Kropotkin and Goldman | Edexcel A-Level Politics
Updated: 7 days ago
For Specification 9PL0
Edexcel A-Level Politics | Free Revision Notes
Estimated study time:Â 55 minutes
Edexcel A-Level Politics | Free Revision Notos
Learning Objectives
Revision Notes
Peter Kropotkin
Emma Coldman
Comparing Kropotkin and Coldman
Key Words
Hints from the Examiner Reports
Common Mistakes
Exam-Style Questions
This Kropotkin and Goldman A-Level Politics revision page examines the final two specified anarchist thinkers for Edexcel 9PL0. You need to understand Peter Kropotkin's scientific basis for mutual aid and revolutionary vision of a society where anarchy is order, alongside Emma Goldman's rejection of the state and conventional political participation. Comparing them reveals substantial agreement over revolution and statelessness, but different emphases in explaining how anarchism can work. Their ideas bring together earlier learning on the state and liberty and economic freedom.
Learning Objectives 🎯
By the end of this revision page, you should be able to:
Define mutual aid and explain its importance to Kropotkin.
Explain how Kropotkin connects mutual aid with human nature.
Explain Kropotkin's support for revolution to abolish the state and private property.
Explain why Goldman regards the state as immoral and rejects political participation.
Analyse why Goldman argues for revolution rather than reform.
Compare Kropotkin's and Goldman's approaches to revolution and the creation of a stateless society.
Revision Notes đź“š
Kropotkin and Goldman: A-Level Politics revision overview
Peter Kropotkin and Emma Goldman are two of the five anarchist thinkers specified by Edexcel. As with Stirner, Proudhon and Bakunin, the specification requires you to focus on their specified key ideas, not detailed biography.
For Kropotkin, you need to know:
the scientific basis for mutual aid
how mutual aid allows human nature to flourish
revolution to abolish the state and private property
his utopian vision of a future society where anarchy is order
For Goldman, you need to know:
the idea that the state is a "cold monster"
why the state should be rejected as immoral
why political participation in the state and society is corrupting and futile
why revolution rather than reform is therefore the only option
These thinkers are particularly useful when answering questions about:
human nature
the state
political authority
revolution
economic freedom
the nature of a future stateless society
Peter Kropotkin
Kropotkin's ideas provide one of the clearest explanations of why anarchists believe a peaceful and stable society can exist without government.
His argument begins with mutual aid.
What is mutual aid?
Mutual aid is one of the key anarchist terms defined in the Edexcel specification.
It is the idea that:
the most successful species are those that employ solidarity and co-operation rather than individualistic competition.
For Kropotkin, co-operation is therefore not simply a pleasant moral preference.
He provides a scientific basis for the idea that co-operation is important.
This matters because one of the most obvious criticisms of anarchism is that removing government would allow selfishness and conflict to produce disorder.
Kropotkin provides the opposite argument:
co-operation is a basis for successful social existence → humans possess the potential for mutual aid → the state is not necessary to impose order
Mutual aid and solidarity
Mutual aid is closely related to the anarchist principle of solidarity.
Edexcel defines solidarity as a relationship of:
sympathy
co-operation
harmony
between people, meaning they do not need to be regulated by the state.
State regulation can actually make genuine solidarity impossible.
This fits Kropotkin's reasoning well.
If people can co-operate voluntarily, then political authority is not required to force them into orderly relationships.
Mutual aid and human nature
The specification states that Kropotkin's scientific basis for mutual aid allows human nature to flourish.
This connects his thought directly to the wider collectivist understanding of human nature explored in collectivist and individualist anarchism.
Collectivist anarchists stress a human nature capable of being:
rational
altruistic
co-operative
Kropotkin's mutual aid provides a basis for believing that humans can organise themselves successfully through co-operation rather than coercion.
The effect of the state on human potential
The wider anarchist argument is that coercive political and economic relationships prevent human nature from developing freely.
If people live within institutions based upon:
power
hierarchy
coercion
economic exploitation
then the behaviour produced by those institutions does not necessarily show how people would behave under conditions of genuine liberty.
Kropotkin's argument therefore challenges the claim:
Humans compete and conflict, therefore they require government.
