The ideas of Thomas Hobbes concerning the organization of the society are based on the social contract theory and a set of arguments about human nature that majorly contradict the ideas of anarchism. In this paper, the discussion of the two perspectives will be overviewed regarding the perception of human nature and the structure of society.
Thomas Hobbes: General Ideas
Hobbes elaborated on his ideas concerning the political obligation in his work titled Leviathan. In this book, Hobbes explained in perspective on human interactions as those in need of constant supervision of authority. The latter is represented by the government or a monarch and supported by the related institutions such as law enforcement. In that way, following this idea, the concept of hierarchy becomes one of the key bases for the existence of society and the maintenance of order.
Anarchism: General Ideas
The ideas of anarchism challenge the meaning of the political obligation. This set of perceptions and way of thought is deemed rather unconventional knowing that the vast majority of the worlds most prominent philosophers and sociologists theorized about the society as a hierarchically organized body supported from within by its inner laws that are based on the rules and regulations established by the political authorities and institutions.
Anarchism keeps to the belief that states are illegitimate and should be abolished. However, in philosophical anarchism the perceived coerciveness of the states does not serve as the basis for a moral imperative to destroy the latter; instead, it rather points to the weakness of the states attitudes and courses of actions.
Human Nature
From Thomas Hobbes, human nature is violent and competitive. In turn, the social contract theory is based on the idea that giving up some of their natural rights willingly, humans organized in a civilized society where their social rights were protected by the higher authority enforcing the law, order, and establishing safety for everyone who obeys the law. In that way, according to the ideas of Hobbes, freed from the limitations maintained by the state authorities and institutions, humans would drawback to their natural state of war of everyone against everyone. Consequently, from this point of view, the authority of the state can be seen not only as an entity serving as the source of order but also as a necessity ensuring the survival of civilization.
At the same time, the anarchist perspective on human nature differs significantly and has the concepts of autonomy and self-management as the core ideas. Differently put, according to philosophical anarchism, the common sense of humans is based on following the rules that ensure their survival, and therefore war and destruction are seen as unnecessary and unnatural states. In turn, based on the belief that violence is one of the major features of human nature, the existence of the state as an institution regulating and controlling peoples violent behaviors is seen as unneeded and artificially imposed.
Society
Hobbes idea about the structure of the society is founded on such concepts of the pursuit of power and private property. Differently put, these two desired entities represented the reasons for the potential conflicts and clashes in society. Hobbes imagined the latter as a strictly vertical structure were reaching the top was the ultimate goal of every human being. As a result, the fight for bigger properties and power was seen as the only state in which humans could exist in an unregulated society without a fixed institution or figure to whom this power would be willingly given as described in the social contract theory.
In turn, the major difference in the ideas of anarchism as compared to those of Thomas Hobbes is based on a different view on the private property. In the anarchist theory, private property covers only personal possessions. At the same time, it does not include the means of production thus preventing the emergence of large businesses and corporations, and capitalism as a phenomenon. The latter is seen as one of the major drivers of conflicts in society and not the personal properties of individuals that are not associated with massive amounts of power enabling the pursuit.
Conclusion
To sum up, one can briefly outline the ideas of Thomas Hobbes as based on the social contract theory and the vision of humans as violent by nature and eager for power that is sealed in the property. According to this set of ideas, the human society is perceived as structured vertically and supported by the strict hierarchy securing the power in the hands of specialized authorities and institutions focused on the protection of the human rights. In turn, the anarchist ideas view humans as filled with common sense preventing destructive and threatening behaviors. According to the anarchist vision, humans are perceived as capable of organizing horizontally without the need for the harsh authorities holding the power.
This essay argues that liberalist assumptions are just figment of imagination and that the anarchic nature of world system as defined by the Realist theory cannot be transcended.
The essay first provides a historical backdrop of human conflict down the ages to explain why strife is inevitable in human affairs.
The essay then develops the argument by outlining the present day success of the U.S. in achieving primacy in global affairs through implementation of a realist approach and how anarchy prevails in regions where coercive power is not available in sufficient measure.
The essay then provides the liberalist argument and their claim to success through the formation of the European Union.
The essay refutes such a claim by explaining the formation of the EU through a Realist prism before summarising the entire essay in the conclusion.
