Anarchism and Democracy

By:

Randall Perez

Poli Sci 110

Professor Adams
 Mainstream political science and canonical political theory promote

democracy as being the basis and foundation of what they consider a free society.

However, mainstream political thinkers use a definition of freedom and democracy

much different than my own. In this paper I am going to explore both canonical and

critical ideas of democracy and social organization in political theory. Using text

from a critical thinker such as Emma Goldman, I will look at anarchist ideas on

social organization, hierarchy and their influence on democracy and society as a

whole. I will contrast those views with those of canonical political science scholars

such as Iris Marion Young, Christine Barbour and Gerald Wright who promote the

status quo as the quintessential form of democracy. I will attempt to provide insight

into the idea of social hegemony through the lens of Anarchist political theory. I

will also provide a critique of the concept of American individualism. Allowing

people direct democratic control over decisions that affect their own lives is

essential to the pure vision of democracy and can create more peaceful and free

society.

According to Barbour and Wright's political science text Keeping the Republic,

a democracy is a non-authoritarian governmental system wherein "government is

not external to the people, as it is in authoritarian systems; in a fundamental sense,

government is the people" (Barbour & Wright 2006, 15). Given this definition of

democracy, Western democracy and in particular the democratic republic of the

United States fall very short of keeping within this idea of what a democracy

should look like. Corporations hold overwhelming sway over our political

representatives and strongly influence the decisions they make. Elections cost
money, lots of it. We live in an ever more digitized society and as such most

political campaigns are conducted over the airwaves, on the internet and TV

screens. Buying TV advertising is an expensive proposition. Every election seems

to break records for campaign spending. This money has to come from somewhere,

and more often than not it comes from corporations that may not have the public's

best interest at heart.

Most political scientists argue that the people have chosen to live under

governmental rule. "The central idea here is that no government is considered

legitimate unless the governed consent to it, and people are not truly free unless

they live under a law of their own making" (Barbour & Wright 2006, 15). The

reality, however, is that we the people are not free to choose whether or not we

want to live under governmental rule. Not only are we not given a choice, any

suggestion of living in a society absent of government or lacking a state is referred

to as lawless chaos. Those in power condition us to believe that we need them for

our own well being.

The entire idea of government rests on the fundamental premise of the social

contract. According to John Locke, "When [people] decide they are better off with

government than without it, they enter into a social contract, giving up some of

those rights in exchange for the protection of the rest of their rights by a

government established by the majority" (Barbour & Wright 2006, 17). In other

words, the existence of government assumes that we all, at some point, chose to

give up our right to real democratic control in order to benefit from the collective

and authoritative protection of the state. I certainly never agreed to any social
contract, spoken or unspoken, and I would argue that the protection of the State is

provided for the benefit of the State itself and wealthy property owners therein, not

for the people. Scholars have argued that "...people consent to being governed

because they are better off that way...life without government is 'solitary, poor,

nasty, brutish, and short' in Hobbes's words and 'inconvenient' in Locke's" (Barbour

& Wright 2006, 17) However, I believe this is inaccurate and stems from a

fundamental distrust in people.

Upon the foundation of America and the development of what has become

Western democratic society, we developed our own form of democracy known as

representative democracy. This form of government utilizes a fairly explicit form

of a social contract where people vote for a representative to act on their behalf and

represent their interests in shaping political decisions and government policy. This

form of government was created to account for the problem of large population

growth. ."Most theorists agree that democracy is impossible in practice if there are

a lot of citizens that all have to be heard from" (Barbour & Wright 2006, 18).

Representative democracy allows governments to control larger spans of territory

because direct democracy is far too difficult to organize across large scale nation

states and large populations. This idea was echoed by James Madison who

"rejected notions of 'pure democracy,' in which all citizens would have direct power

to control government, and opted instead for what he called a 'republic.' A

republic, according to Madison, differs from a democracy mainly in that it employs

representation and can work in a large state" (Barbour & Wright 2006, 18). This
sentiment among our nation's founders led to the system of representative

democracy still used today.

Representative democracy is problematic for a variety of reasons. First, it

disconnects the majority of the public from the decisions made by its government.

While representatives are supposed to represent the needs, ideas, and issues of the

people that elected them, in practice this is hardly the case. We are all individuals

with our own thoughts, ideas, beliefs, needs and problems. This is especially true in

the US, as our political system forces us to identify within a tight confine of a

particular party ideology, however, in reality we are much more complex and

dynamic. Public participation is limited between identifying with one of the two

party's political ideologies and then allowing them to cast votes that supposedly

represent that subsection of the population. However, the individuality of humans

leads to both complex and subtle differences in our ideas and beliefs. This makes it

nearly impossible for one person to represent the needs and ideas of thousands.

