State Of Anarchy For Mac
'Anarchy Is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics' is a journal article by Alexander Wendt published in International Organization in 1992 that outlines a constructivist approach to international relations theory. CiteSeerX - Document Details (Isaac Councill, Lee Giles, Pradeep Teregowda): Abstract—In this paper, we model and analyze the interactions between secondary users in a spectrum overlay cognitive system as a cognitive MAC game. In this game, each secondary user can sense (and transmit) one of several channels, the availability of each channel is determined by the activity of the corresponding. Sons of Anarchy is the story of the Teller-Morrow family of Charming, California, as well as the other members of Sons of Anarchy Motorcycle Club, Redwood Original (SAMCRO), their families, various Charming townspeople, allied and rival gangs, associates, and law agencies that undermine or support SAMCRO's legal and illegal enterprises.
Aims & Principles
(Ratified at the MAC Annual General Meeting, October 28, 2007)Anarchism is both a political philosophy and a social movement. As a social movement, anarchism aims to create a classless, non?hierarchical society; that is, a society ‘without rulers’ (anarchy). As a political philosophy, anarchism maintains that the creation of such a society is both possible and desirable. Anarchists are those who actively work towards realising this possibility.
Principles
Liberty
The concept of individual human freedom lies at the heart of anarchist philosophy. As such, anarchists seek to maximise the ability of individuals to live freely, in the absence of the arbitrary constraints imposed by illegitimate forms of authority. Anarchists therefore oppose all forms of domination and exploitation, and work, through both individual and collective struggle, to subvert all social structures based on these practices.
Equality
The anarchist concept of freedom is intrinsically linked to the notion of equality. That is, anarchists maintain that individuals are most free in a society in which there is economic, political and social equality. ‘From each according to their ability; to each according to their need’.
Solidarity
‘An injury to one is an injury to all’. Anarchists oppose the false principle of the survival of the fittest, and believe that human survival and social development can best be secured through co?operation among individuals and groups to their mutual benefit.
Direct Action
‘The emancipation of the working class must be the work of the workers themselves.' An anarchist society can only be achieved through direct action; that is, through forms of social struggle unmediated by political authority (government).
Direct Democracy
Anarchists advocate the creation of directly democratic forms of social organization, in which individual members have an equal right to take part in decision?making processes. As such, anarchists oppose forms of representative democracy, and agitate for their replacement by directly democratic ones.
Federation
Anarchists advocate the establishment of voluntary, non?hierarchical associations between directly democratic organizations. By the same token, anarchists also maintain the right of members of federated bodies to leave such associations, if and when they deem them to be contrary to their interests.
Aims
Abolition of the State
Anarchists regard the state as an oppressive institution, the abolition of which is necessary to human liberation.
The state is a condition, a certain relationship between human beings, a mode of human behaviour; we destroy it by contracting other relationships, by behaving differently.
~ Gustav Landauer.
The destruction of the state is a collective responsibility which will be achieved through social revolution.
Social Revolution
The working class and the employing class have nothing in common. There can be no peace so long as hunger, want and boredom are found among billions of working people and the few, who make up the employing class, have all the good things of life. Between these two classes a struggle must go on until the workers of the world organize as a class, take possession of the means of production, abolish capitalism and the state, and live in harmony with the Earth.
Anarchist Economics
The ideal economic system, one that is consistent with the principles of liberty, equality and solidarity, is anarchist or libertarian communism. Libertarian communism means the common ownership of the means of production and the free association of producers. The implementation of anarchism can only be through the free federation of productive and communal organizations.
Freedom without socialism is privilege and injustice; socialism without freedom is slavery.
~ Mikhail Bakunin.
Goals
M.A.C. aims to facilitate the establishment of a federation of anarchist groups.
Comments (44)Trackbacks (0)( subscribe to comments on this post )ok i’m not trying to be a smart arse but isn’t the whole idea something of an oxymoron? how can you ratify a definition of anarchy?
“…isn’t the whole idea something of an oxymoron?”
in a word? no.
“how can you ratify a definition of anarchy?”
not sure. how is any definition ratified? otherwise, ‘ratification’ in this instance means ‘agreed to by those present’.
So, are you guys for the dismantling of patriarchy and white supremacy? Are you feminists? Vegans? If you’re against all exploitation and hierarchical systems…?
One or two MAC members are vegans, the majority are not. There is not a dietary or lifestyle requirement for membership. Our practice so far has been to allow the chickpea and the chop to coexist at our barbecues.
We are anarchists and revolutionaries, with all that implies for feminism, patriarchy and racism.
what do you think about Occupy Melbourne?
There’s no official position that I know of on Occupy. Some MAC members have been going in their capacity as individuals. I think the general consensus from anarchists is that it has been a mixed bag politically but we would not discourage anyone from being involved.
agree with ending of tyranny.sad people r so bound and chained by their beliefs.keep up the good work.u r needed in this world.
Thanks Jane.
The paragraph under the heading ‘Solidarity’ is problematic. The following may seem petty but I don’t think the extent to which people are driven away by such details should be underestimated.
