1, 3 - Anarchist rejection of authority and Goldman’s revolution

State, authority and power

Anarchism begins by challenging the state's claim that it has a right to command us.

A state is the continuing sovereign organisation claiming authority over people within a territory. A government is the particular arrangement through which that rule operates: a monarchy, dictatorship or elected administration, for example. Replacing one government with another can leave the state's courts, police, law and power to compel obedience in place. Anarchists therefore seek more than a change of rulers.

The distinction matters. A police officer may enforce a law because the state claims legitimate authority to make it. Physical force is the power behind that claim. Ideas about patriotism, respectability or duty can also persuade people that obedience is necessary. Anarchists question both the coercive instrument and the belief that makes its use appear rightful.

Their objection has three connected elements. Coercion makes a person obey through the threat of punishment, even when that person has not freely agreed. Deceit presents the interests of rulers or powerful groups as the interests of everyone. Economic injustice arises when law protects an unequal distribution of productive resources and helps those who own them maintain control over others. These are anarchist arguments about the state, rather than neutral descriptions accepted by all political traditions.

For example, suppose an owner controls the only workshop available to a community. The law protects the owner's power to exclude workers unless they accept its terms. A collectivist anarchist would see the worker's dependence and the state's protection of ownership as linked. Electing a kinder minister might alter some conditions without removing that dependence.

Anarchists also argue that being ruled damages human nature. Dependence encourages obedience and discourages initiative; commanding others encourages arrogance and the preservation of privilege. On this account, power can corrupt well-intentioned rulers because their position gives them an interest in remaining powerful.

Liberty, autonomy and human nature

For an anarchist, liberty depends on people directing their own lives rather than obeying a superior's will.

Autonomy means self-government: a person exercises judgement and accepts responsibility without being subject to the will of the state or another person. This does not require living alone. Choosing to cooperate can express autonomy; being compelled to cooperate by a ruler cannot be treated as the same thing.

Political authority conflicts with liberty because it gives some people a standing power to command others. An anarchist's objection consequently extends beyond a harsh ruler. Even a government elected by a majority issues rules binding people who did not agree with them. The question is whether a majority's support can create a right to rule a dissenting individual.

Authority can operate in society and the economy, too. A social convention can make people suppress their choices to avoid exclusion. An employer's control of resources can make a worker accept conditions through necessity. For social anarchists such as Goldman, liberty therefore includes release from economic dependence and restrictive social expectations, as well as release from state interference. A person who is legally free but unable to secure food except by submitting to another's control may have little effective independence.

There is genuine disagreement inside anarchism about the human nature that would sustain freedom. Collectivist anarchists emphasise rationality, cooperation and altruism, concern for others' welfare. They argue that unequal and authoritarian institutions frustrate these capacities, while freely organised cooperation develops them. Individualist anarchists emphasise the rational, autonomous, self-interested person. They expect people to make their own judgements and form arrangements that serve their interests. Competition need not disappear in that account.

Imagine neighbours jointly maintaining a water supply. One explanation is that people recognise a shared need and care about one another. Another is that each benefits from a reliable supply and voluntarily exchanges effort for that benefit. Both can explain cooperation without a state. They disagree about whether a commitment to the community should have priority when an individual's immediate interest conflicts with it.

Avoid the claim that every anarchist believes people are naturally generous. The common belief is that imposed political authority is incompatible with freedom. The explanations of human motivation and the economic conditions needed for autonomy are more varied.

Goldman, revolution and direct action

Emma Goldman treats the state's coercion as a moral problem that cannot be solved merely by electing better officials.