The Realist school of international relations posits that the international system is always anarchic and that struggle, survival and national security of every state are the overriding national interests which determine the relations between countries (Baylis, Smith and Owens 5). Liberalism, on the other hand does not view the world to be in state of perpetual anarchy but as comprised of states that act as bureaucratic organizations that can cooperate to maintain stability. This essay argues that liberalist assumptions are just figment of imagination and that the anarchic nature of world system as defined by the Realist theory cannot be transcended.
Throughout human history, empirical evidence shows that state to state relations have always been dominated by strife and conflict. The Greek city states fought amongst themselves to achieve primacy but mostly to achieve their own security. The earliest proponent of Realism, Thucydides had observed that state power is unequal and that smaller states with lesser power had to agree to live under the shadow of the bigger powers if they are to survive and that such an arrangement was natural (Jackson and Sorenson 62). Thereon, came an age of empires, monarchies, oligarchies and theocracies where strife dominated and struggle for dominance was the defining factor. It is also equally true that peace could only prevail when a state or an empire had sufficient military power to enforce such a peace within its jurisdiction and in its periphery. Such a state of affairs is natural as man’s natural state is to oppose each other in deadly conflict out of fear of “violent death” (Hobbes 86) where only a coercive power can maintain peace. Without coercive power no treaties or agreement are worth the paper on which they are written and this is due to the anarchic nature of the world system. The Treaty of Westphalia (1648) was signed to bring recognition to the concept of modern nation states formed on shared religious and ethnic groupings within defined geographical boundaries. The Treaty was meant to bring peace to war torn Europe. Yet, because of the anarchic nature of mankind, the Treaty of Westphalia did not bring peace and wars continued at a frenetic pace as no real ‘balance of power’ existed and each nation state strove to achieve pre eminence. In fact, the long series of wars since Westphalia only culminated in World War I. Yet again, nations tried to approach human dynamics of peace and stability through Utopian idealism as propounded by Woodrow Wilson when the League of Nations was formed in 1920. The League of Nations failed because it had no army of its own to enforce the decisions and most importantly the U.S. refused to ratify it. Man’s anarchic nature and struggle for power continued resulting in the madness that was the Second World War. Thus it was Realism that governed human affairs through much of its history.
That the Realist view is valid can be judged from the American success of “exercising power in an anarchic Hobbesian world where international laws and rules are unreliable” (Jackson and Sorenson 124). In the early years after its independence, America adopted the isolationist Monroe Doctrine which was a Realist approach because it laid down practical steps for limiting European power politics from spilling into America’s domain. After the Second World War, the threat of expanding Soviet power forced the US to discard isolationism and embrace a proactive and aggressive policy of Containment of the Soviet Union. This was a Realist articulation of foreign policy that led to the Cold War and endless proxy wars that dominated the next four decades. American Realist approach worked successfully as the Soviet Union collapsed under the weight of it own contradictions and the economic strain of having to match the U.S. led Western Bloc militarily. Had America used the Liberalist approach of ‘cooperation’ with respect to the Soviet Union, the world today would have probably become a unipolar entity where life and liberty would have been severely proscribed under Pax Sovietana.
In the current unipolar world, globalization has added fillip to anarchy and not reduced it. Globalization now makes it possible for people across the world to interact more freely and exchange ideas. Not all ideas are constructive. The World Wide Web, advances in information technology, and 24 X 7 media coverage have made it easier for anarchic and terrorist groups to operate freely and carry out global recruitment. The world today is more anarchic than it was ever before. This is because terror groups operate across borders and this trans-national character of such groups makes it difficult for nations to take action because of national and international laws. So the same laws that were supposed to make nation states safer and preserve peace, today, have become an impediment in dealing with trans-national actors. Trans-national actors are not just restricted to terror groups like the Al Qaeda but also include drug cartels, human traffickers and smugglers (Naim 61-66). They include money laundering activities where entire economies of nations are being subverted. Piracy of intellectual property rights by unscrupulous elements sometimes with active collusion of states have resulted in billions of dollars in losses for the developers. Thus, anarchy too prevails in the economic sphere.