The other problem with representative democracy is that a select few

individuals gain enormous power over the collective. Although "[t]he founders

hoped the representatives would be older, wealthier, and wiser than the average

American and that they would be better able to make cool and rational decisions"

(Barbour & Wright 2006, 18), I believe this is both an elitist and naive point of

view. First, it assumes that people are not smart enough to make their own

decisions. It also assumes that there are no outside influences affecting the

decisions that our representatives make. Given the huge number of lobbyists in

Washington today, one would have to be very misinformed to assume that

representatives would be able to make unbiased and rational decisions on behalf of

the people.

In the Handbook of Political Science, Iris Marion Young provides an

interesting critique of representative forms of democracy. She explains that: "With

some exceptions this literature [on representative democracy] tends to conceive

citizens as rights-bearers and receivers of state action, rather than as active

participants in public decision making" (Young 1996, 44). In contrast, Young

clearly recognizes the inherent problems that stem from a democratic republic. She,

in fact, calls for people to have more direct democratic control over their

government: "Participatory approaches to democratic theory hold that democracy is

a hollow set of institutions if they only allow citizens to vote on representatives to

faraway political institutions and protect those citizens from government abuse. A

fuller democracy in principle means that people can act as citizens in all the major

institutions which require their energy and obedience" (Young 1996, 45). However,

in doing so, she ignores the practical limitations of attempting to allow such a large

populace over such a large territory to have direct control over decisions that are

made. Allowing people the opportunity to vote on every legislative decision

managed by our representatives would create absolute government gridlock. This

problem leads us back to the challenges of participatory democracy and why the

US founders established a republic in the first place. To truly break out of this

catch-22, we need to consider other alternatives that would bring us closer to our

original values of democracy, freedom, and equality. Critical thinker Emma

Goldman has provided us with an alternate view on these ideas.

 Emma Goldman was born in Russia on June 27th, 1869 to a Jewish Family.

Russia was under czar rule at the time and as such, she directly witnessed and

experienced the direct effects of a corrupt and overreaching state. At an early age

she found herself reading the books of forbidden novelists such as Chernechevsky

and Turgenev. Goldman also began looking admiringly to revolutionaries that had

fought against the repressive rule of the czars. As a result of this early attitude she

began to question anything and everything around her. So naturally at 15 when her

father attempted to marry her off, she protested and eventually left to America.

“Goldman had high hopes for America, she went in search of freedom and

opportunity. What she found however was repression, squalor and hard times”

(Shulman 1998, 22). When eight anarchists in Chicago were wrongfully

imprisoned, she found herself quickly identifying with their ideals. They were in

fact espousing many similar ideas to those of authors found in her native Russia.

This led to the development of her anarchism and these views will be the

foundation of this paper's argument from an anarchist perspective.

Anarchism is traditionally understood as the "most extreme form of non-

authoritarianism" which would "do away with government and laws altogether"

(Barbour & Wright 2006, 15). It has been critiqued as completely lacking

structure, order and rules and, therefore, being impossible to practice in reality. In

contrast to this conventional view, Goldman defines 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 necessary" (Shulman 1998, 64). Goldman's definition has shaped my

view of anarchism as well as many others who would consider themselves

anarchists.

Anarchism, in my opinion, is the purest form of democracy. It allows the

individual the creative freedom to make decisions for himself or herself. An

anarchist community would be one in which individuals could come together to

collectively make decisions to meet their needs. This is known as direct democracy

and it is an essential tenant of anarchism. Anarchism is not shaped by a strict

adherence to particular ideas or ideology, outside of the inherent opposition to

capitalism and the state. As such, a community organized with anarchist ideals can

be shaped to fit the particular needs of that community. These communities would

be voluntary, and would lack any particular social hierarchy. While anarchism

values social equality, it is different than socialism in that all social participation is

done voluntarily and lacks the overbearing and often violent, controlling nature of

the state.

Goldman argues that the state both uses and requires the perpetuation of

violence. “Moreover, the inherent conservatism of government, of authority of any

kind, unavoidably becomes reactionary. For two reasons: first because it is in the

nature of government not only to retain the power it has, but also to strengthen,

widen and perpetuate it, nationally as well as internationally” (Shulman 1998, 115).

We have seen this sort of perpetuation of power by the state throughout history.

However, with the US engaged in two wars overseas and an ever expanding global

empire this could not be more true today.

 Goldman believed that capitalism was repressive in nature. She viewed

capitalism as a form of class warfare against the poor. While being critical of the

institution of marriage, Goldman makes this comparison to capitalism: “It is like

that other paternal arrangement – capitalism. It robs man of his birthright, stunts

his growth, poisons his body, keeps him in ignorance, in poverty and dependence,

and then institutes charities that thrive on the last vestige of man’s self respect”

(Shulman 1998, 210). Goldman has also questioned the overarching power of

government that removes people's individual liberties. “The state and the political

and economic institutions it supports can exist only fashioning the individual to

their particular purpose; training him to respect 'law and order,' teaching him

obedience, submission and unquestioning faith in the wisdom and justice of

government” (Shulman 1998, 119). Here, Goldman is critiquing the idea of the

social contract. She rejects the notion that we give up our right to direct democratic

control in return for protection provided by the state.