1. Would an injury to a CIA torturer be ‘an injury to all?’ So is it ‘all’ as in literally everyone or ‘all’ as in the those of some in-group (working class or revolutionary e.g.)?
2. Mentioning ‘survival of the fittest’ is bizarre. When used as a synonym for natural selection, it isn’t false, and I’m sure that this is the sense in which most people will relate to it. The only political doctrine it really refers to is Social Darwinism, which is irrelevant. And what follows doesn’t even serve to negate it. If anything, it reinforces it by implying that fitness is based on the ability to cooperate.
Surely the MAC has something more pertinent to say about solidarity. I was also wondering: how many active MAC members are there? How many of those are students? Does the MAC have ties with industry? If so, what are the nature of those ties? Why is the clubhouse so dilapidated? My thanks in advance for your indulgence.1.Solidarity is extended to those whose interests we have in common. “All” is used in the conventional sense – the group we circumscribe in our Aims and Principles (the working classes and peasantry, the majority of humanity). Terms such as “working class” can be unpacked by looking at the things we publish and our activities, as well as the mainstream anarchist tradition. It is pretty safe to assume that our definition does not include CIA torturers.
2.The division of humanity into abstracted categories of contingent ideas of fitness, such as survival in the marketplace, physical abilities, social convention, employment and so on – is used frequently enough that it warrants addressing. It is a point of differentiation between anarchists and other political traditions and therefore utilised in the document as a way of defining who we consider to be anarchists. The inclusion of “survival of the fittest”, is meant to encapsulate what we oppose, for reasons of brevity. Again, these terms can be unpacked by looking at the anarchist tradition with which we identify. The term is not Darwin’s, btw. Usually contemporary descriptions of natural selection refer to survival of the best adaptation for reproduction, which is a point of fact we would not dispute but it is also not an area we are overly concerned with. As biologists, we make great anarchists (Kropotkin not withstanding).
Broadly speaking, the purpose of this document is to outline our aims and our principles and act as a basis for association with other groups and amongst members. It’s not meant to function as a complete theoretical vision. We tend to leave this to the more articulate anarchists, though we occasionally have a go ourselves.
I’m reluctant to publicise our numbers, and see no compelling reason to – a dozen or 100 members would not change the nature of the group. However, MAC can be accurately described as a small group. Our ties with industry are that we (mostly) work, and all members are active in their workplaces. There are only a few students; they are a small minority of the group. MAC also has an association with the Anarcho-Syndicalist Federation, who are explicitly engaged in this work and in comparison to other anarchist groups in Melbourne and Australia, you could accurately describe our orientation as toward anarchosyndicalism.
I would not describe the space as dilapidated, but any disrepair can be attributed to a) lack of funds, b) a work in progress and c) a matter of taste. Please consider making a sizable donation.
Thank you for the fullness of your reply. A couple of things to what you’ve said there and then I’m done. I promise.
1. So it doesn’t refer to an injury to one of the enemy. Unclear, but cool.
2. a) I’ll warn again: the phrase doesn’t allude to what you say it does. Those things are not thought of in terms of survival and fitness. The discourse is around economic success and viability. The phrase looks out of touch and hysterical.
b) It wasn’t Darwin’s, was it? It was Herbie Spencer’s. But Charlie did use it in the 5th edition.Ah, you socialist types—always looking for a handout. It’d be easier to consider a sizeable donation if that paragraph was fixed.
Anarchists always claim to be acting for the working class. I live in Melton. I am fifth generation working class. You clearly don’t care what the working class want. We’re all out buying big screen TV’s and saving to take the kids to Movie World. The reason the mass of the working class aren’t out smashing department store windows with you is not because they’re ignorant sheep lulled into a stupor by the mass media of capitalism (how incredibly arrogant you lot come off!) but because we don’t want what you want. Have you any idea what the average person feels when they see anarchists behaving violently? Fear. Contempt. Simple common sense will tell you the revolution isn’t going to happen until you get the MAJORITY of people on your side and simple common sense would tell you that you won’t win people over by terrifying them. No, it doesn’t make the average person watching the news stop and think about the oppression of the worker etc: it makes us afraid. The only time I hear my friends side with the cops is when they see them handcuffing some thug who has just trashed a store. Cultural appropriation is not on. Stop trying to act like working class heroes when the actual working class find your attitudes and goals anathema.
I read Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology by David Graeber, and I was wondering if any of the members were familiar with this book. Please leave a comment if you have, and what you thought of it.
