Within the ideology of anarchism, there are vast disagreements in terms of the state. Although there is a fundamental rejection of the state in any form, this essay will highlight the contrasting views of collectivists and individualists on how the system should be overthrown and for what reason.

Fundamentally, all anarchists reject any form of state within society. Collectivist anarchists argue that all forms of government rely on violence and commandment and thus, liberty is restricted. Key thinker Emma Goldman focuses her anger on patriotism and militarism, within society the state utilises the law and police force to restrict autonomy and individuality. Once old hierarchies are pulled down, a natural society can occur through institutions that foster positive human potential. Furthermore, individualist anarchists focus on egoism being tainted under the state, it crushes individuality through law, habit, custom, and prejudice. In order for society to be truly fulfilling, you must free your mind from outside influences to form your own morality. Individualists highlight that under this suffocating establishment people lose the ability to understand their own individuality and speak for themselves; the state is a giant protection racket that steals money through taxation.

However, both strands of anarchism disagree on how the state should be abolished. On one hand, collectivist anarchists support a revolutionary overthrow of the state, utilising power and brutality. In their eyes, violence is party of what the state is and therefore can only be fought with the same fire. Anarcho-syndicalists refuse to engage in conventional representative politics, preferring to exert direct pressure on employers by boycotting products, sabotaging machinery, and organising strikes. For collectivists and syndicalists, the ultimate weapon is political assassination and propaganda by the deed. On the other hand, individualists are more likely to support calmer civil disobedience. They’re attracted to principles of non-violence, and many tend to shy away from mass political activism. Key thinker Stirner highlights his rejection of a revolution and instead calls for his version of ‘insurrection’. The individual must gain an egoist perspective and passively disengage in the state, causing it to decay and die out.

Furthermore, individualist and collectivist anarchists disagree on why the state should be abolished. For individualists, the state robs individuals of their property through a system of taxation, it is like a parasite backed up by a threat of force. The state is nothing more than organised banditry. Anarcho-capitalists look to a society without taxation in which capitalism is not impeded by state intervention, it simply limits autonomy of the individual and social order must be based on the association of free individuals. For collectivist anarchists, the state acts in alliance with the wealthy and privileged, willing to use mechanisms of the state to their fullest extent to protect these individuals. The modern state is simply an agent of capitalism, it has developed as a body to protect private property and thus must be abolished. In Kropotkin’s idea of a collectivist anarchist society, social order will instead emerge from cooperation and mutual aid.

In conclusion, anarchists hold somewhat diverging beliefs on human nature. Their area of agreement, on the corrupting nature of the state and its rejection, is outweighed by the disagreements. Whilst individualists believe in calm civil disobedience that causes decay to the impeding system, collectivists prefer revolutionary overthrow to match the aggression of the state.

Nora