To what extent is Anarchism a single doctrine? (45 marks) Anarchism can be viewed as a single doctrine on the basis that all anarchists are coherent in their attitude to the state. However, there are incoherent ideas about what an anti-statist society will consist of, seen through the views of collectivist anarchists which is arguably socialism taken to its extreme and to individualist anarchism which has been described as liberalism taken to its extreme. Anarchists all agree on the anti-statist principles. Sebastian Faure described anarchism as a ‘negation of the principle of authority’.
To what extent do anarchists agree about the nature of the future stateless society? For Anarchists the state is oppressive and represents the few who seek to oppress the many. The state is also charged with taking away our freedom through subjecting us to its laws and controls that are artificial, offending the basic principle of individual sovereignty. Furthermore the state is seen as corrupting to those in power, those who come into government may do so with good motives, but inevitably lose their idealism and become exploiters themselves. It is for these reasons that all traditions within Anarchism wish to advance human kind through the removal of the state in society.
Power is a fundamental concept in conflict theory that attributes three perceptions of power. The first of these is distributive power, which refers to the use of power over and against another party; it occurs when a person is able to gain power by exerting her objective over the resistance of another (96). Here a power struggle emerges with the potential to spiral into a destructive cycle such that power itself becomes the main focus of thinking and discussion. Secondly, the integrative approach to power emphasizes power that has joined forces with another to pursue mutual objectives. This use can remedy a distributive power dilemma by recognizing that a power struggles exists when they allow it to define the relationship.
The following essay is based on ideologies, it will consider the concept of ideology itself and why it's so often carried negative associations, also look at the concept anarchist and why the demand the impossible and lastly look at feminism and fundamentalism and why it has grown in significant and if they have the potential to displace conventional thought. Why has the concept of ideology so often carried negative associations? Ideology is a group of ideas, beliefs, or position taken that comes to a decision about a view with which to take as having a certain cause grouping and political material facts. Political ideology has been a confusing topic for social analysts, and those who attempted to eschew judgmental reductions of others’ conceptions
Media often portrays Libertarians as anarchists based on their belief in limited government. This is inherently wrong, because believing in limited government is still believing in government. Libertarians don’t believe society could function without laws and regulations. Libertarians believe government should be limited to provide more control to the people. Their core desire is to help individuals regain control of their lives.
Born in pre-revolution Russia, Rand experienced firsthand the many social downfalls of the soviet creed, such as collectivism, fascism, and socialism. Her beliefs contain an “I” before “we” mentality. Objectivists despise religion in accordance to the philosophy of metaphysics. Metaphysics, in itself, accepts fact for fact. Rand says “Reality, the external world, exists independent of man’s consciousness, independent of any observer’s knowledge, beliefs, feelings, desires or fears…” (qtd.
author:love88 Karl Marx is the father of communism. In this essay “The Communist Manifesto” by Karl Marx argues that class struggles between the bourgeoisie and proletarians. Marx believed that all property should be publically owned. There would be no government, and everyone would work together for the good of the community. Thus, the society would be classless and stateless.
The realist theory of international order is about power and fear, in their view, power and fear form the basis of international order, its theory also emphasises on the absence of legitimate authority and the centrality of question of power, such as zero-sum power (Bromley, 2009, p.427). According to Kenneth Waltz, an international relations theorist, the states exist in an anarchical states system, Waltz also distinguishes the differences between the anarchy of international environment and national environment (Waltz, cited in Bromley, 2009, p.427). In the national realm, there is a government body or an authority where any citizen may appeal to or be compelled by, where as in the international realm, any such authority does not exist, this is known as ‘international anarchy’ (Bromley, 2009, p.428). Furthermore, whether the anarchical states-system is disorder or ordered, it depends on the working of the ‘balance of power’ (Bromley, 2009, p.428). This is because all states pose some degree of potential threats to others, so each state must act in ways to protect itself against the more powerful and threatening states in the system, otherwise risk falling behind, and because each state has to look after itself, it has reason to fear potentially
The nature of power may be explained as the possession of domineering influence. Such influence is brought upon by the exploitation of certain factors which as a result espouse fear or question in the minds of those being exposed to power. The beholder experiences, change in mind set, and values. Through the study of my chosen texts, the nature of power will be deconstructed to divulge the legitimacy in which the fickle nature of power results in the fact which, humanity rejects the pinnacles of our ethical values for other forms of power. It is the allusive factors between power and rationality which dramatically affects the stability of decisiveness.
Civil Bisobedience A quote regarding the role of the individual in society from Henry David Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience (1849) states that “If the machine of government is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law.” The question in regard to the individual inquires when one should disobey authority, if ever. Civil Disobedience is Thoreau’s way of not only implying, but putting directly forth his belief that, yes, in fact, one should disobey authority under certain circumstances; those circumstances subsisting for the better of society’s equality. The quote portrayed is informing that, if the law is requiring you to practice injusticeness and unfairness to another – due to