Violence and anarchism
The image of anarchism is of violence and lawlessness. We can pretty much dismiss that for the silly myth it is. But if we consider Steven Pinker’s idea that the presence of a leviathan controlling and mediating between competing individuals and groups has played a large part in decreasing violence in history, then a couple of interesting points come up. His research indicates that most types of violence have declined considerably across the span of human history. So, the question is: if there is NO over-arching leviathan in an anarchist society then perhaps that may lead to an increase in violence? I’m not sure how there COULD be a powerful leviathan type figure of group in an anarchist society based on the voluntary cooperation of equals, with no rulers and no set hierarchy of power. Therefore, would the absence of the leviathan in such a society mean there was more violence? It’s a troubling point for anarchists - perhaps.
The second point may look for promising for anarchists: one of Pinker’s ideas is that a humanitarian revolution of the 17thC onward meant an increased focus on reason, rights, equality etc, combined with an increased empathy and self control, have also help decrease violence. Considering these aspects it seems to me that anarchism would be able to continue the process. Since a well functioning anarchist society would wish to emphasise equality, rights, the use of reason and science to decide issues... rather than habit, authority, religion or force. So, that humanitarian aspect could continue in an anarchist system, and probably extend.
Financial inequality would clearly be hugely reduced or overcome altogether. If that can be seen as one aspect connected to violence. There would also be a lot of ‘business interactions’ in an anarchist system - in terms of the process of various individuals and groups relating to each other during the business of getting on with normal production of what we need in life (food, clothes, transport, etc). Pinker notes that the increase in 'commerce' in our history has been a force decreasing violence, as people become more useful as business partners that we wish to foster good ongoing relationships with, rather than enemies to be killed. In anarchism the actual interactions of that commerce could continue much the same, just without the aspects of private profit and hierarchy of power.
Lastly, with no power elites needing protection there would be no forces of the state brutality used to violently suppress dissent. And to widen it out beyond physical violence, there would no or certainly much less ‘mental violence’ towards suppression of ideas and free speech and less violence done to the full development of our critical faculties.
However, two further point are troubling: how about suppression of people in your own area who wanted to continue a capitalist type system? And how about violence needed for protection against other countries who wanted to attack your anarchist experiment? Hmm...
The image of anarchism is of violence and lawlessness. We can pretty much dismiss that for the silly myth it is. But if we consider Steven Pinker’s idea that the presence of a leviathan controlling and mediating between competing individuals and groups has played a large part in decreasing violence in history, then a couple of interesting points come up. His research indicates that most types of violence have declined considerably across the span of human history. So, the question is: if there is NO over-arching leviathan in an anarchist society then perhaps that may lead to an increase in violence? I’m not sure how there COULD be a powerful leviathan type figure of group in an anarchist society based on the voluntary cooperation of equals, with no rulers and no set hierarchy of power. Therefore, would the absence of the leviathan in such a society mean there was more violence? It’s a troubling point for anarchists - perhaps.
The second point may look for promising for anarchists: one of Pinker’s ideas is that a humanitarian revolution of the 17thC onward meant an increased focus on reason, rights, equality etc, combined with an increased empathy and self control, have also help decrease violence. Considering these aspects it seems to me that anarchism would be able to continue the process. Since a well functioning anarchist society would wish to emphasise equality, rights, the use of reason and science to decide issues... rather than habit, authority, religion or force. So, that humanitarian aspect could continue in an anarchist system, and probably extend.
Financial inequality would clearly be hugely reduced or overcome altogether. If that can be seen as one aspect connected to violence. There would also be a lot of ‘business interactions’ in an anarchist system - in terms of the process of various individuals and groups relating to each other during the business of getting on with normal production of what we need in life (food, clothes, transport, etc). Pinker notes that the increase in 'commerce' in our history has been a force decreasing violence, as people become more useful as business partners that we wish to foster good ongoing relationships with, rather than enemies to be killed. In anarchism the actual interactions of that commerce could continue much the same, just without the aspects of private profit and hierarchy of power.
Lastly, with no power elites needing protection there would be no forces of the state brutality used to violently suppress dissent. And to widen it out beyond physical violence, there would no or certainly much less ‘mental violence’ towards suppression of ideas and free speech and less violence done to the full development of our critical faculties.
However, two further point are troubling: how about suppression of people in your own area who wanted to continue a capitalist type system? And how about violence needed for protection against other countries who wanted to attack your anarchist experiment? Hmm...