Essay on Liberalism and Anarchism
The current system under which the United States operates is liberalism although, it was damaged before, and the Trump administration has caused even greater damage. Some Americans have wanted to revolt since Trump was put into office against the will of the majority of Americans. Liberalism has failed. Socialism is the talk of many Democratic candidates for president, but Americans are afraid of socialism. They are even more afraid of anarchy—what they fear could occur though. Americans may have to decide between liberalism and anarchism in the near future.
The concept of liberalism came from the Enlightenment thought, which was about human reason, religious tolerance, and political and economic freedom. The Founders of the United States claimed liberalism and independence from King George III. They said that inalienable rights should apply to all men, but what they really meant was that they should apply to themselves and men like them: white property owners. The ideas of democracy and individual rights were included later, but still do not apply to every American and the inequalities have become obvious.
Liberalism became the politics of the United States because of liberal economics based mainly on Adam Smith and capitalism. Individual freedom meant the liberty to own a business without the state interfering. The individual rights of the Bill of Rights do not address the way one earns an income so much as they list the rights that others cannot violate. Although, some who champion liberalism question the right to an absolutely free market. Hayek says, “The successful use of competition does not preclude some types of government interference. For instance, to limit working hours, to require certain sanitary arrangements, to provide an extensive system of social services is fully compatible with the preservation of competition” (Thaler, Liberalism: Politics, Economics, Identities, and Global Orders 12). The liberalism that the United States often does not like these interferences. For example, conservatives always complain when workers want a raise the minimum wage because liberalism says employers should be able to pay their employees whatever the market supports.
Countries who practice liberalism do not go to war with each other, although they may defend another country that they feel is being unfairly attacked by someone wishing to end their liberal political system. Often, the United States and their allies have gone to war on the grounds of correcting a violation of human rights. They have caused people to hate them doing, bringing about terrorist attacks. Another liberal trait is globalization. Then liberalism sets up businesses in poor countries so that the wealthy American investor and the people of the country are both benefited. Of course, one receives more benefits than the other. David Bell of the New York Review of Books says liberal policies “try to make free-market policies more humane, but it does little to challenge the enormous inequalities they produce, and in fact diverts political energies from such challenges” (Bell 2). The leaders of these nations may see the benefit of tax revenue that globalization brings, but workers may not make enough to survive. At any moment, the wealthy Western investor could decide to invest in another country where the labor comes even cheaper.
Bell reviews and analyzes three books on liberalism whose authors trace its origins not to the American Revolutionary War, but to the French Revolution. Bell says, all three authors—Helena Rosenblatt, Dan Edelstein and James Miller—feel that liberalism may have “concerned itself too heavily with individual rights—above all, economic rights—as opposed to the common good. It has not paid enough attention to moral values and moral education, and it has not done enough to encourage broad democratic participation” (Bell 3). Every election people remark at how few young people vote, but it is not just young people. People of all ages do not vote because they feel they are not a part of the liberalism that the United States supports. In the last presidential election, liberalism gave the citizens of the United States Donald Trump as president even though he lost the popular vote by three million votes. The idea of democracy died with that incident not that the Founders ever believed in it anyway. They wanted democracy, but they wanted it to extend only to white property-owning males. Trump administration had brought back that idea.
It is clear to most Americans that liberalism does not work. There is increasing inequality among races, gender, socioeconomic classes—and the government either cannot or will not do anything to correct it. In fact, it seems as if congress has not agreed in years. No “liberal” legislation has been passed except for the Affordable Care Act in 2010, but that has been taken apart by conservatives, who also passed a tax cut for themselves, leaving poor people in an even worse state. The really important issues such as equality and global warming are ignored or made fun of.
Because of the rising inequality, many Americans have started to call for socialism. They want to have free education, healthcare and social security without it being controlled by the market. However, that word, “socialism,” has been associated with communism even though they are different. In concept, socialism is closer to anarchism. In action, of course, they are opposites although they hope for the same result.
Anarchism seeks to liberate all people from political and economic institutions that limit their freedom. Anarchists want no government. They believe that people can form their own partnerships and associations without the help or interference of the government. Anarchism does not discriminate based on religion, gender, race, sexual orientation, age, income or any other trait. Probably the most often mentioned criticism of anarchism though is the violence that is associated with it. Gage says, “Capitalist society was a place of constant violence: every law, every church, every paycheck was based on force. In such a world, to do nothing, to stand idly by while millions suffered, was itself to commit an act of violence” (Thaler, 19th & 20th Century Anarchism: Possibilities and Practices 10). Anarchism sees violence as morally required to rid the world of capitalism, liberalism and other damaging political forces.
Anarchism seeks equality of opportunity. If everyone has the same chance at healthcare, then poor children will not die at greater rates than wealthy children. If everybody has the same opportunity to go to college, then everybody will be able to get the education that lets them have the same chances at a good job. This is like socialism, but anarchism does not believe that the government should be organizing these opportunities. Anarchism says that it is the cooperation among the people themselves that will bring this type of system about. In “Statless Socialism: Anarchism,” Mikhail Bakunin says, “The carrying out of this task will of course take centuries of development. But history has already brought it forth and henceforth we cannot ignore it without condemning ourselves to utter impotence” (Bakunin 2). Perhaps it is that type of commitment to the cause that brings about the violence that is so often associated with anarchism.
Some will say that anarchism believes too strongly in the goodwill of humans toward each other. After all, Bakunin also says, “State should dissolve itself into a society freely organized in accord with the principles of justice” (Bakunin 3). In the United States, “the State” is the people. Convincing enough people to give up an organized government is not likely, so anarchism is not likely unless there is another revolution. Then anarchy may win at least while the fighting happens. The ideas of anarchy may become the way that society is organized, without political power in any form, without rulers, or bosses, or leaders of any sort—without politics completely.
Anarchism and socialism share the idea that everybody should have equal opportunities, but they do not share the idea that those opportunities should not be organized by someone with authority. Whereas socialism relies on the government, anarchism relies on people. Bakunin says, “There will be no possibility of the existence of a political government, for this government will be transformed into a simple administration of common affairs. Our program can be summed up in a few words: Peace, emancipation, and the happiness of the oppressed. War upon all oppressors and all despoilers” (Bakunin 4-5). Anarchists fight for the right to not have politics.
Liberalism fights for rights too. It focuses on equality of individual rights, but not so much equality of opportunity while exercising those rights. Socialism and anarchism want equality of opportunity, but want that to come from different sources. Liberalism has become too associated with an economic theory where opportunity is for those with the most money. Liberalism is too polluted with economics to be clean politics, and it will fight to keep its power and control. Neither liberalism or anarchism are perfect systems, and there may not be one. Hopefully, Americans will not have to choose between those two options in the near future.
Works Cited
Bakunin, Mikhail. "Statless Socialism: Anarchism." Maximoff, G.P. The Political Philosophy of Bakunin". New York: The Free Press, 1953. 1-8. 13 October 2019.
Bell, David A. "The Many Lives of Liberalism." 17 January 2019. New York Review of Books. Web. 13 October 2019. https://www.nybooks.com/articl....
Thaler, Kai M. "19th & 20th Century Anarchism: Possibilities and Practices." 8 October 2019. 13 October 2019.
—. "Liberalism: Politics, Economics, Identities, and Global Orders." 1 October 2019. 13 October 2019.