Even if one were to focus only on the aspect of physical security, then a current scrutiny of global security situation would reveal that anarchy prevails in regions where coercive state power is absent. This is true for most of Horn of Africa and Sub Saharan countries including Iraq and Afghanistan. A vivid current example of a state of anarchy is in Somalia where there has not been a functioning government for the last two decades and poverty is rampant. Consequently, a number of Somalians have taken to piracy which has forced the international community to take coercive measures such as deploying warships to protect merchant shipping in the Gulf of Aden. Iraq under Saddam Hussein was a stable country held together with coercive state power. With the removal of Saddam Hussein, American attempts to cobble a democratic system in Iraq have failed spectacularly. This is because the fine ‘balance of terror’ that Saddam Hussein exercised has been removed and the anarchic impulses of the various ethnic groups that make up the kaleidoscope called Iraq have been unleashed resulting in almost daily bloodshed. The same is true for Afghanistan where absence of strong central power has led to a near continuous state of anarchy in the nation’s history. A counter argument to the ‘anarchist’ world view is the one proposed by the liberalists.
Liberalism argues that individual freedoms have greater importance and that these “individuals are aware of their dependence on collective action to obtain good life” (R. M. Jackson 197). Liberalism believes that while military power is valid, a “complex system of bargaining” (Baylis, Smith and Owens 5) between states can achieve international cooperation and produce peace and stability. Liberalist claim that the European Union is a typical example of what inspired Liberalism can do. Liberalists observe that the European continent despite having been wracked continuously with conflicts resulting in deaths of millions since settled life first began had been able to get over their dearly held concepts of national sovereignty and form a Union is a startling testimony of what Liberalism can achieve (Ingham 245). Even more startling is the fact that former Communist countries, with ideologies diagrammatically opposite to the liberal West have queued up to join the European Union. The author of this essay argues that the so-called liberalist triumph in the formation of the EU is actually a Realist approach by the smaller European countries to bandwagon together so as to compete with the larger, more powerful US. The former Communist countries line up to join the EU not because they have suddenly discovered the virtues of humanism, but because they have no other choice if they have to survive competition against a larger more prosperous economic grouping. The so-called liberalists still adhere to Realist formulations as is evident in their continued deployment of armed forces in the Persian Gulf and Afghanistan. NATO, a realist formulation born out of the necessities of the Cold War continues to be relevant to the so-called liberal European countries for the pursuance of their individual national interests and preventing anarchy in the wider world. Realists believe this to be a hypocritical stance as the liberalists continue to use realist tools while pretending to champion the cause of universal human rights.
It therefore can be concluded that empirical evidence of the history of human conflict suggests that war and strife are inherent to human nature and that the world system has, and will always remain in a state of anarchy which according to the Realist theorists requires coercive state power to maintain stability. American global primacy has been possible only because of their adherence to Realist policies that points to the validity of Realist formulations. The fact that even the so-called liberalist European nations continue to support NATO and send troops to far away lands only reinforces the view that anarchy exist as a natural state that requires coercive power to control.
Works Cited
Baylis, John, Steve Smith and Patricia Owens. The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.
Anarchism is a kind of philosophy in the political world that believes that the state of government is not necessary, not desired and it is in most cases harmful and oppressive and the society should remain without a government. The doctrine seeks to have a human society which does not have authority. Human relations in this society should be in such away that they are not led by any form of government. The ideology of anarchism is in most cases considered as left wing. In general, it may be divided into four main types: Left winged anarchism ‑ anarcho-communists, and anarcho-syndicalists; right winged anarchism – anarcho-individualists-prudonists and anarcho-Nietzscheanists. In fact, there is no unity between anarchists streams, as some of sub-divisions may contradict the basics of anarchism, while the others associate anarchism with disturbances and lawlessness. On the one hand it is true, as anarchism claims that he society may be arranged without any constraint and any authority, however, a particular regime is inevitable, as refusal from marketing relations and private property will require establishment of a financial flow system. As for violence, it should be stated that Tolstoyans (representatives of Christian anarchism) deny the significance of violence as a force required for maintaining the struggle for social ideals.
The aim of this paper is to analyze the Zapatista movement (Zapatista Army of National Liberation), and the anarchic tendencies of this organization. Considering the fact that the key slogan of this army is “Democracy! Freedom! Justice!” the movement seems peaceful, however, the participants of this movement never part with their weapons, and conceal their faces.
History and Theoretic Grounds of Anarchism
Social movements which will hereby be referred to as anti-systematic and radical, emerged in the 19th century and have over a span of time for reasons best known to them grown to be movements which are always against the state as a change agent. The movements have transformed from those that were in the interest of the sate to those that are treating the sate and all other actions oriented to the state with a lot of suspicion and hatred. According to Wallerstein (2002, p. 29-30), they are not just inclusive in their ways and also democratic but tend to be grossly non-hierarchical and participatory on the basis that the “basis of participation is a common objective… and a common respect for each individual’s immediate priorities” (p.15). In this essay, there will be a consideration of the matter in that anarchism is being a reference point for the said movements. The acts are a kind of response to the state due to its failures.