I meet an baybee anArchist
Along thee dewmorn waye,
She say to me, “be free be free
Of tyrranee, and play with me.”I walk’d onbye yon baybee wee,
And meet an golde man uniformed,
Who say to me, “bow down bow down
Littleman to my crown, lest
Ubermensch doth hast thy neck.”Thus stumbled I to factory floore,
Slaughterhouse of meek and poor,
Awash with blood, did find in rags
Old labourer lamenting, “Oh to feel the way
Of yore, before they worked me to my grayve,
Rest here awhile lad, share mine bread.”Three ages of mAn, two sages, one heart
Yet rages fromme inside the cages –
Have courage, the way of the bayb
Will prevail o’er the jackbooted slavers,
Play for the worker dear, bruteforce bent
O’er desk and plough, head held high
This blackest of night, redsky dawning…Hi! As a self described anarcho-capitalist, I’m curious to know MAC’s position on that philosophy. Personally I’m skeptical of any philosophy that is socialist, because history has shown that it doesn’t scale beyond small voluntary groups without applying violence to those whose ability is greater than their need.
Hi Duncan,
As our Aims & Principles suggest, we oppose capitalism and instead advocate a libertarian (anti-statist) socialism.
Captain Cook did not invade Australia. He discovered it and the government of UK decided to use this country as a penal colony. Get your facts straight before you vandalise buildings.
Hi Carole,
1. Captain Cook did not discover Australia. People had been living on the continent for quite a few years before that English gentleman spied its east coast. Perhaps you mean he was the first Englishman to step ashore in these parts? If so, you’re wrong on that score too: William Dampier stuck his nose in around 1688.
2. January 26 actually commemorates the day Arthur Phillip came ashore at Sydney Cove.
3. Yes. The desire of British authorities to be rid of what it considered to be a criminal class is partly what prompted it to authorise the establishment of a penal colony; inter-imperialist rivalry (especially for control of the Pacific) was another important factor.
4. Those responsible for redecorating James Cook’s family’s cottage that he may (or may not) have lived in and that was imported into Australia in the 1930s are not known at this stage.
5. You can read our response to Channel 9’s silly reportage here.Duncan,
Anarcho-capitalism is a bit of an oxymoron as it still works within an oppressive corporate/market structure to attain “freedom,” whereas libertarian socialism (anarchism) is about transcending such peripheries in order to get a stronger form of liberty. What sort of anarcho-capitalism are you referring to, the likes of Adam Smith, Wilhelm von Humboldt, David Ricardo etc or? Obviously they see the market system far differently to contemporary “capitalists” (who are not really capitalists obviously).
I have a question about your principles listed above, in regards to liberty and solidarity.
You mention “illegitimate forms of authority”, can you elaborate on what represents illegitimate authority? You also mention under Liberty, that you oppose domination, and work to subvert such structures, but in Solidarity you state you “…believe that human survival and social development can best be secured through co?operation among individuals and groups to their mutual benefit.”
I’m curious at how this works in practice. As someone whom supports personal freedoms and is opposed to oppression, I make it a point to understand the rules and restrictions I am enforcing in my position as a security guard. But I find at times people who rebel towards the authority I represent as a matter of political opinion are often unaccepting of working towards mutually beneficial arrangements. I don’t mean to cast aspersions on your group, I’m just asking as to clarify what you would consider the best representation of your aims and principles in a scenario where I as an authority and was preventing your members from accessing an area as deemed by my employers, considering the MAC’s views on authority and solidarity with the working class.
Personally, I’ve yet to find a satisfying explanation of how anarcho-socialism would abolish the state. In the face of unlimited wants and limited resources, there needs to be some means of allocating resources, and it seems to be that the only options are private property or some sort of state.
Most anarcho-socialists I’ve spoken to seem to think that by decentralising the state, introducing aspects of direct democracy and renaming it something euphemistic like “union” or “council” is the equivalent of abolishing it.
John – Have you heard of anarcho-capitalist thinkers such as Murray Rothbard (from the Austrian school) or David Friedman (from the Chicago school)? They’re probably more relevant to this discussion than early neo-classical economists like Smith or Ricardo.
Hi, interesting discussion 🙂 How is it anarchy needs some sort of qualifier like anarcho-socialist or anarcho-capitalist? Is not the term anarchy sufficient? What does abolishing the state have to do with anarchy? Is not anarchy a model for a superior state? What problem in establishing an anarchist style of state? The Spanish did it early last century and except for the treachery, greed and stupidity of the fascists and the communists it was a success. Their model of hundreds electing representatives worked for them, why would it not work anywhere?
Hi! Great to see this thread!
RE: How is it anarchy needs some sort of qualifier like anarcho-socialist or anarcho-capitalist? Is not the term anarchy sufficient?
I would agree. Socialism relies on the state OR voluntary communal contracting. So this means so called Libertarian Socialism can only exist within a free market context. You cannot rule out the free market “Capitalism” in an Anarchist society – to do so so would be an act of force and hence anti-anarchist.
Please note that Capitalism is actually a communist term. Free market is better representative of Anarchist ideas. The term ‘Capitalism’ however has become synonymous with the govt. protected colluding/corporate system (i.e Fascism) that we have in place now. The right of the individual should be upheld primarily. Individuals also live in society and as such collectivism will be necessary but this should only be on a voluntary basis.
I am not too sure how you can advocate for Libertarian Socialism but be against anarcho-capitalism?
Recently (after The Anarchist Bookfair) it was loudly declared by a prominent member of yours that “Insurrection was for middle class teenagers” with little further qualification or comment. This suggests that you are NOT a revolutionary organisation, that you are in fact reformist, working for a General Strike through syndicalism.
