Anarchists divided on human nature

This is a 24-mark Paper 2 Section B ideology essay, marked AO1 (8), AO2 (8), AO3 (8). It tests the long-running internal disagreement within anarchism over what human beings are actually like. The disagreement is structural: it runs between the two anarchist strands the specification names, collectivist and individualist anarchism.

The mark scheme rewards answers built around the strands and the named thinkers. Real-world examples are illustration only - the marks come from the thinker and strand analysis.

The strongest line of argument is YES, BUT ONLY TO A LIMITED EXTENT - anarchists agree on an optimistic frame (human nature is not the obstacle to a stateless society) but divide sharply on its content, between the collectivist view of humans as naturally sociable and cooperative and the individualist view of humans as rational, self-interested egoists.

The 9PL0 specification names five anarchist thinkers. Each carries a distinct reading of human nature.

Collectivist anarchism rests on an optimistic, social view of human nature. Humans are naturally rational, altruistic and cooperative; competition and selfishness are the products of the state and private property, not of nature.

Kropotkin gives this its sharpest form. In Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution (1902) he argued that cooperation, not competition, is the main driver of survival and progress in nature and human society. Mutual aid is a scientific fact about human nature, and it allows human nature to flourish once the state is removed.

Bakunin shares the premise: his strong belief in human sociability underpins his case for collectivisation and the abolition of private property. Proudhon's mutualism assumes humans can cooperate fairly through voluntary exchange. The collectivist strands - anarcho-communism, mutualism and anarcho-syndicalism - all rest on the claim that human nature is fundamentally social.

Individualist anarchism rests on a very different view. Humans are rational, autonomous and self-interested; the goal is the liberty of the individual to make judgements in their own best interests.

Stirner is the clearest case. In The Ego and Its Own (1844) he argued that the self-interested individual - the ego - is the centre of the moral universe. There is no natural duty to others, no sacred cause, no society that outranks the self. The future society is a Union of Egoists: a loose, voluntary association entered into only while it serves each ego, brought about by insurrection rather than the overthrow of the state.

The individualist strand also contains anarcho-capitalism, which treats humans as competitive, self-interested agents best left to a free market without a state. Where collectivists see cooperation as natural, individualists see rational self-interest as natural - and treat the free individual, not the cooperative community, as the basic unit.

Before concluding the disagreement is total, identify the genuine common ground. Every anarchist strand agrees on three things.

• Human nature is not innately bad. All anarchists reject the conservative and Hobbesian claim that humans are naturally brutal and need a state to restrain them. This is the premise that makes anarchism possible at all.
• The state and (for most) private property corrupt or distort human nature. Whatever humans are naturally like, anarchists agree the state damages it. Goldman called the state a cold monster; Bakunin held that power is inherently oppressive.
• Humans are capable of order without the state. This is the principle that anarchy is order - social order emerges naturally and spontaneously from human nature, whether through cooperation (collectivists) or through rational self-interest (individualists).

Set the thinkers against one another on the specific questions that divide them.

Sociable or self-interested?

Kropotkin and Bakunin hold that humans are naturally cooperative and altruistic. Stirner holds that the rational ego owes nothing to anyone. These are not different emphases; they are opposite accounts of what a person fundamentally is.

What kind of society follows?

The reading of human nature dictates the future society. Natural sociability leads to Kropotkin's anarcho-communist commune of common ownership. Rational egoism leads to Stirner's Union of Egoists, a voluntary association with no common ownership and no shared duty. Proudhon's mutualism sits between - voluntary exchange between independent producers.

The place of reason

Both strands call humans rational - but they mean different things. For collectivists, reason leads people to see the value of cooperation. For individualists, reason leads people to pursue their own interest. The shared word hides a real division.

The line of argument is YES, BUT ONLY TO A LIMITED EXTENT. Anarchists agree on a frame: human nature is not innately corrupt, the state distorts it, and humans can produce order without a state. That frame is real and it unites the ideology.

So commit to: anarchists agree on the optimistic premise but are divided on its content. The agreement is thinner than it looks, because it is mostly negative; the disagreement is substantive, because it produces two incompatible visions of the good society. On the substantive question this essay is about, anarchists are divided more than they are united.