As Immanuel Wallerstein (2002, p 32) stated, there is a development of the radical movements since national forms and social forms emerged as key movements earlier in the 19th century. The movements were viewed as social parties and at times like trade unions, which were bringing about a kind of social struggle within some sates against the chief management of the states.
They more than often opposed to their rivals in both the national and social realm and they did not have much cooperation without the necessary boundaries. In the first place, the movements presented themselves as those that were yearning to bring about transformation in the social areas. In the second alternative, they often talked over some kinds of strategy that diversified from the state to that which was overly individualistic and civil and often viewed the sate as an enemy against this pursuit. Lastly they visualized that the sate had immense power and so was the best to be pursued due to the influence that it commanded. It is due to this according to Wallerstein (2002, p 36-38) that they had to follow some few steps; first, they had to gain power through any means and secondly, taking advantage of that power, get involved in transforming the state.
Background of Zapatista Movement
In the first stages, they had been thought to gain immense powers though they first gained power over the state without fulfilling their transformation promise. The movements started by gaining power in both Africa and Asia and later went ahead to conquer Latin America. They came to notice that the power of the state was not as immense as they thought it was in the first place. As Chase-Dunn (1981) stipulates, there is party in any state that can enjoy absolute sovereignty, as there is none that can stand up as an autonomous unit and it is usually bound by a certain set of systems within it. On the other hand, the realities of the countries economy will often be affected and directed upon by a need to include itself in the global economy that is capitalist. The much more time that they seemed to lead their states, the more they seemingly averted from their transformation promises.
In those states which had reforms taking place, the capacity of the movements o bring about substantial and transformative change looked disillusioned. The fact remains that the movements did bring about some change though the other fact lies in that the change was not enough to be recognized. The world concluded negatively about the performance of the movements and later on, they called for more changes through revolution in some places. People lost hope in the fact that any state centric movement would ever bring about transformation. This made people lose hope in the states at the focal point of transformation (Baker 2002).
Anarchism is viewed by many as an ideology which is characterized by terror, chaos and aggression. In the real sense it is a refined ideology based on opposition to obligatory hierarchy. At the core of anarchism is the self or the individual. Human beings can be seen to have inherent moral significance, shaping the existential hub of anarchist philosophy as the teleological quest of individual autonomy. To be pressurized or inhibited in any way is to be dishonored and besmirched and thus to breach this vital principle (Jennings 1999). Through chronological surveillance, anarchists view the state as the key perpetrator of this compulsion and restraint. “Such outlooks were uttered by Leo Tolstoy, who observed the state as the primary usurper of liberty and perpetrator of violence” (Christoyannopoulos 2008, 58). Government is perceived as the focal point of this, the putting in place of the powers of the state.
The real practice of anarchism in the world today is the notion of “autonomy from the state.” In a close relation to this reference this, anarchism commands that individuals can not and therefore should not be governed by other individuals; such feat would be intrinsically be seen as coercive as public are not building their own choices (Heywood 2007). “This concern correlates with a crucial association within anarchism between ‘means and ends” (Christoyannopoulos 2008, 99). If political authority is viewed as inherently precarious, then the obligation of chain of command, however provisional, must then be viewed as the same. Once presented, power will be responsible for and oblige itself. To a radical, one must make the most of means in procession with thoughts of “liberty and autonomy” in realizing anarchist ends.