The concept of individualism has played a significant role in the foundation of

American politics from the beginning. With the election of Obama, and the right-

wing base that has risen up as a result, the concept of American individualism is

getting more attention than ever. Conservatives strongly promote the idea of the

American individual, the idea of pulling yourself up by your bootstraps. To most

conservatives in America, individual liberty, especially in regards to personal

economic investment, is essential to our way of life. Conservatives promote the

idea of individualism from the capitalist perspective. Individuals in a “free society”

can work for themselves and have an equal opportunity at being successful in
society. The book Keeping the Republic argues that individualism is essential to

American politics:

The individualistic nature of American political culture means that individuals, not
government or society, are seen as responsible for their own well-being. This
notion contrasts with a collectivist social democratic point of view, which holds
that what is good for society may not be the same as what is in the interest of
individuals. Thus our politics revolves around the belief that individuals are the
best judges of what is good for them; we assume that what is good for society will
automatically follow. (Barbour & Wright 2006, 23).

However, the most recent economic crisis has shown that what is good for

individuals, especially in the capitalist economic sense, is not good for society.

Banks like Goldman Sachs made billions of dollars betting on the economy

collapsing, while telling their own investors to put money into the very assets they

were betting against. Here we see that a few with power or authority benefit while

the majority suffers the consequences.

Anarchism also strongly believes in the power of individuals but the

anarchist interpretation of the individual is quite different. Goldman’s view of the

individual is in resistance to the blind faith and patriotism that comes with being

indoctrinated as a citizen of the state. This quote from Goldman on the individual

explains this concept quite well: “The individual is the true reality in life. A cosmos

in himself, he does not exist for the State, nor for that abstraction called “society”,

or the “nation”, which is only a collection of individuals” (Shulman 1998, 111).

Goldman is very critical of any view that involves everyone conforming to one

identity. For example, the idea that we are all American citizens working towards a

specific goal of supporting American ideas of democracy, freedom and liberty.

 While anarchism, and Goldman in particular, believe that people thrive

without the oppressive nature of the state, Goldman was very critical of the

conservative view of individualism. She actually believed that the concept of

American individualism both repressed and defeated the individual and

individuality as a whole:

Individuality is not to be confused with the carious ideas and concepts of

“individualism;” much less with that rugged individualism which is only a
masked attempt to repress and defeat the individual and his individuality, So
called Individualism is the social and economic laissez-faire: the exploitation
of the masses by the classes by means of legal trickery, spiritual debasement
and systematic indoctrination. (Shulman 1998, 112)

However, perhaps this indoctrination could be reversed. In Of Habit, Felix

Ravaisson argues that social constructs and ideas are merely formations of habit

(Ravaisson 2008). We are socialized into particular ideas of human nature, but

human nature is really just a consequence of habit. But, like all habits, this too can

be changed. However, this can only be changed once habit itself is recognized and

acknowledged.

I don't pretend to have all the answers, I don't think anyone does. However, I

think it is pretty safe to say that what we have been doing is not working. The US

in particular has an economy in crumbles, is fighting two wars, all while

maintaining a global empire of historical proportions in order to maintain its place

as the world's pre-eminent super power. In the mean time, we claim that we are the

richest country on earth. Yet, we have a gigantic homeless population, a huge

faction of the population well under the poverty line, and a shrinking middle class.
Now is probably the best time to begin strongly considering alternative forms of

social and economic organization.

Anarchism is simply one form of social organization among many different

types. Under the basic ideology that is anarchism, many tenants of thought exist. I

believe anarchism works because it isn't confined to any one form or concept. It is a

living, breathing entity in the sense that the only strict confines contained within it

are opposition to the state, capitalism and ownership of property. Outside of those

confines, it can be shaped to fit the needs of any particular community. I see

anarchism working in small communities of people who work together to form

common consensus and promote the idea of mutual aid amongst one another.

Without the overbearing nature of the state, or the selfishness that is inherent in

capitalism, the human possibilities are endless. It may seem a little utopian, and

perhaps it is, but if we can't envision a better future, than nothing can ever change.

" Every daring attempt to make a great change in existing conditions, every lofty
vision of new possibilities for the human race, has been labeled Utopian."
- Emma Goldman
Works Cited:

Barbour, Christine, and Gerald Wright. Keeping the Republic, Power and
Citizenship in American Politics. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2006. Print.
Ravaisson, Felix. Of Habit. New York, NY: Continuum International Publishing
Group, Translated 2008. Print.
Shulman, Alix. Red Emma Speaks, An Emma Goldman Reader. 3rd ed. Amherst,
NY: Humanity Books, 1996. Print.
Young, Iris. A New Handbook Of Political Science. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press, 1996. Print.