sense.

In a narrower, more concrete and practical sense let us then define a (note the grammatical article) government; that is, in the concrete form we often call a state.

(In this essay I will mostly be dealing with government in sense 2. But I think I need both definitions in my argument. I apologize if the second definition seems cumbersome, but I think it covers what most people mean by a government. I will try to keep my definitions clearly separate, so as not to confuse matters.)

So government has (at least) two meanings: an abstract, general meaning; and a specific and, as we would say, political meaning. Understanding the second, political definition we can surely agree that Earth is at present divided into geographic regions -- usually called countries, nations, or states -- the vast majority of which are each dominated by a single government. (Over governments, true, there are often said to be other organizations, e. g., the United Nations and the World Trade Organization. And these bodies do co-ordinate governments; but they do not actually compel them, since the international bodies control few or no soldiers.)

What is Anarchy?

Let us define anarchy, by contrast, as the social condition that exists in a geographic region without such a government (that is, in sense 2). Let us refrain, deliberately, from calling this social condition anarchism; let us reserve that term for the belief in abolishing government and substituting for it other forms of social organization.

An anarchy (note the grammatical article again) would therefore be a region without a government (in sense 2). Note, however, that such an anarchy might, however, yet still have government in sense 1 (if, indeed, that's the proper word to use -- would "management" or "leadership" be better?), i.e, some rule, guidance, control, order, or organization.

Clear so far? Though anarchies can't have governments in sense 2, they might have government in sense 1.

Okay. I think it's fairly evident that most people support the existence of government in both senses in principle; they merely differ on what kind(s) of government in sense 2 they support. Many people are democrats and/or republicans. Some are monarchists. Some are fascists. Some are communists (whether Marxist or not). Many are socialists or social democrats. Some support party, army, or racial dictatorships. Many are theocrats. Many support variations on or combinations of these forms. And a few, I suppose, are tribalists (these deserve special treatment; I will discuss these in some detail later).

Only a few people, the anarchists, are against government in sense 2 in principle.

All right. Why are anarchists against sense-2 governments in principle?

Three Anarchist Arguments Against Governments

As I understand it, anarchists have several powerful arguments for supporting the abolition of governments. The three most telling go like this:

1. Sense-2 governments are hopeless. Their universal history is one of perpetual tyranny, conflict, and wars. They tax heavily, they do little good, they enrich a corrupt few, they create and entrench inequality, and by their power of conscription they are the most constant cause of horrific wars, waste, and slaughter -- both of their own citizens and of foreigners.

Of the charges in this indictment, the worst is that all too often governments conscript the young -- even children -- into horrible, pointless wars that kill off generations and devastate both the conscripts' country and the countries of others.

Since many people have tried to reform governments, it is therefore argued, and all attempts have largely or hopelessly failed, it is time to abolish sense-2 governments once and for all.

Please note that this is a practical argument. It argues on the basis of presumed facts.

This, as I see it, is the first and quintessential argument against political governments.

A second, similar, but perhaps more subtle and basic argument is:

2. Sense-2 governments are inherently run by rich possessors of property. Property is what causes the rich to be influential and powerful; therefore, we observe that property owners always get control of governments; often they alone acquire the vote or the effective say, while other, poorer groups get nothing. Since governments are owned and controlled by the rich, governments automatically act to protect the rich and their property against the poor and powerless. Since it is impossible ever to remedy this situation without revolution, governments must be revolted against and abolished.

Again, this argument is an argument appealing to presumed facts. But it also argues from the presumed essential nature of governments: namely, they are always run by the owners of property.

A third and very different form of anarchist argument is a moral argument. It says:

3. Sense-2 governments are by their nature inherently evil. The evil of government cannot be improved or reduced. Government, after all, is the rule of a group (note the definition again) -- that is, of a few in a region -- over the rest. Such rule -- no matter how benevolently intentioned -- is inherently evil.

Why? The rule of some over others is inherently evil. Thus, rule ( and government in sense 2) is inherently evil.

And naturally this means that sense-2 governments must be abolished.

To further clarify the foregoing, the anarchists who take this position might continue as follows:

People have the natural human right to do whatsoever they wish, provided that they do not initiate the use of force or fraud against anyone else. (See the works of the Russian-American novelist-philosopher Ayn Rand (1905-1982), especially The Virtue of Selfishness, for arguments establishing this.) Thus any government that interfered with any human's wish to do what he or she wants, would be doing an evil thing. Thus any governmental act would be evil.

Thus all governments that act are evil. Since governments exist in order to act, they are all evil and must be abolished.