Zapatista Anarchism Assessment
In fact, it is hard to define the origins of Zapatista anarchism, however the ideological background of this movement may be analyzed from the position of libertarian practices. It should be stated that Mayan with the elements of anarchism and libertarianism is the simplified explanation of the movement. Though, in distinction with traditional anarchic movements, Zapatistas do not wish to get involved into violence:
We don’t want to impose our solutions by force, we want to create a democratic space. We don’t see armed struggle in the classic sense of previous guerrilla wars, that is as the only way and the only all-powerful truth around which everything is organized. In a war, the decisive thing is not the military confrontation but the politics at stake in the confrontation. We didn’t go to war to kill or be killed. We went to war in order to be heard. (Lorenzano. 1998, p. 331)
Closely associated with an indulgence of the state having developed through some series of struggle and also in procession with anarchist observation of political authority, the Zapatistas do not intend to overtake the power of the state, but on the other hand, circumvent it. At the same time, according to Lorenzano (1998) Zapatistas is an “armed movement which does not want to take power, as in the old revolutionary schemes”. Instead, they are “subordinate to civil society, to the point of disappearing as an alternative” (Marcos 2001). A bit alienated from the desire to take over the state authority, the Zapatistas are basically apathetic to the various political parties and also ot the state; they seek out to find a way around and live separately from its untrustworthy, negative influence. Allied with this, they are in opposition to the Marxist inspiration of a front line chief to the people in revolt, though it may be envisaged. Indeed, they have shown an unending commitment to this theory in practice, with the EZLN refusing the creation of a handy political coalition with the seditious Mexican biased lobby group, the “Popular Revolutionary Front (EPR)”, due to their diametrically opposed differences over affirmed designs on state supremacy.
The outfitted methods of spreading these democratic organizations are evidently attuned with the anarchist thoughts highlighted. If there falls about a need to be ‘leaders’ and ‘followers’ then the issue of government and chain of command arises (Graeber 2004, p 61- 65). Through the exploitation of two fundamental ideologies, the Zapatistas have revealed a stylish obligation to and indulgence of the anarchist equivalence of ways and subsequent ends. Through the primary operational standard of ‘command obeying’, the Zapatistas have sought after to destabilize hierarchy by contrasting the association between the cream of the crop and the led. In application, this has brought along the rotation of management in neighborhood councils in order to steer clear of a condition of permanent control; thus shunning the drawbacks anarchists associate with executive political authority (Jeffries 2001). The second outfitted concept of “asking we walk” chairs the weight of accountability for action on individuals, rather than definite figures or social groups lashing development towards an intangible goal. This depicts that, rather than instructing others how the social change is to be approved; one is continuously engaged in certain praxis by time after time inquiring how the social transformation is to be enhanced and by doing everyday jobs physically.
Left wing form of anarchism does not believe in hierarchy. According to this form of anarchism, property belonging o a particular set of people becomes replaced by a store in a society which does not embrace hierarchy. A right-winger on the other hand has a tendency to safeguard the hierarchies (Graeber 2004, p 69).
To add on, Individualist anarchism in many times is used to highlight quite a lot of customs of deliberation within the anarchist splinter group that put weight on the personality as well as their strength of will over any variety of exterior determinants for instance society, groups and their traditions, along with ideological systems. Individualist anarchism does not comprise of a single thinking nevertheless, it highlights several a set of “individualistic philosophies” that can be diverging at times.
William Godwin one personality who has been seen at many times to be someone who can be regarded as the pioneer of anarchism wrote a book (Political Justice) which up-to-date is known to be on top of the anarchism movement. Godwin, a rational anarchist, from a utilitarian and also a rationalist basis opposed radical action and visualized a minimal state as the present “indispensable evil” that would turn out to be increasingly immaterial and immobilized by the steady spread of acquaintance. Godwin advocated for intense individualism, suggesting that all collaboration in labour be done away with on the principle that this would be mainly favorable with the common good.
The most tremendous form of individualist anarchism, which is also known as “egoism,” or egoist-anarchism, was illustrated by one of the initial and best-known advocates of individualist anarchism, called Max Stirner. A book titled “The Ego and Its Own, “which was in print in the mid 1800s, is one writing that can be checked for reference in the field of anarchism philosophy. According to him, the only restraint on the privileges of the individual is the power to get hold of what they wish for, without view for God, the state, or even morality. To Stirner, human rights were “spooks” in the brain, and he apprehended that the society does not survive but “the folks are its authenticity”.
Conclusion
Finally, it should be emphasized that Zapatista anarchic movement may be regarded as the unique phenomena among national movements. In general, the actual importance of anarchism for national movements is explained by the fact that Zapatistas wish to struggle for their rights without resorting to violence. However, they are ready to defend their interests with weapons, if it is needed. As for the theoretic background o their anarchism, it should be emphasized that Mayan practices do not fit the existing regime properly, consequently, Zapatistas had to modify them by using libertarian views. Tolstoyan features are also observed, as they do not wish to spill innocent blood, and are eager to resort to weapons only if they will have to defend.
References
Baker, G (2002) Civil Society and Democratic Theory: Alternative Voices. Routledge, London.
