There are those who in every decade since the late 1800s have argued that all forms of organized government and society are repressive. Among those, certain people have stepped forward to justify “disorganization.” Ironically, they have become the “leaders” of anarchy. One oxymoronic “leader of anarchists” was Errico Malatesta, who published Anarchy in 1900.*
Errico’s diatribe against government and organized society has a number of unprovable assumptions, such as cooperative animal life as a workable analog for human co-existence. He believes that no overriding set of rules imposed by a governing body is necessary because the animal world has none, yet they survive based on self-preservation and species-preservation. What he doesn’t note is that a species can survive even if its individuals are at war over food or shelter. Numbers dictate the survival. Most (probably billions) of the species that have occupied this planet over the past 3.5 billion years are now extinct. Using for an argument the behavior of the current 5 to 50 million living species as a model of survival without “government” will fail as our contemporary denizens, probably including us, go extinct even as we voluntarily “cooperate.”
That anarchists organize should tell them something about the nature of their fundamental philosophy. But do they have some legitimate arguments?
Malatesta argues that it is governments that cause wars, and he has a point. In his view an ordinary citizen cannot call up an army and provide the logistics to fight another and distant country. Were he alive today Errico would see that cartel and tribal wars can do considerable harm within a region and terrorists can hurt others around the world under the instructions and influence of terrorist leaders. Malatesta also argues that where there are strict laws crime increases. You can devise arguments against that conclusion, also, since no one has a definitive list of crime's causes.** Although pacts and constitutions can precede crimes against their restrictions, most laws are in response to behaviors and perceived needs after the fact. But there’s another argument, the William Golding one. In Lord of the Flies Golding assumes an innate savagery that only societal restrictions can keep in check, even though that same uniformed society wages a savage war in that story.
Maybe Errico should have sat with Jane Goodall as she observed chimpanzees attacking neighboring chimpanzees. There was cooperation within a group, but not, obviously, between groups. Errico’s arguments come in the context of his time. Socialism was on the rise, and the Tzar was about to be overthrown. But anarchy? Does it assume an innate goodness in the individual all the while advocating violent overthrow by organized groups?
And today’s “anarchists”? They organize online and over the phone. Strange. They use public transportation and highways. Stranger. They have “leaders.” Strangest.
*Malatesta, Errico. Anarchy. The Free Society Library, 1900. Online at https://www.gutenberg.org/files/40365/40365-h/40365-h.htm
**Engelen, Peter-Jan, et. al., What determines crime rates? An empirical test of integrated economic and sociological theories of criminal behavior, Journal of Sociology, September, 2015, DOI: 10.1016/j.soscij.2015.09.001.
“Research on crime has by no means reached a definitive conclusion on which factors are related to crime rates.” Too late for poor Errico; he died in 1932 long before Engelen and his co-authors conducted their study. But, doesn’t that always seem to happen? We hold certain assumptions, never bother to flesh them out with concrete information, and write and act upon them. Errico saw crime in crowded cities and assumed an overriding government authority and a set of laws had instigated people to act criminally. See Engelen’s abstract online at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282468675_What_determines_crime_rates_An_empirical_test_of_integrated_economic_and_sociological_theories_of_criminal_behavior
Errico’s diatribe against government and organized society has a number of unprovable assumptions, such as cooperative animal life as a workable analog for human co-existence. He believes that no overriding set of rules imposed by a governing body is necessary because the animal world has none, yet they survive based on self-preservation and species-preservation. What he doesn’t note is that a species can survive even if its individuals are at war over food or shelter. Numbers dictate the survival. Most (probably billions) of the species that have occupied this planet over the past 3.5 billion years are now extinct. Using for an argument the behavior of the current 5 to 50 million living species as a model of survival without “government” will fail as our contemporary denizens, probably including us, go extinct even as we voluntarily “cooperate.”
That anarchists organize should tell them something about the nature of their fundamental philosophy. But do they have some legitimate arguments?
Malatesta argues that it is governments that cause wars, and he has a point. In his view an ordinary citizen cannot call up an army and provide the logistics to fight another and distant country. Were he alive today Errico would see that cartel and tribal wars can do considerable harm within a region and terrorists can hurt others around the world under the instructions and influence of terrorist leaders. Malatesta also argues that where there are strict laws crime increases. You can devise arguments against that conclusion, also, since no one has a definitive list of crime's causes.** Although pacts and constitutions can precede crimes against their restrictions, most laws are in response to behaviors and perceived needs after the fact. But there’s another argument, the William Golding one. In Lord of the Flies Golding assumes an innate savagery that only societal restrictions can keep in check, even though that same uniformed society wages a savage war in that story.
Maybe Errico should have sat with Jane Goodall as she observed chimpanzees attacking neighboring chimpanzees. There was cooperation within a group, but not, obviously, between groups. Errico’s arguments come in the context of his time. Socialism was on the rise, and the Tzar was about to be overthrown. But anarchy? Does it assume an innate goodness in the individual all the while advocating violent overthrow by organized groups?
And today’s “anarchists”? They organize online and over the phone. Strange. They use public transportation and highways. Stranger. They have “leaders.” Strangest.
*Malatesta, Errico. Anarchy. The Free Society Library, 1900. Online at https://www.gutenberg.org/files/40365/40365-h/40365-h.htm
**Engelen, Peter-Jan, et. al., What determines crime rates? An empirical test of integrated economic and sociological theories of criminal behavior, Journal of Sociology, September, 2015, DOI: 10.1016/j.soscij.2015.09.001.
“Research on crime has by no means reached a definitive conclusion on which factors are related to crime rates.” Too late for poor Errico; he died in 1932 long before Engelen and his co-authors conducted their study. But, doesn’t that always seem to happen? We hold certain assumptions, never bother to flesh them out with concrete information, and write and act upon them. Errico saw crime in crowded cities and assumed an overriding government authority and a set of laws had instigated people to act criminally. See Engelen’s abstract online at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282468675_What_determines_crime_rates_An_empirical_test_of_integrated_economic_and_sociological_theories_of_criminal_behavior
RSS Feed