Personally I consider myself an insurrectionary/revolutionary and in solidarity with other insurrectionaries around the world such as the Zapatistas and BRA. I use the word insurrection because “revolution” has been misused so often recently particularly in relation to the “Arab Spring”. Insurrection or “rising up” is also more appropriate than “revolution” or turning, especially if you are, like myself, more interested in Bakunin’s work than Marx’s.
Please explain your position more clearly…
(:þ)Hello popefred,
Unless a MAC member has been delegated to speak on the group’s behalf, anything any individual member says, whether at a Bookfair or elsewhere, should be understood as being that individual’s opinion – not necessarily that of the group as a whole.
Beyond this, the basic political orientation of the group is outlined in the aims and principles above. We advocate social revolution. We do not know precisely how such a revolution might come about, obviously, and individual members have a variety of perspectives on the political utility of strikes, syndicalism and more: such questions are matters for discussion.
I hope that makes the group’s position more clear.
Thanx. (:þ)
John,
I meant capitalism in the sense of free trade – think Rothbard and von Mises, not Keynes. I think we may be in agreement?
Hypothetically, if this ‘political ideal’ were to occur, which most likely it wont, considering the efforts of anarchists to have been relatively insignificant throughout history (no offence), what would happen once the working class “take possession of the means of production”? Secondly, “live in harmony with the Earth”? As nice as this sounds, that’s all it is- nice. It’s completely unrealistic. Finally what do you mean when you state that “a struggle must go on”? War? Negotiations? Keep in mind that one person’s utopia is another person’s hell.
Hi Mary,
You appear to object to both the possibility and the desirability of an anarchist society. I’m not sure exactly what the basis of your criticism is. One way of looking at it is to acknowledge that for the vast bulk of its history, humanity has survived in the absence of the state and class society. The question then becomes, are such forms of society necessary to ensure human survival? I would suggest that the answer is ‘no’. In fact, I would argue that capitalist society is actually endangering life on Earth, including but not limited to the human species.
I’m not sure what you mean when you ask what would happen after the working class takes possession of the means of production, but I think ‘democratic’ control of this sort is a precondition for the construction of a society that is both just and ‘sustainable’. And given the extent to which current forms of social life are damaging the habitability of the planet, rather than being unrealistic, a social revolution of this kind is in fact absolutely necessary.
Finally, with regards the proposition that a struggle must go on, this is a reference to the political reality of a capitalist society, in which capital and labour are engaged in a constant ‘war’: a class war. The resolution of this war is the liquidation of class society.
[G]
mmm… interesting thread, but being working class you art students have lost me a bit on the technicalities. Wots the plan, u know the revolution and all? I’m up 4 it. Good ideas, but wots the detail?
So what do you reckon we should do about these religious fanatics ISIL? I know our capitalist state is pretty crap but these religious fundamentalists seem to want to rape, behead, crucify and slaughter our fellow humans in the name of some mythical faerie called Allah. Surely we have to do something in the face of genocide. I know there are a lot of enemies to human freedom but these bastards are like the nazis kiliing the jews and the gypsies in the 1930’s and 40’s. I’m a humanitarian to the bone and I believe in the ideals of anarchism but I feel these religious nuts have to be stopped.
@greg wilson:
There’s not a lot local anarchists can do about The Islamic State, obviously. Melbourne anarchists have participated in several recent protests regarding the issue. Other anarchists, including those in Turkey, are providing some in/direct assistance to those fighting the Islamic State in places like Kobane …
why dont people see america as terrorists and its allies including yes australia…
shouldnt bush howard blair be in jail for war crimes? remember saddam and bin laden were both allies of america at one time…
Can anarcho-communists become members? May be a silly question but I’ve had a bad experience with other groups throughout Australia who were extremely pedantic about who joined and who didn’t and they certainly didn’t want anarcho-communists.
You state that ‘We are anarchists and revolutionaries, with all that implies for feminism, patriarchy and racism.’ but this is not such a simple solution to those problems. With social ideas such as these that permeate society throughout all of its layers you have to act more to ensure you are a safe space for women and POC, so I have to ask then, what kind of things have you done to reflect that? Also what is your stance on LGBTQ+ liberation or whatever term you’d use to refer to that? I’m especially interested in terms of your policies/ideas/whatever around trans people.
