To what extent does anarchism agree on human nature?
Although it can be argued that all anarchists hold a generally positive view of human nature,
trusting that humans can exist peacefully without a state, this is generally where the
agreement ends. Some anarchists, mainly individualist anarchists believe that human nature
is naturally self interested, while collectivist anarchists believe the exact opposite, and argue
that human nature is naturally communal and altruistic, some even arguing that human
nature is entirely shaped by environment and is not innate.
One way in which all anarchists agree on human nature is their broadly positive and
optimistic view of it. Anarchists believe that throughout history, human nature has been
corrupted by the state and society, and that humans have the capacity to be productive and
coexist peacefully without a state in place. This optimistic view of human nature is held by
both collectivist and individualist anarchists. One good example of this from the point of view
of an individualist is Max Stirner. Stirner believed that humans are naturally rational and
autonomous, and that the state and even morality was just a tool of constraint. This positive
view of human nature is mirrored by collectivist anarchists such as Peter Kropotokin, who
believed that human nature was social and cooperative, but was corrupted by the authority
of the state and people would co exist peacefully without this agent of corruption.
Nevertheless, it should also be stated that anarchists differ to a greater extent, individualist
and collectivist anarchists holding opposing views on the exact nature of humans. While both
argue that the state is not necessary to maintain order and that the state of nature is a good
model to base society on, they disagree to a great extent on how humans operate naturally.
Individualist anarchists, such as Max Stirner and Emma Goldman argue that humans are
naturally egoists and self interested. Emma Goldman argued that humans were naturally
autonomous individuals which operated in a system of social harmony, which was then offset
by the state, which uses patriotism and militarism to suppress individualism. This is in direct
contrast to collectivist anarchists such as Peter Kropotkin, who believed that human nature is
altruistic and co-operative, and believed that society would be harmonious and peaceful if
we were to live in a society in which human nature was not corrupted by the authority of the
state.
It can also be argued that all anarchists are united in their somewhat negative view of human
nature, given that they argue in favor of decentralization as humans exposed to political
power will inevitably be corrupted by it. One example of this would be Peter Kropotkin, who
argued for decentralization and self management in society for this exact reason. This notion
Although it can be argued that all anarchists hold a generally positive view of human nature,
trusting that humans can exist peacefully without a state, this is generally where the
agreement ends. Some anarchists, mainly individualist anarchists believe that human nature
is naturally self interested, while collectivist anarchists believe the exact opposite, and argue
that human nature is naturally communal and altruistic, some even arguing that human
nature is entirely shaped by environment and is not innate.
One way in which all anarchists agree on human nature is their broadly positive and
optimistic view of it. Anarchists believe that throughout history, human nature has been
corrupted by the state and society, and that humans have the capacity to be productive and
coexist peacefully without a state in place. This optimistic view of human nature is held by
both collectivist and individualist anarchists. One good example of this from the point of view
of an individualist is Max Stirner. Stirner believed that humans are naturally rational and
autonomous, and that the state and even morality was just a tool of constraint. This positive
view of human nature is mirrored by collectivist anarchists such as Peter Kropotokin, who
believed that human nature was social and cooperative, but was corrupted by the authority
of the state and people would co exist peacefully without this agent of corruption.
Nevertheless, it should also be stated that anarchists differ to a greater extent, individualist
and collectivist anarchists holding opposing views on the exact nature of humans. While both
argue that the state is not necessary to maintain order and that the state of nature is a good
model to base society on, they disagree to a great extent on how humans operate naturally.
Individualist anarchists, such as Max Stirner and Emma Goldman argue that humans are
naturally egoists and self interested. Emma Goldman argued that humans were naturally
autonomous individuals which operated in a system of social harmony, which was then offset
by the state, which uses patriotism and militarism to suppress individualism. This is in direct
contrast to collectivist anarchists such as Peter Kropotkin, who believed that human nature is
altruistic and co-operative, and believed that society would be harmonious and peaceful if
we were to live in a society in which human nature was not corrupted by the authority of the
state.
It can also be argued that all anarchists are united in their somewhat negative view of human
nature, given that they argue in favor of decentralization as humans exposed to political
power will inevitably be corrupted by it. One example of this would be Peter Kropotkin, who
argued for decentralization and self management in society for this exact reason. This notion