Instead, his mutual-aid argument supports:
Humans possess a capacity for co-operation, therefore government is not necessary for successful social order.
Past Edexcel mark schemes have used Kropotkin's mutual aid to illustrate the wider anarchist claim that removing coercive relationships allows the social and co-operative potential of human nature to emerge.
Kropotkin and "anarchy is order"
Kropotkin's mutual aid helps explain the anarchist principle that anarchy is order.
Anarchy means the absence of coercive political authority, not the absence of social organisation.
For Kropotkin:
The state and coercive relationships are removed.
Human nature is able to flourish.
Mutual aid and co-operation can develop.
Social relationships can operate without political authority.
Natural order can therefore emerge.
The relationship can be expressed as:
abolition of coercion → flourishing human nature → mutual aid → spontaneous social order
This provides an important defence of anarchism against the argument that a stateless society would inevitably become chaotic.
Kropotkin's optimistic view of human potential
Kropotkin therefore represents an optimistic view of what human beings can become when freed from coercive relationships.
This does not mean your answer should simply say:
Kropotkin thinks everyone is naturally nice.
That is far too simplistic.
The key specified concept is mutual aid, grounded in the idea that successful species employ solidarity and co-operation rather than relying only on individualistic competition.
💡 Exam point: Use the precise term mutual aid and explain the chain of reasoning from co-operation to stateless order.
Kropotkin and revolution
Kropotkin does not believe his ideal society can simply be achieved by making small reforms to the existing system.
The specification explicitly identifies:
revolution to abolish the state and private property.
Two existing institutions therefore need to disappear:
the state
private property
Why abolish the state?
The state contradicts fundamental anarchist principles because it exercises coercive political authority.
The wider anarchist critique identifies the state as:
coercive
restrictive of liberty
damaging to human nature
a barrier to spontaneous social order
Kropotkin's mutual-aid argument strengthens this criticism.
If human beings can co-operate successfully without government, then coercive political authority is unnecessary.
Why abolish private property?
Kropotkin's revolution also abolishes private property.
This connects his ideas to the wider anarchist debate about economic freedom.
For Kropotkin, political freedom cannot be separated from economic arrangements.
A revolution which removed political authority while leaving existing forms of private property untouched would not achieve the future society specified in his thought.
Therefore:
revolution → abolition of the state + abolition of private property → conditions for a new anarchist society
This distinguishes Kropotkin from Proudhon's mutualism, which allows small-scale property based on use or possession.
Kropotkin's revolutionary vision
Kropotkin's revolution has a clear destination.
The specification describes his utopian vision of the future society where anarchy is order.
The term utopian is important.
Anarchist utopianism involves considering the operation and benefits of an idealised society and using this vision to criticise existing society.
Kropotkin's ideal society is:
stateless
free from private property
based upon the possibility of mutual aid
compatible with human nature flourishing
capable of natural social order
The argument is not simply about destroying existing institutions.
It also provides a positive explanation of why society can continue once they have disappeared.
Revolution and the anarchist utopia
Kropotkin's thought therefore contains both a negative and a positive argument.
Negative
Existing state and economic arrangements must be abolished.
Positive
Mutual aid provides a basis for a new society in which human nature can flourish and order arises without political authority.
This combination is one of the most useful features of Kropotkin in an examination.
You can use him to explain both:
why anarchists reject existing society
and
why they believe an alternative society can work.
Emma Goldman
Emma Goldman's specified ideas focus particularly strongly on:
the immorality of the state
the futility of political participation
the inadequacy of reform
Her conclusion is uncompromising:
revolution, not reform, is the only option.
Goldman: the state as a "cold monster"
The specification associates Goldman with the idea that the state is a "cold monster"Â and should be rejected because it is immoral.
This directly exemplifies anarchism's fundamental rejection of political authority.
The point is not simply that Goldman dislikes a particular government.
Her argument concerns the state itself.
Why is the state immoral?
The wider anarchist definition of the state helps explain Goldman's position.
Edexcel defines the state from an anarchist perspective as a sovereign body that exerts authority over individuals and groups within its geographical limits.