You guys are really marxists masquerading as anarchists. Your top two principles, liberty and equality directly contradict each other. You can’t support economic equality and also support individual liberty. The only way economic equality can occur is by force. That is the state decides that it will confiscate and redistribute wealth under the threat of violence. Even if you define the state to be a ‘direct democracy’ it is still the majority who determine how everyone will live, and who can force the minority to do their bidding. This is completely against individual freedom. Capitalism is the only system that doesn’t rely on force against individuals, and thus the only system compatible with anarchism. A ‘direct democracy’ is still a form of government. ‘Socialist anarchism’ is an oxymoron and anyone who believes in it must be very confused. That being said, not all of you probably believe in the definitions of anarchism given above, so there might be a few ancaps at the centre? Either way I’m interested in visiting the group 😀
Yep. What Kim said lol
Hi, I’m just wondering how the MAC puts up with so many stupid comments such as the one above where someone stupidly suggests that capitalism is the only system that doesn’t rely on force against individuals, for fuck’s sake!!! Is this person for real? Has this person not been living in this world? No force??? I feel forced every fucking day by an exploitative system to go out and make a ‘buck’ otherwise we have nothing, no roof, no food no nothin’. I walk down the Main Street of Melbourne dodging homeless person after homeless person, what is that if not a system that ‘forces’ people to go and compete with other fellow human beings for that buck. “The essence of capitalism is exploitation”. That is so clear to me, how could these idiots not see that? You can see it every fucking day!!! Abolish capitalism NOW!!! I actually was writing to you people at MAC with some questions about this ‘compulsory voting’ in this country as I find myself requiring some advice since our ridiculous last federal and state elections and how I’m being ‘forced’ to take part in this dangerous circus. You know, the ‘how’ and so forth if you know what I mean. Keep strong comrades, this mad monster ‘will not sustain itself’. Peace. P.S. “One of the difficulties for libertarian socialists, according to Chomsky, is that both the major propaganda systems of the modern era colluded in distorting the meaning of socialism.” “Freedom is an essential element of socialism.” “In its recognition of this lies the genuine and profound justification for the existence of anarchism.” “To a properly brainwashed intellectual, the idea of a ‘libertarian socialist’ is inconceivable, and Chomsky’s description of himself as such ‘makes him at any rate the most important oxymoron alive'”. From Rai, M., Chomsky’s Politics, Verso, U.K. 1995.
Hi, I left a comment on the 3rd of February 2017 at 10:18 and would like to just apologise for calling people idiots or stupid. It is my impatience and I suppose disappointment as mass popular organisation is what we need to have. And I’m all for the oxymoron. Thanks.
Responding to the comment made by porter in 2011, anarchy can be referred to and defined because it is non-hierarchic but not without order.
In mathematics there are examples of non-hierarchical orders (a lattice for instance). So from that we can disprove the proposition that an order requires an hierarchy. Essentially there is at least one mathematical example of that not being the case.
So having established that we can talk of non-hierarchical orders it is entirely appropriate and necessary to discuss the definition of anarchy as a social order or group of orders that are not hierarchic.
kim – “The only way economic equality can occur is by force. That is the state decides that it will confiscate and redistribute wealth under the threat of violence.”
Interesting point but how does this square with the fact that force is required to hold property as your own in the first place? Otherwise why have police, fences, security guards …
G’day,
Saw your building on a recent trip to Melb. & think I have much in common with your principles as read above. I belong to an (unnamed) organisation in Melb. with whom you could hopefully share ideas, I gave a talk on their views (& mine) to a U3A Philosophy Group here in Euroa last year & I will attach a printout below for your consideration & hopefully, comment.
I look forward to attending one of your meetings when I can make it.Best wishes,
Mal Booth (Euroa).Do I get a membership card if I join?
No trackbacks yet.
Anarchy is a central concept in international relations (IR) theory, as such this essay aims to compare and contrast two approaches to anarchy, namely the realist and constructivist approaches. It is hoped that by exploring two competing approaches to anarchy in IR theory that one can identify the strengths and weaknesses of such approaches, perhaps even eliminating one approach in order to better understand international politics. Adem notes that “the major theories of international relations embrace the view that the international system is anarchic”, however distinctions can be made as to how each major theory tackles the anarchic nature of the international system (Adem: 2002: 19). It is these distinctions, which I will compare and contrast in order to discover how anarchy can be approached and perhaps even overcome in international politics.
Before beginning a comparison of the realist and constructivist approaches to anarchy in IR theory, it may be useful to outline the key aspects of both approaches. This will highlight the significant features of their conceptions of anarchy, while also allowing for the exploration of differences existing within each approach.
Realism has long been the dominant perspective in IR theory and as such it seems logical to begin by outlining the key features of realism’s approach to anarchy. A key principle of realist theory is that of survival and it could be argued that in the domestic politics governments create and enforce laws to protect citizens, thus reducing the prospect of conflict or civil war, however the same cannot be said of international politics (Lebow: 2007). A central assumption of the realist approach to anarchy is thus that the rules of the international system are dictated by anarchy; in this sense, anarchy is perceived as a “lack of central government to enforce rules” and protect states (Goldstein & Pevehouse: 2006: 73). Realists, such as Kenneth Waltz, link this lack of a ‘world government’ to the continued occurrence of violence among states (Cudworth & Hobden: 2010). The absence of an authority higher than nation-states, it is argued, leads to a self-help system among states (Weber: 2009; Cudworth & Hobden: 2010); Lebow cites Mearsheimer’s characterisation of this anarchical, self-help international system as “a brutal arena where states look for opportunities to take advantage of each other” (Lebow: 2007: 55). This characterisation can be linked to the perception that international relations “cannot escape from a state of anarchy and will continue to be dangerous as a result” (Goldstein & Pevehouse: 2006: 74). Such perceptions demonstrate that realists have a largely pessimistic view of the international system (Grieco: 1988). In sum, all realists appear to subscribe to the belief that states are the only relevant actors in international politics and as there is no central authority to regulate or govern nation-states, a state of anarchy exists, where conflict and war is a constant threat as each state seeks to ensure its own survival at the expense of others.
