In response to Sean McCauley’s March 6 column “A case against anarchism.”
I do not believe in the principles of anarchism, but I do believe that one should understand a political philosophy before making an unprovoked attack on it. Sean McCauley’s claim that there is no such thing as a stable anarchist society is certainly debatable. While many anarchist societies have failed, there are examples of societies such as the Twin Oaks Community and the Stapleton Colony that still exist today. Most anarchist societies that have collapsed did so for reasons far more complicated than “hierarchy is necessary in order to survive”.
The column suggests that anarchists are somehow stupid for seeing the potential for evil in government. The assertion that “governments protect their citizens” is a sweeping generality that is undeniably false in some cases. It can be proven that some governments do in fact blind and subdue the citizen, contrary to what is written in the article. Mr. McCauley makes the common mistake of assuming that an anarchist society is a society without structure or repercussions for actions, stating that, “eliminating any sort of social hierarchy is eliminating any sort of consequence for any malevolent action an individual may commit”. There is structure in most anarchist societies, but the key idea is simply that the structure does not come from the state. Anarchy does not mean that a citizen can murder and steal at will without fear of punishment, but rather that a citizen would be held accountable by fellow members of his or her community for any wrongdoing instead of by a hierarchal government.
While most people would agree that there is a substantial case against anarchism, it is difficult to express that case without first properly understanding what anarchism is.
Bryan LoBrutto
Filmmaking Practices Undergraduate
Click here to subscribe to the daily State Press newsletter.