Anarchists also view authority as:
commanding
controlling
corrupting
and government as ultimately based on coercion.
Goldman's description of the state as immoral therefore reflects a fundamental objection to the existence of coercive political authority.
Her argument is not:
this state is governed badly and should be improved
but:
state authority itself is unacceptable and should be rejected
This is why Goldman is especially useful for rejection of the state, liberty and anarchy is order.
Goldman and political participation
Goldman's second specified idea concerns political participation.
She argues that:
all forms of political participation in the state and society are corrupting and futile.
Both parts of that description matter.
Political participation is corrupting
If state authority itself is immoral, participating through institutions based upon that authority risks accepting and reinforcing the very political system anarchism seeks to remove.
Participation can therefore corrupt the anarchist objective.
Instead of abolishing coercive authority, political actors become involved with its institutions.
Political participation is futile
Goldman also regards political participation as futile.
If the fundamental problem is the state itself, changing particular policies or office-holders does not remove the underlying institution of political authority.
The reasoning is:
state itself is immoral → participation takes place within that immoral structure → participation cannot remove the fundamental problem → conventional political participation is futile
This is a more radical critique than simply claiming that elections or political institutions sometimes produce poor results.
Goldman's objection is structural.
Goldman and reform
Goldman's rejection of political participation leads directly to her rejection of reform.
Reform attempts to improve existing institutions while leaving their fundamental structure in place.
But if state authority itself is immoral, improving that authority does not solve the central anarchist objection.
Therefore:
immoral state + corrupting political participation + futile reform = need for revolution
The specification's conclusion is explicit:
revolution, not reform, is the only option.
Revolution rather than reform
This makes Goldman an important thinker when comparing anarchist methods of change.
Earlier, in Stirner, Proudhon and Bakunin, you saw three different approaches:
Stirner: insurrection
Proudhon: peaceful means
Bakunin: propaganda by the deed leading to revolution
Goldman adds another clear revolutionary position.
Her argument for revolution stems directly from the belief that working within existing political structures cannot produce genuine anarchist transformation.
Goldman and liberty
Although Goldman's specified points concentrate on the state and political participation, they also illustrate the wider anarchist commitment to liberty.
Political authority prevents individuals from managing their own lives freely.
Recent Edexcel mark schemes use Goldman to exemplify the shared anarchist belief that individuals should be able to make their own choices without coercive political authority.
Her rejection of the state therefore follows a fundamental anarchist relationship:
political authority → restriction of individual freedom
while:
rejection of coercive authority → greater liberty
Goldman and the stateless society
Goldman clearly rejects continued state authority, placing her within the shared anarchist commitment to a stateless society.
However, there is an important specification boundary here.
⚠️ The Edexcel specification does not give Goldman a separate detailed blueprint for the structure or economic organisation of the future stateless society.
You should therefore use Goldman most confidently for:
the immorality of the state
rejection of state authority
rejection of political participation
criticism of reform
the necessity of revolution
You can connect these ideas to the general anarchist principle of a peaceful and stable stateless society, but you should not invent a detailed "Goldman model" of future economic or political organisation that the specification does not provide.
This is especially important because Edexcel explicitly tells students to focus on the specified ideas for each thinker.
Comparing Kropotkin and Goldman
Kropotkin and Goldman share important revolutionary anarchist principles.
However, the specification gives them different roles in explaining anarchist thought.
Agreement 1: rejection of the state
Both reject the state.
Kropotkin
The state must be abolished through revolution, allowing human nature and mutual aid to flourish.
Goldman
The state is immoral and must be rejected.
This gives them strong common ground:
the state cannot simply be improved, its continued existence is incompatible with anarchism.
Edexcel mark schemes identify rejection of the state as one of the strongest areas of unity throughout anarchism, with Goldman illustrating its immorality and Kropotkin helping to explain how abolition can release economic freedom and human potential.
Agreement 2: revolution
Both Kropotkin and Goldman are revolutionary rather than reformist thinkers within the specified content.
Kropotkin
Revolution is necessary to abolish:
the state
private property
Goldman
Revolution is necessary because:
the state is immoral
political participation is corrupting
participation is futile
reform therefore cannot achieve anarchist objectives
The conclusion is similar, but the reasoning is emphasised differently.