However, there exists internal divisions within the IR theory of realism; this overview will concentrate on the distinction between classical realism and structural or neo-realism to illustrate this internal tension. While both predict that in an anarchical international system war is an inevitable outcome, there is disagreement over how anarchy will cause war.
Classical realists contend that human nature is destructive and thus causes war while neo-realists prefer to focus on social causes of war arguing that it is social relations among states that are responsible for conflict (Weber: 2009). Classical realists are often associated with the Hobbesian view of man as flawed and “tainted by original sin” (Weber: 2009: 16). Albert Einstein would agree with this to the extent that he judged man to have “an active and instinct for hatred and destruction” (Garnett: 2010: 28). In this sense, classical realists appear to be arguing that due to human nature war is to be expected at any time. Related to this point, Morgenthau would argue that all politics “is a struggle for power” and that in the international arena this struggle “cannot so readily be tamed” (Lebow: 2007: 55). This suggests that it is human nature to fight for power and survival and while constraints have been placed on man at a domestic level to reduce the likelihood of conflict in this struggle, without such constraints at an international level war will continue to be unavoidable. The classical realist view of politics as a struggle for power is perhaps best captured by reference to the security dilemma. The security dilemma is simply explained as “a situation in which states’ actions taken to assure their own security tend to threaten the security of other states” (Goldstein & Pevehouse: 2006: 74). Realism would thus argue that an anarchical international system prevents the security dilemma being overcome, which in turn causes conflicts to arise. Theorists of a realist perspective would further this point by suggesting that it is unrealistic to think anarchy can be overcome as the states will never feel secure enough to cede sovereignty to a higher authority in some form of world government (Weber: 2009).
While classical realists would argue that the inevitability of war in an anarchical system is due to the destructive tendency of human nature, structural realists argue that this has little to do with why states engage in the struggle for power (Mearsheimer: 2007). Structural or neo-realism, often associated with the work of Waltz, argue, “internationally states operate in a context of anarchy which dictates certain kinds of priorities and behaviours…to ensure international order and relative advantage within it” (Hutchings: 1999). In this sense Waltz appears to be arguing against Morgenthau’s notion that there is little distinction between domestic and international politics and that as states operate in an international context of anarchy that their behaviour and relationships at an international level will be very different from those at a domestic level. Structural realism thus concentrates on the structure of international society to explain why states behave in the (often conflictual) manner that they do. In seeking to explain the causes of war, Waltz argues that not even the growth in numbers of democratic states can override the structure of international politics to creating an increasingly peaceful international system (Waltz: 2000). Whereas classical realism assumes war to be a constant threat, neo-realists argue that, although there is no automatic harmony in anarchy, it is possible create a sense of order within anarchy through the balance of power (Weber: 2009). For neo-realists it is not only states that are relevant actors in international politics but great power states who are crucial to the balance of power in the international system (Mearsheimer: 2007). It is argued that power ratios among great powers, such as the US or China, affect the prospects for peace demonstrating that the structure of the international system in terms of unipolarity, bipolarity or multi-polarity and any resulting power shifts can increase or reduce the likelihood of international conflict (ibid.). In this case, structural realism suggests that anarchy is still the “permissive cause of war”, however elements of anarchy can be overcome by structuring the balance of power in a way that reduces the chance of conflict (Weber: 2009: 14).
Having discussed the key features of the realist approach to anarchy and the internal tensions existing within the realist school of thought, I will now move on to discuss the key features of the constructivist approach after which I will offer an analysis of the debate between realists and constructivists with regards to anarchy in international politics.
The constructivist approach to anarchy is often summed up by Wendt’s assertion that “anarchy is what states make of it” (Wendt: 1992: 391). In this sense Wendt is arguing that “people act towards objects, including other actors, on the basis of meanings objects have for them” (Wendt: 1992: 396); this suggests that our approach to anarchy is dependent upon the meaning we attach to anarchy and it is possible of “thinking of anarchy as having multiple meanings for different actors” (Hopf: 1998: 174). Central to the constructivist approach to anarchy is the inter-subjective meanings we attach to social contexts (Hopf: 1998). Social constructivism would thus ague that international relations are socially constructed and “imbued with social values, norms and assumptions” (Fierke: 2007: 168). Adem clarifies this argument by stating things only ‘exist’ because we believe them to and that “if states as well as non-state actors interact with the ‘belief’ that they are in an anarchic environment, we would be bound to witness a particular set of behaviour” (Adem: 2002: 20). This appears to suggest that a state or non-state actor’s understanding of anarchy will lead them to behave in particular ways in the social context of international politics. Constructivists, such as Hopf, argue that anarchy can be perceived as an “imagined community” where a “continuum of anarchies is possible” (Hopf: 1998: 174). This means that certain issue areas of international politics can be understood as more, or less, anarchic; the distinction between how states approach arms control and economic trade is used to exemplify this, with states worrying more about the enforcement of arms control agreements as the costs of “ceding control over outcomes to other states or institutions” are greater than they would be in trade agreements (ibid.). Again, this emphasizes the importance of inter-subjective meanings, which can be seen to predict certain behaviours in international politics. In this sense, constructivists dispute the realist notion that self-help and power politics are essential features of anarchy but rather that they are institutions effecting the process rather than structure of international relations (Wendt: 1992).