Before I answer these arguments I might mention that, to bolster their case, anarchists of whatever stripe often go on to describe the histories of the world's nations, which (as I have suggested above) they see as an unending, brutal, disgracefully violent spectacle of wars, fighting, imperialism, and conquest. Some anarchists (particularly the anarchists known as laissez-faire anarchists or (capitalist) libertarian anarchists -- with whom I am primarily but not solely concerned in this essay) then mention individual rights -- which they claim exist in nature, i. e., are natural rights. The laissez-faire anarchists claim that people's natural rights, which (for them) include the rights to life, liberty, and property, are necessarily and always violated by the existence of governments. Why? Because -- once again -- governments are organizations of a few to rule the rest.

I consider the anarchists' charges to be serious and interesting. I have devoted considerable effort and time to thinking about these charges, and shall answer them.

For the moment, let us back up. Let us consider why governments exist and, at present, have such strong popular support.

The Origins of Social Organization

Hunter-Gatherers

Originally, human beings evolved from bands of primitive hunter-gatherers. Within the bands the basic group was the extended family. Hunting cannot support large populations. It requires large areas. So the bands seem originally to have wandered very large areas in pursuit of game and edible plants.

Probably these early bands had little organization, but acquired more as they evolved. The organizations they had seem to have been the extended family, the band of a number of families, and -- sometimes -- the group of several (often related) bands, the tribe or people. (If we think of extended-families as, likely, having no more than 20 or 30 members at most, bands as having perhaps 50-60 members, and tribes as having no more than 100 or 200 members, we may be close to the truth, at least far back in time.)

As time elapsed, some organization had to exist for even a unit as small as a band. Someone had to organize hunting parties, gathering parties, and group child care. Someone had to get people to work together. Someone -- perhaps an older, influential, reputable person -- must have been chosen occasionally to decide disagreements, organize defence against other tribes, or be a representative to another tribe or band.

No group could survive long without organization. For the first organized and warlike group or tribe that came against an unorganized tribe might wipe them out.

Leaders Emerge

In larger tribes, there might have been a chief or leading man (occasionally a leading woman). Or there might have been a group of chiefs each with different responsibilities: some for war, some for hunting, some for other, various peacetime actions.

Some bands and tribes might have been very loosely, informally organized -- voluntaristic. Others -- particularly larger ones -- might have been less so.

(It is a fact well-known to those who have participated in both large and small groups, that larger groups require more organization than smaller ones. Larger groups often have more difficult, complex purposes, to achieve which requires extensive coordination.)

The supreme penalty for conduct disapproved of by the band or tribe was probably shunning: exile. If bands grew too large for a hunting area, the band might decide that one group of its members was to leave the area, another to stay. The group chosen to leave might volunteer to go, be helped to go, or be driven out.

Councils Emerge

Many bands or tribes probably had councils which talked over and decided issues. Perhaps they had to decide where the group would hunt next, or when they would leave for another territory. Probably some wise and experienced people's judgments were felt to be worth five or ten of the rest; that is, these persons were influential. Probably, in some tribes, some people tried to dominate proceedings and prevent others from speaking or organizing. Probably councils developed rules about who alone could participate, and when and where they could, and how they should proceed.

These rules of order would eventually become some of the tribe's basic and even sacred customs. They would be its tradition.

It is almost certain, in fact, that there was every kind of arrangement. Some modern bands or tribes of aborigines are extremely informal, consensual, and egalitarian; some are extremely formal, dictatorial, and violent. Much of this depends on the band or tribe's history, culture, customs, and situation.

Some arrangements might depend on the band's or tribe's numbers and prosperity. With large numbers, councils can become ungainly and administration difficult. With poverty or a crisis, council decisions might become desperately urgent.

Were These Councils Governments?

Sometimes, on inspection, most of us would agree that a particular band or tribe had, in effect, a government in sense 2. Its council came to a consensus, decided things, and that decision stood in its community. The people in the government believed in their system, and felt they were in the right to impose it.

But in other cases we might argue that the band or tribe had no sense-2 government. Their council simply was a voluntary consulting forum where individuals tried to persuade others of the facts, and to get cooperation. No one was in fact compelled to do anything. (Indeed, there are probably a few or more than a few tribal councils today that act this way.)

Socialist Anarchism

But some anarchists seem to believe that, beyond volunteer community action, compulsory unified community action is necessary. However, many of these anarchists do not believe in nations. Instead, they 1) believe in much smaller communities than nations -- often villages -- with active local participation, or 2) they advocate power be devolved on local communities (however defined). These "anarchists" believe that modern governments are too distant from ordinary people (often, these days, hundreds of kilometres distant; sometimes -- as in Canada or Russia -- thousands of kilometres distant). These "anarchists" (I'm using the quotes for a reason) believe that local councils with high participation rates make better, more informed, more legitimate decisions, and they therefore advocate such councils and the abolition of distant governmental control.