Chase-Dunn, C (1981)’Interstate System and Capitalist World-Economy: One Logic or Two?’ International Studies Quarterly. Vol. 25, No. 1. Pp. 19-42.
Christoyannopoulos, A, J, M, E (2008). ‘Tolstoy’s Anarchist Denunciation of State Violence and Deception’ in Anti-Democratic Thought. Ed. Kofmel, E. Imprint Academic, Charlottesville.
De Angelis, M (2000). ‘Globalization, New Internationalism and the Zapatistas’, Capital and Class. Vol. 70, No. 9. Pp. 9-35.
Franks, B (2006) Rebel Alliances: The Means and Ends of Contemporary British Anarchisms. AK Press, Edinburgh.
Graeber, D (2002) ‘The New Anarchists’, New Left Review. Vol. 13, No. 6. Pp. 61-73.
Heywood, A (2007) Political Ideologies: An Introduction. Palgrave MacMillan, New York.
Jeffries, F (2001) ‘Zapatismo and the Intergalactic Age’ in Globalization and Postmodern Politics. Eds. Burbach, R, Jeffries, F and Robinson, W, I. Pluto Press, London.
Jennings, J (1999) ‘Anarchism’ in Contemporary Political Ideologies: Second Edition. Eds. Eatwell, R and Wright, A. Continuum International Publishing Group, New York.
Lorenzano, L (1998). ‘Zapatismo: Recomposition of Labour, Radical Democracy and Revolutionary Project’ in Zapatista! Reinventing Revolution in Mexico.Eds. Holloway, J and Pelaez, E. Pluto Press, London.
Marcos (1993) EZLN’s Declaration of War: Today We Say Enough Is Enough (Ya Basta!). General Command of the EZLN, Chiapas.
Rocker, R (1938) Anarchosyndicalism. Secker and Warburg, London.
Wallerstein, I (2002) ‘New Revolts Against the System’, New Left Review. Vol.18. Nov/Dec. Pp. 29-39.
Stephen M. Walt. The Origins of Alliances (Alliances: Balancing and Bandwagoning), 1987
This article by Walt is about the theories of how alliances are formed by various States as a response to a perceived threat or for purposes of domination. Towards this end, the author identifies two major hypotheses that are the most evident information of alliances by States; the balancing hypothesis and the bandwagoning hypothesis. Balancing is when States align themselves with other States that they perceive as having similar policies with theirs, while bandwagon is when States seek allies that would deter their perceived threats regardless of their policies.
The essence of this article is contained in the two hypotheses that the author describes at the onset of this discussion in which he lays the foundation that the rest of the theories are based on. Balancing is when States “ally with others against the prevailing threat” and is the most common form of the alliance for many States the world over. Bandwagoning, on the other hand, refers to “alignment with the source of danger” to imply that States for specific reasons would opt to seek ally with other States that appear very threatening and aggressive notwithstanding the paradox. The rest of the discussion on this paper is aimed at demonstrating these fundamental positions that the author identifies through examples, arguments, and evidence from historical happenings.
First, the author undertakes a general discussion on the concepts of balancing and bandwagoning and discusses in brief why balancing is the most desirable form of alliance, which also explains why it is the most common in the modern world. One of the positions that the paper takes is that bandwagoning would lead to instability in the world for various reasons. Finally, the author finishes by discussing three conditions that continue to make States consider bandwagoning alliances despite its inherent dangers, which are listed as strength of the State, availability of the allies, and circumstances under which alliance is sought. This article is very convincing because of the strength citation of historical evidence that the author uses, nevertheless, I think more examples would have cemented this argument more firmly.
Alexander Wendt. Anarchy is What States Make of it: The Social Construction of Power Politics, 1992.
Wendt’s main argument in this paper is the need for a different perspective that would shed light on how the existing system is influenced by both State interests and identities under three different scenarios which he refers to as variables. The State is the system in which its interests and identities are shaped by these three variables; the institution of sovereignty, cooperation revolution, and transformation of identities.
To understand this Wendt proposes the application of two notable views; constructivism and neoliberalism. This is because, in his view, the constructivist theory is key to changing the identity which he refers to as role-specific understandings as well as the state interests which are both encompassed by the concept of self-help.