By distinguishing between the process and structure of international politics, constructivists can be viewed as being more optimistic in their outlook. While realists view the international system as static and war as unavoidable, constructivists would dispute this arguing that interests and identities change over the course of history allowing cooperation between states where previously there had been conflict, an example of this would be the states within the EU who were formerly enemies but have now learned to cooperate (Fierke: 2007). The EU example demonstrates that the effects of anarchy can be lessened through the creation of institutions as it internalizes identities and interests thus creating new understandings of self and other (Wendt: 1992); this suggests that institutions can help reconstruct identities for example Germany was viewed as an aggressive state but as a member of the EU, Germany is no longer viewed in this manner. In summary, although constructivists recognise anarchy’s existence in the international system, they argue that the effects of anarchy are dependent upon the inter-subjective meanings we attach to it; constructivists do not appear to subscribe to the view that war is inevitable in the international system but suggest that conflict is overcome by observing and reconstructing identities and interests. It appears to this author that although constructivists agree that self-help and power politics can be identified in international relations, these features are not permanent but shift or disappear when the meaning of anarchy is modified, i.e. when identities and interests are transformed creating new behaviour to be explained and understood.
With the key features of the realist and constructivist approaches to anarchy outlined, it is now possible to discuss the similarities and differences between these two approaches. While distinctions between realism and constructivism have been noted above, the final part of this essay aims to provide a more detailed discussion of the contrasts and also any similarities they share.
It may be useful to begin this discussion by noting what each of these IR theories has in common. In terms of this discussion, the most fundamental point to note is that each theory recognises the international system as being anarchic, in fact it has been argued that assumption of anarchy is what sets IR apart from other disciplines (Adem: 2002). There are other similarities. Both appear to accept states as the “fundamental actors in international politics” (Weber: 2009: 67). This illustrates from a constructivist viewpoint that although non-state actors are present in the international politics, it is the constructed relationships between states that have the greatest influence on the structure and process of the system. The other feature which both theories share is the commitment to an “epistemology indebted to positivism” in order to explain and understand the world (Fierke: 2007: 172; Smith: 2007). This is the claim that scientific reasoning underlies the ideas of all the major schools of IR theory, of which realism and constructivism are part (Adem: 2002).
Although it is possible to identify similarities between the constructivist and realist theory, it is also possible to note distinctions among these theoretical perspectives with regards to anarchy. It is the distinctions on which I will focus on in order to determine which theory offers the most persuasive argument.
A starting point of the contrasts that can be made is the way in which constructivists challenge the structural realist conception of anarchy. As has been alluded to earlier, constructivists dispute the claim that “anarchy and the distribution of relative power drive most of what goes on in world politics” (Copeland: 2000: 187). Constructivists, through the work of Alexander Wendt, challenge the neo-realist notion that anarchy forces states into “recurrent security competitions” but rather that anarchy can be conflictual or cooperative (Copeland: 2000: 188; Weber: 2009). It was noted in the description of the realist approach to anarchy that the main priority of states is to ensure their own survival, which often leads to conflict thus allowing realists to argue that the anarchical nature of the international system makes war inevitable. It is possible to suggest that while constructivists agree all states try to survive, the way in which they achieve this survival is an “open question” illustrating that state survival need not entail the use of force or engagement in conflict (Weber: 2009: 67). In this sense constructivists would assert that “anarchy does not dispose actors to do anything in particular”, while realists claim that anarchy leads states to war thus illustrating a clear distinction between realism and constructivism (Dessler & Owen: 2005: 598).
Following on from the argument that anarchy does or does not generate certain behaviours from states, it is possible to draw the distinction between anarchy as a factor of international relations and anarchy as the defining feature of international relations. The realist interpretation, as offered by Waltz, would have us believe that international anarchy dictates how states must behave in the state system rather than how they might behave thus making anarchy the defining feature of international relations (Weber: 2009). In this sense Waltz’s argument that war occurs because there is no authority to prevent them appears to suggest that, because of this absence of a international governing body, states should actively pursue conflict in order to ensure their own survival (Grieco: 1988). Constructivists would counter this view by arguing that neo-realists are viewing states as more or less identical thus limiting their ability to observe social change (Hopf: 1998); by failing to observe the differences in identity and interests between individual states, realists are unable to see the possibilities for cooperation in an anarchical system. In this sense constructivists, with their perception of multiple meanings, can see the opportunity for cooperation where realists only consider the possibility of conflict. Realists justify the continued threat of violence in the international system by adding the element of fear to their approach of anarchy. In Theory of International Politics, Waltz appears to suggest anarchy is location of fear (Weber: 2009: 32). States are seen to be in constant fear of the intentions of other states within the anarchical structure. This means that the security dilemma is not a feature of international politics but a feature of international anarchy suggesting that security concerns are only overcome by the change in structure of the system away from anarchy (ibid.).
