My Thoughts: A Critique Of Anarchism As A Social Model

There are quite a few posts supporting anarchism as a social system on Steemit; the motivation for making this post was in part to respond to a particular post I read by @sterlinluxan. You can find it here. But also, one of my closest friends is a heavy supporter of anarchism. We often engage in heated debates over the topic, and I thought it would be a good idea to bring that discussion onto Steemit. My own personal persuasions regarding this topic are irrelevant. I want to play devil’s advocate to this notion of anarchism as a social system. I believe engaging in this topic will be to the intellectual benefit of everyone, regardless of which side you may be so inclined to support.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What Is Anarchism As A Social Model?

The nature of cryptocurrencies and their decentralised nature often attracts a certain type of person. That being those who subscribe to the social concept of anarchism. This is not particularly surprising given that a fundamental element of cryptocurrency is that there is no central authority to exercise control over its functions.

Anarchists subscribe to the belief that, in society, individuals should be able to do whatever they please, as long as it does not interfere with the ability of others to do what they choose. They are opposed to the notion of governments and coercive institutions, such as the police and the army, as a system of governance. Instead, it is advocated that community itself is sufficient for the taking of decisions. This interpretation is a far cry from the conventional manner in which anarchism is depicted. The objective of anarchism is not to bring about a chaotic social order. It instead seeks to bring to the forefront, the importance of individuality and the ability to do that which one desires, without the possibility of constraint.

Corruption of Government & Abuse of Rights

The anarchist social model does seemingly have its advantages when compared to the current statist social model. In an anarchist society, one would be free from the control of government authority. Anarchist opposition to governments really is the foundation on which the social model rests. Governments often do possess corrupt individuals that mismanage resources, and ofttimes abuse citizens’ rights. Take for example North Korea, where a significant portion of the population face subjugation under the leadership of Kim Jong-un. It is in this centralisation of power into the hands of governments that anarchists take issue. It is argued that the decentralisation of power, diffused throughout an equal community, would prevent this corruption and abuse of citizens' rights.

However, the author is extremely sceptical at the notion that the decentralisation of power into communities, as the anarchist model advocates, is ideal. The fact of the matter is, decentralising power into communities is arguably far less efficient for decision making. As humans, we tend to hold views that may be very different to the opinions of others. It is this human trait that really throws the anarchist model into question. How can we be expected to make decisions and manage ourselves when, as humans, we can prescribe to such contrasting views on how things should be done? Furthermore, the development of society is rendering its landscape as an ever increasingly complex one. It is extremely doubtful that a communal decision making model that anarchism advocates, would be sufficient in responding to these societal developments. There is no question that the current form of government has its deficiencies. However this author submits that the focus should be on remedying these inadequacies in government, so that corruption is limited in its effects and citizens’ rights are not abused. The alternative of completely abolishing governments presents its own set of problems that are arguably much harder to overcome.

Anarchism In Increasing Our Freedom

Another derivative advantage of abolishing governments is the benefit that would be gained in terms of an individual’s freedom. Anarchists argue that a society absent of government would not be able to create laws to restrict one’s autonomy. For example, some states prohibit the consumption of drugs. If one breaks that rule, then the consequence of punishment, in the form of a prison sentence, is likely to be administered. For anarchists, this coercive nature of the state -rules backed by punishment- is one that cannot exist in a truly anarchist society. A key pillar of the anarchist social model is being able to do whatever you want, and rules backed by punishment would impinge on such a freedom.

The author takes considerable issue with the presented analysis. If we accept that the anarchist social model concerns itself with protecting one’s freedom, by eradicating governments, how exactly is one meant to guarantee that freedom?

Take this scenario for example:

Adam, living in an anarchist society, proclaims that Facebook is the best social media platform in the world. However, Eve being a die-hard Steemit fan disagrees with Adam, and subsequently beats him up for making such a ludicrous statement.

In this scenario, what redress does the anarchist model allow Adam? Are Eve’s actions perfectly permissible in the anarchist model? if they are not acceptable, and some sort of punishment is brought forth, then surely a rule backed by punishment has been created? Does this not contradict the very basis on which the anarchist model sits? The problem is this, it is extremely difficult to guarantee the freedom conferred upon someone, without the existence of a form of punishment to deter those individuals that are willing to impinge on that freedom. If there is no punishment for encroaching on the freedom of another, then the anarchist model is seemingly relying on the goodwill of humans in safeguarding those freedoms. This is obviously a bizarre notion to accept; why on earth should Adam rely on Eve’s goodwill in making sure he is not beaten up when he declares that Facebook is better than Steemit? It is this possibility of human infringement on the rights of another that makes one question if individual freedom would indeed be expanded under the anarchist social model.

Conclusion

The anarchist social model is a seemingly faulty one. The prospect of the decentralisation of power to communities presents challenges that are honestly insurmountable. As well as this, the objective of expanding freedoms under the anarchistic social model is seemingly one that can only be achieved via means of contradiction or absurdity. The problems that the anarchist social model seeks to remedy, are issues that can be fixed by focusing one’s efforts on deficiencies that exist in the current social model. This is no easy feat by any means, but surely this is a more practical solution than the one offered by the anarchist social model?

Feel free to comment below, offering your own perspective on the matter and highlighting anything that I may not have considered.

Make sure to check out my most recent post that'll help minnows everywhere, here.

@bisade

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sources

Image 1

Image 2

Image 3

Image 4

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------