Two important concepts are at the center of Wendt’s article besides the variables, that of process and structure; from the foundations of these definitions, Wendt argues that process is what takes place because it is independent of the resulting outcome when various States get to interact with each other. This conclusion is based on Wendt’s analysis in which he posits that self-help is an institution that is not dependent on the existing system at the time and thus not subject to the anarchy influence.
It is notable to mention that this article by Wendt is a rejoinder to a previous article, by Kenneth Waltz, who was a realist, and it is for this reason that we see Wendt taking strong positions on neoliberalism and realism. Overall, this article undertakes a convincing argument of how the processes and structures of systems impact on the State’s interests and identities. Nevertheless, I find the article inconclusive based on the number of variables advanced in this case scenario, which are only three, but which on a closer look would appear to be more than that. Also, Wendt’s argument does not go back far enough to analyze the circumstances that would result in a hypothetical case where no priors exist for any State.
The ideas of Thomas Hobbes concerning the organization of the society are based on the social contract theory and a set of arguments about human nature that majorly contradict the ideas of anarchism. In this paper, the discussion of the two perspectives will be overviewed regarding the perception of human nature and the structure of society.
Thomas Hobbes: General Ideas
Hobbes elaborated on his ideas concerning the political obligation in his work titled Leviathan. In this book, Hobbes explained in perspective on human interactions as those in need of constant supervision of authority. The latter is represented by the government or a monarch and supported by the related institutions such as law enforcement. In that way, following this idea, the concept of hierarchy becomes one of the key bases for the existence of society and the maintenance of order.
Anarchism: General Ideas
The ideas of anarchism challenge the meaning of the political obligation. This set of perceptions and way of thought is deemed rather unconventional knowing that the vast majority of the world’s most prominent philosophers and sociologists theorized about the society as a hierarchically organized body supported from within by its inner laws that are based on the rules and regulations established by the political authorities and institutions.
Anarchism keeps to the belief that states are illegitimate and should be abolished. However, in philosophical anarchism the perceived coerciveness of the states does not serve as the basis for a moral imperative to destroy the latter; instead, it rather points to the weakness of the states’ attitudes and courses of actions.
Human Nature
From Thomas Hobbes, human nature is violent and competitive. In turn, the social contract theory is based on the idea that giving up some of their natural rights willingly, humans organized in a civilized society where their social rights were protected by the higher authority enforcing the law, order, and establishing safety for everyone who obeys the law. In that way, according to the ideas of Hobbes, freed from the limitations maintained by the state authorities and institutions, humans would drawback to their natural state of war of everyone against everyone. Consequently, from this point of view, the authority of the state can be seen not only as an entity serving as the source of order but also as a necessity ensuring the survival of civilization.
At the same time, the anarchist perspective on human nature differs significantly and has the concepts of autonomy and self-management as the core ideas. Differently put, according to philosophical anarchism, the common sense of humans is based on following the rules that ensure their survival, and therefore war and destruction are seen as unnecessary and unnatural states. In turn, based on the belief that violence is one of the major features of human nature, the existence of the state as an institution regulating and controlling people’s violent behaviors is seen as unneeded and artificially imposed.
Society
Hobbes’ idea about the structure of the society is founded on such concepts of the pursuit of power and private property. Differently put, these two desired entities represented the reasons for the potential conflicts and clashes in society. Hobbes imagined the latter as a strictly vertical structure were reaching the top was the ultimate goal of every human being. As a result, the fight for bigger properties and power was seen as the only state in which humans could exist in an unregulated society without a fixed institution or figure to whom this power would be willingly given as described in the social contract theory.
In turn, the major difference in the ideas of anarchism as compared to those of Thomas Hobbes is based on a different view on the private property. In the anarchist theory, private property covers only personal possessions. At the same time, it does not include the means of production thus preventing the emergence of large businesses and corporations, and capitalism as a phenomenon. The latter is seen as one of the major drivers of conflicts in society and not the personal properties of individuals that are not associated with massive amounts of power enabling the pursuit.
Conclusion
To sum up, one can briefly outline the ideas of Thomas Hobbes as based on the social contract theory and the vision of humans as violent by nature and eager for power that is sealed in the property. According to this set of ideas, the human society is perceived as structured vertically and supported by the strict hierarchy securing the power in the hands of specialized authorities and institutions focused on the protection of the human rights. In turn, the anarchist ideas view humans as filled with common sense preventing destructive and threatening behaviors. According to the anarchist vision, humans are perceived as capable of organizing horizontally without the need for the harsh authorities holding the power.