Thus, realism dictates that in anarchical system states have no choice but to put their own interests ahead of the interests of other states and that fear will never be reduced to an inconsequential level (Mearsheimer: 2007); this will result in continued fear where so long as anarchy exists so too will conflict. The constructivist critique of this argument is that, due to inter-subjective understandings, fear can be overcome through interaction with other states (Copeland: 2000). This line of critique emphasizes the role of identity as it is argued that the production and reproduction of identities can play a role in modifying the structures of the international system as these structures “exist only through the reciprocal interaction of actors” (Copeland: 2000: 190). In this sense fear is not located in anarchy but produced by relations between actors operating within the structure of anarchy. Constructivists would thus argue that diplomatic relations between states helps to reduce states’ fears and foster cooperation; this argument can be linked to the earlier example of EU states where the creation of diplomatic (and economic) ties helped reduce the fear that Germany would rebuild its military capabilities and allowed cooperation among European states to take place despite the anarchical nature of international politics.
In conclusion, this essay has outlined how both realism and constructivism approach the concept of anarchy in international politics. Both theoretical approaches accept that the structure of the international system is anarchical, however there is debate as to whether or not the effects of anarchy, such as self-help, can be overcome without fundamentally changing the structure of international politics. Realists, such as Waltz, argue that anarchy and its resulting security dilemma cannot be overcome unless a ‘world government’ is created, a situation that realists cannot envision occurring, as states will never feel secure enough to do so. This is a highly pessimistic view, which suggests we are to continually expect conflict with periods of peace being explained by the balance of power. On the other hand, constructivists dispute this approach, arguing instead that anarchy itself does not explain the behaviour of states but that we need to recognise the importance of identity, interests and inter-subjective understandings of these factors when seeking to explain international politics. I felt that as constructivism could better account for both conflict and cooperation in the international system that its explanation of anarchy was more persuasive. With more time I resources I would have been able to articulate this view more fully, however, the primary purpose of this essay was to offer a comparison of the realist and constructivist approaches to anarchy and as such the focus was on defining and discussing their respective viewpoints.
Bibliography
Adem, S. (2002) Anarchy, Order and Power in World Politics, Ashgate, Hampshire
Copeland, D. (2000) “The Constructivist Challenge to Structural Realism”, International Security, 25: 2: 187-212
Cudworth, E and Hobden, S. (2010) “Anarchy and Anarchism: Towards a Theory of Complex International Systems”, Millennium, 39: 2: 399-416
Dessler, D and Owen, J. (2005) “Constructivism and the Problem of Explanation”, Perspectives on Politics, 3: 3: 597-610
Fierke, K.M. (2007) “Constructivism”, in Dunne, T., Kurki, M. and Smith, S., International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity, Oxford University Press, Oxford
Garnett, J. (2010) “The Causes of War and the Conditions of Peace”, in Baylis, J., Wirtz, J.J. and Gray, C.S. Strategy in the Contemporary World 3rd Ed., Oxford University Press, Oxford
Goldstein, J.S. and Pevehouse, J.C. (2006) International Relations, 7th Ed. Pearson Longman, London
Grieco, J.M. (1988) “Anarchy and the limits of cooperation: a realist critique of the newest liberal institutionalism”, International Organization, 42: 3: 485-507
Hopf, T. (1998) “The Promise of Constructivism in International Relations Theory”, International Security, 23: 1: 171-200
Hutchings, K. (1999) International Political Theory, Sage, London
Lebow, R.N. (2007) “Classical Realism”, in Dunne, T., Kurki, M. and Smith, S., International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Anarchy In The United States
Mearsheimer, J. (2007) “Structural Realism”, in Dunne, T., Kurki, M. and Smith, S., International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity, Oxford University Press, Oxford
Smith, S. (2007) “Introduction: Diversity and Disciplinarity in International Relations Theory”, in Dunne, T., Kurki, M. and Smith, S., International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity, Oxford University Press, Oxford
Waltz, K. (2000) “Structural Realism after the Cold War”, International Security, 25: 1: 5-41
Weber, C. (2009) International Relations Theory: A Critical Introduction, 3rd Ed. Routledge, London
Wendt, A. (1992) “Anarchy is what States Make of it: The Social Construction of Power Politics”, International Organization, 46: 2: 391-425
—
Written by: Miriam E Dornan
Written at: University of Strathclyde
Written for: Dr Catherine Eschle
Date written: March 2011
Anarchy A
Further Reading on E-International Relations