Kropotkin | Goldman |
Revolution removes state and private property | Revolution replaces futile reform |
Revolutionary change is tied to a positive future vision | Revolutionary change follows rejection of existing political participation |
Mutual aid helps explain what makes stateless order possible | Immorality of the state explains why participation within it is unacceptable |
Difference 1: their main justification for revolution
Kropotkin's case centres heavily on the possibility of a fundamentally different political, economic and social order.
He specifies both:
what must go:Â state and private property
and:
what makes the alternative possible:Â mutual aid and flourishing human nature.
Goldman's specified argument is focused more directly on why working within the existing political system cannot succeed.
She therefore gives a particularly strong critique of:
political participation
reform
attempts to work through the state
The distinction is useful:
Kropotkin helps explain why revolutionary anarchist society can work.
Goldman helps explain why reforming existing political society cannot work.
Difference 2: the future stateless society
Kropotkin has a clearly specified utopian vision of the future society where anarchy is order.
Mutual aid explains why human beings can co-operate when coercive institutions disappear.
The specification gives Goldman much less detail about the organisation of the future society.
Her specified contribution is primarily the argument that:
the state is immoral
participation through existing institutions is corrupting and futile
revolution must replace reform
Therefore, when comparing their ideas about the stateless society:
Kropotkin provides a more developed positive explanation of how stateless order could operate.
Goldman provides a more developed critique of why the existing state and reformist politics must be rejected.
This is a valuable distinction because it compares the thinkers without introducing ideas outside the specification.
Kropotkin, Goldman and human nature
Kropotkin is particularly important for questions about human nature.
His mutual-aid argument suggests that humans have the capacity for:
solidarity
co-operation
and that removing coercive relationships allows this potential to flourish.
Goldman's specified ideas do not contain an equally detailed theory of human nature.
However, Edexcel mark schemes use her rejection of coercive relationships within the broader anarchist argument that existing political and social arrangements prevent human potential from being fully realised.
For a question specifically focused on human nature:
use Kropotkin as your stronger detailed example
use Goldman principally to support the wider critique of coercive institutions where relevant
Do not force every thinker into every argument.
Kropotkin, Goldman and economic freedom
Kropotkin's specified revolutionary programme explicitly abolishes private property.
His ideas therefore connect particularly strongly to economic freedom and collectivist anarchism.
Goldman's specified bullets do not provide a detailed economic system.
Again, precision matters.
If the question concerns common ownership or economic freedom, Kropotkin is normally the more directly useful of these two thinkers.
A good Edexcel essay does not simply name as many thinkers as possible. It selects the thinkers whose specified ideas actually support the argument.
Comparing all five anarchist thinkers on change
Kropotkin and Goldman complete the wider anarchist debate about how the state should disappear.
Thinker | Specified approach to change |
Stirner | Insurrection rather than political overthrow |
Proudhon | Rejection and overthrow of the state through peaceful means |
Bakunin | Propaganda by the deed sparks revolution |
Kropotkin | Revolution abolishes the state and private property |
Goldman | Political participation is corrupting and futile, so revolution rather than reform is the only option |
This demonstrates an extremely useful evaluative argument.
Strong agreement
Every thinker contributes to anarchism's rejection of continued coercive state authority.
Major disagreement
They disagree considerably about how existing political arrangements should come to an end.
Edexcel mark schemes repeatedly identify the process of bringing an end to the state as one of the major divisions within anarchism.
Comparing all five thinkers on the stateless society
The thinkers also demonstrate agreement and disagreement over what happens after state authority disappears.
Shared anarchist principle
All anarchists support the possibility of a stateless society based upon liberty rather than coercive political authority.
Different visions
Stirner envisages the Union of Egoists.
Proudhon's mutualism provides one economic form of self-government.
Bakunin's sociability helps explain collectivist order.
Kropotkin uses mutual aid to explain co-operative stateless order.
Goldman's specified ideas establish the need to reject the state and reform, but do not provide a separate detailed blueprint for the future society.