However, the introduction of compulsory unity into these situations by these anarchists must make us wonder whether they deserve to be called by their name. Can you be an anarchist if you believe in compulsory unified action?

Wouldn't such a compulsorily unified "anarchist" community run the danger of falling into the kind of horrible actions that the first anarchist argument against government describes? Wouldn't it run the risk of being taken over by the rich owners of property, as in the second anarchist argument against government? And wouldn't it, by its compulsory structure, violate the "natural rights" so precious in the third argument against government?

So it would appear that compulsory village or local councils would be in peril of all three arguments against government. For a compulsory local council would seem at least prima facie to be a quasi-government (in sense 2).

Some anarchists, of course, believe that local councils should and do get consensus from their people, and avoid (much) coercion.

Now while I am sympathetic to the desire of the anarchists of this type for local control, it seems to me that these kinds of "anarchist" are not actually anarchists. This kind of "anarchist" truly believes in government (in sense 2). He just wants it to be local. And this kind of "anarchist" ends up with some kind of compulsory organization. Is his local council not a government in sense 2? I think so.

Once again -- as so often -- it simply seems to be a matter of what kind of government is preferred. This kind of "anarchist" wants government to be local, as informal as possible, and responsive to the true desires of the collective community. Apparently, the organization this kind of "anarchist" believes in does not always have to be voluntary. (Often this kind of anarchist hasn't given much thought to what kind of matters the local council should control, and why only these. Would there be other matters that some other level of council should control? This too is often unclear.)

In other words, this kind of arrangement seems to me a government in sense 2. It has the effective power, probably because of the apparent consent of many of the small community, to enforce its will on the rest. It may be more informal than an official "government". It may be more "local", and have more local input.

But isn't it a kind of government?

Some anarchists seem to believe in what they call "anarchism" simply because they oppose what they think of as the capitalist (or socialist) state; it seems to them that only a breakdown of big nations into local councils can solve society's problems of unequal distribution of wealth and property. But many of the socialists who are anarchists do desire powerful compulsory councils; they simply want them to be local and anti-capitalist. They imagine that these councils (which they, for some reason, do not think of as governments) will work in a non-tyrannical, idealistic, socialist way.

I doubt that they would. I doubt that they would any more than larger, more distant governments do today. But at least (for the socialist anarchists) they would be socialist.

But I don't see that they necessarily would be. Wouldn't they be whatever local people wanted them to be? And that might not be socialist.

In the Russian Revolution of 1917 the soviets (worker councils) were clearly intended (at least by some idealistic Bolsheviks) to be local and responsive. They were intended to be spontaneous utopian-socialist groups that would deal fairly with local or occupational groups. And in Ukraine in 1919-1921 the anarchist areas under the leadership of Nestor Makhno (1889-1934) seem to have tried to work in a fair, responsive and cooperative way before they were overwhelmed by the more authoritarian Leninist Red Army.

In fact, except at the beginning when the Leninists had not yet seized control, the USSR's revolutionary soviets were always tightly controlled by the leadership of the Communist party. Had they not been, I think it is certain that every possible sort of soviet would have existed. But that is what the Communist party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) under the Russian revolutionary Vladimir Ilyich Lenin (1870-1924) did not want. It was part of Lenin's ideology that the revolutionary vanguard, i.e., Lenin and his closest associates, would tightly control and dominate even other CPSU members.

Laissez-Faire Anarchism

Other anarchists (and I am thinking of the laissez-faire anarchists) seem to believe that even local, very limited councils are evil. For even this much government is government (in sense 2), i.e., compulsory and controlling, and violating natural rights. Even a town council or a village informal body is too much government for these anarchists. Even small, local community governments with high levels of local participation and consensus would, they believe, necessarily violate individual rights. No matter how democratically councils operated, they would necessarily do evil. For even in "good" actions they would truly represent only those who voted for the majority decision. Thus, they would necessarily violate the rights of the minority that voted against the measure. And since creating a system to protect individual rights, not to violate them, is what these anarchists believe the anarchist crusade must be truly about, these anarchists oppose all forms of government, even the village and local councils.

Even constitutionally limited governments, the laissez-faire anarchists feel, do wrong and are wrong. They are evil by their essence. Even constitutionally limited governments must be abolished and society transformed into something better by other arrangements than government.

And these arrangements must be voluntary.

For these anarchists (let us call them laissez-faire or libertarian anarchists; their exemplar is the 19th century American anarchist Lysander Spooner (1808-1887), the author of No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority). For Spooner, the essence of proper society is that it must be entirely voluntary. No one must ever be compelled by the initiation of force or fraud, by either individuals or any council or group. The majority must never force a minority. (These anarchists can be fairly described, I think, as un- or anti-democratic, since they do not believe in majority rule. For them, the fact that a majority might wish some action does not make that action morally right; numbers are irrelevant; the only social acts that can be right are those that eschew the initiation of force or fraud. More on this later.)

