To what extent do anarchists agree in terms of human nature?

Within the ideology of anarchism, there are vast disagreements in terms of human nature. This essay will highlight the contrasting views of collectivists and individualists on how a stateless anarchist society should work, as well as the most favourable economic system.

Both strands of anarchism, collectivist and individualists, uphold the idea that fundamentally, their image of a utopian society is compatible with the analysis of the potentialities of human nature- thus a natural order will form. Individualist anarchists argue that human beings are essentially rational creatures, inclined by education and enlightened judgement to live in accordance with universal moral laws. People have a natural propensity to organise their own lives in a harmonious and peaceful fashion. They will use their rationality to make agreements based on egoism- therefore creating a union that is peaceful and stable. Similarly, collectivist anarchists like Kropotkin highlight the malleable nature of humans. With the removal of the state and capitalism, humans would act in like with their innate desire for altruism. Within society, humans have the capacity for sociable and cooperative behaviour. They also believe in community agreements, basing communes around voluntary federations that would work on all levels, from local to international.

However, whilst individualists and collectivists agree that the state needs to be removed, they disagree on the qualities of human nature. Individualists see humans as rational, competitive, and atomistic. They therefore believe that if left alone, with the absence of the state, individuals would flourish. This view is particularly endorsed by Max Stirner, arguing that a ‘union of egos’ would emerge, consisting of individuals with their own interests operating as separate atoms. This view contrasts that of collectivist anarchists, who see our human nature as social, cooperative, altruistic beings who will thrive in a collectivist society. As opposed to one based around individuals. This idea clearly influences the anarcho-communist vision of as society made up of small, voluntary, mutual associations, such as the ones envisioned by Proudhon’s common ownership-based communes. The fundamentally contrasting visions of society held by collectivists and individualists, further highlights the dissimilarities of their views on human nature.

However, anarchists differ greatly on how they perceive the state of capitalism and private property and how this is compatible with our human nature. On one hand, collectivist anarchists group themselves with the poor and oppressed, therefore wishing for the complete abolishment of the state and the capitalist economy. They believe that capitalism is a threat to social order and our natural altruism; communities made up of common ownership and equal distribution of rewards would ensure that coercion would not be necessary. These communes, free from all forms of capitalism and private property would be small scale to allow direct democracy and all wealth to be of common ownership. Humans are social and cooperative. A focus on equality within the economy forms relationships based on mutual benefit. Key thinker Bakunin calls for collectivisation, the means of production are shared because ‘liberty without equality is just privilege and injustice’. By contrast, individualist anarchists and anarcho-capitalists argue that capitalism and private property can operate in an ordered way without regulation by the state, if there is a demand for something the market will supply it. Stirner highlights the egoist debate that the accumulation and retention of property is our main motivation because of our competitive nature; work is purposeful and the individual should retain the full fruits of their labour. They see economic competition as natural, so the maximisation of unregulated economic competition after the abolishment of the state is also natural.

In conclusion, anarchists hold broadly diverging beliefs on human nature. Their limited area of agreement, on the corrupting nature of the state, is outweighed by the disagreements. Whilst individualists believe capitalism is innately compatible with our competitive nature, collectivist anarchists believe it ultimately hinders our altruism and cooperative values. 

Nora