To achieve their end of a decent society, the laissez-faire anarchists often advocate groups (think of them as like private business companies) called defence agencies which individuals could hire to protect their rights. You could hire any defence agency (I think). (Perhaps we should think of the defence agencies as peacefully competing organizations of armed security guards.) Your defence agency would defend you (or perhaps, retaliate) against anyone seeking to initiate force or fraud against you. (Presumably, this would include other defence agencies.) It would punish evildoers.

Let's summarize to this point.

Thus far, I have discussed two types of anarchists. One, remember, was the group advocating power be devolved to local or village councils. Historically, most of these anarchists were 19th century socialists like the Frenchman Pierre Joseph Proudhon (1809-1865), and the Russians Mikail Bakunin (1814-1876) and Prince Pyotr Alekseyevich Kropotkin (1842-1921). Three prominent 20th century anarchists of this type seem to me the American anarchist Murray Bookchin (b. 1921), the English anarchist Sir George Herbert Read (1893-1968), and the Canadian anarchist George Woodcock (1912-1995). In the 19th century many of this kind of anarchist referred to themselves as "libertarians".

Now in the 1960s the American philosopher-novelist Ayn Rand was an advocate of limited government. When her philosophic movement, Objectivism, split in the early 1970s, a group of its limited-government supporters began calling themselves "libertarians". They set up the U.S. Libertarian political party, and ran candidates for political office. They seemed pragmatic in their desire to reduce government power. They often welcomed into their party people, also originally splintered off from Rand's movement, who had disagreed with her about state power and had begun to call themselves "laissez-faire anarchists". These, like the Randist "libertarians" (and unlike the 19th-century socialist anarchists), believed in capitalism. But unlike Randist libertarians, they did not believe in states or sense-2 government.

So. We now have two groups, each calling themselves libertarians, who differ in aims. Some are socialists and anarchists. They believe that local groups should run their own affairs. Others, the descendants of Rand's movement, are either believers in small government and capitalism, or believers in anarchism and capitalism.

But they all call themselves libertarians, and the socialist libertarians (who are local anarchists) denounce the capitalist "anarchists" as phonies, usurpers of their own good name. Confusing, isn't it?

Now in the 1970s many Randist capitalist libertarian thinkers protested against the idea of defence agencies; they could not conceive how such a non-governmental system could ever work. Who would arbitrate if defence agencies disagreed? If you had one, and I had a different one, and they disagreed about our rights, which would prevail? The stronger? The more moral (whatever this would mean)? If you had a disagreement with your defence agency, who would decide between you and it? On what basis would this decision -- or any other -- be taken? Would different defence agencies operate by different rules? Who would decide between them? On what basis would they decide? What authority could defence agencies rightfully claim for their actions? Could differently-principled defence agencies co-exist?

To this, the laissez-faire anarchists replied: Since everyone would have an interest in settling matters in a peaceful, rational way, matters would in fact be settled in a peaceful, rational way. Reason would decide.

Many even of the laissez-faire anarchists' respectful critics were not, and are not today, so sure that such disagreements would or could be so rationally conducted and resolved.

Many feared that the result of defence-agency disagreements would be civil war.

Their fear goes back to the English philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1588-1682). Hobbes believed in absolute monarchy -- absolute rule by one person -- because he believed that only this system could settle violent disputes and bring overall peace and order. Only a sovereign -- as Hobbes named his monarch -- would have the ruthless, organized final power necessary to bring order. Hobbes did not have the confidence that laissez-faire anarchists or Kropotkinists have in ordinary people. Hobbes believed that the true nature of society -- if there were no monarch -- would be a state of "all against all", that human life in any system other than monarchy would probably be "solitary, nasty, brutish, and short". He believed that individuals, under any other system of government whatever (or under no government, i.e., an anarchy) would war (and had, in the distant, unorganized past, warred) all against each other. Only monarchy could save society from what -- since Hobbes painted his "state of nature" -- has been called, traditionally, anarchy.

Meaning (in this context): a violent state of civil disorder.

Hobbes had lived through the English Civil War. To avoid another was, no doubt, to him the paramount goal.

It may be because of Hobbes' arguments that anarchies are generally believed by the public to be necessarily violent and chaotic. The very word has taken on these connotations; so much so that this "vulgar sense" (as one anarchist called it) has made anarchy intellectually difficult to argue for.

Well. What can we say for government to answer the arguments of the anarchists??

I believe I have a number of practical and principled replies.

Next: Anarchism vs. Government, Part Two >>

This page last slightly modified: 3:45 PM 23/03/2003