This supports an important essay judgement:
Anarchists are more united over what must disappear than over precisely what should replace it.
The 2025 mark scheme similarly identifies a shared commitment to statelessness alongside significant divisions concerning the nature of the future anarchist society.
Kropotkin and Goldman in the wider anarchism topic
These two thinkers bring together the core principles from the whole Edexcel anarchism option.
The state
Kropotkin supports its revolutionary abolition.
Goldman condemns it as immoral.
Liberty
Both reject coercive political authority as incompatible with genuine freedom.
Anarchy is order
Kropotkin provides a particularly clear explanation through mutual aid and flourishing human nature.
Economic freedom
Kropotkin's revolution abolishes private property as well as the state.
Utopianism
Kropotkin offers an explicit utopian vision of future society where anarchy is order.
Revolution
Both support revolution, but Goldman particularly demonstrates why reform and political participation are insufficient.
Together, they provide excellent evidence for the connections between the ideas introduced across economic freedom and utopianism.
The two thinkers at a glance
Area | Peter Kropotkin | Emma Goldman |
Central specified idea | Mutual aid | State is an immoral "cold monster" |
Human nature | Mutual aid allows human nature to flourish | No separate detailed theory specified |
State | Must be abolished | Immoral and must be rejected |
Private property | Must be abolished | No detailed property position specified in her thinker content |
Political participation | No separate detailed position specified | Corrupting and futile |
Reform | Revolutionary change specified | Explicitly rejected in favour of revolution |
Revolution | Abolishes state and private property | Only option because political participation and reform are futile |
Stateless society | Explicit utopian vision where anarchy is order | Supports rejection of the state, but no separate detailed blueprint is specified |
Especially useful for essays on | Human nature, mutual aid, economy, utopianism, anarchy is order | State, political participation, liberty, reform and revolution |
Hints from the Examiner Reports đź’ˇ
Examiner hint:Â Use thinkers to illustrate a debate rather than allowing the thinkers themselves to become the debate. Examiner feedback stresses that political-ideas questions test the agreements and tensions within anarchism, supported by thinkers, not a sequence of mini-biographies.
Examiner hint:Â You must use specified thinkers accurately. Examiner guidance for non-core political ideas repeatedly stresses the importance of the key thinkers and their specific ideas from the specification.
Examiner hint:Â For questions about the state, organise your answer around why the state is rejected, how it should be removed and what society looks like without it. The 2021 examiner report identified this as an effective way to develop the debate within anarchism.
Examiner hint:Â Do not simply list areas of agreement and disagreement. Stronger answers make a judgement about how important each similarity or difference is, producing a sustained answer to "to what extent".
Examiner hint: Use precise anarchist terminology. Recent examiner feedback found that the language of the ideology helps students write shorter, more focused and more effective answers. Terms such as mutual aid, authority, liberty, revolution and stateless society should be used accurately.
Examiner hint:Â At least two specified thinkers are essential in a 24-mark non-core political ideas answer. Marking guidance states that responses which fail to refer to specific thinkers cannot progress beyond Level 2.
Examiner hint:Â Keep introductions short. Examiner feedback warns that ideas questions have limited available time, so an effective introduction should define the central issue, establish the debate and indicate the direction of the argument without becoming overlong.
Common Mistakes ⚠️
Mistake: Describing mutual aid simply as "being nice to other people"
Why this is incorrect: The Edexcel definition is much more precise. Mutual aid concerns the success of species employing solidarity and co-operation rather than individualistic competition.
How to improve: Use the specification language and connect it to Kropotkin's claim that human nature can flourish without coercive state authority.
Mistake: Saying Kropotkin wants to reform the state
Why this is incorrect: Kropotkin supports revolution to abolish the state and private property.
How to improve: Connect Kropotkin directly to revolutionary transformation rather than gradual reform of state institutions.
Mistake: Forgetting private property in Kropotkin's revolution
Why this is incorrect: The specification identifies both the state and private property as objects of revolutionary abolition.
How to improve: Remember the pair:
Kropotkin's revolution = state + private property abolished.
Mistake: Saying Goldman believes voting and political participation can gradually produce anarchism
Why this is incorrect: Goldman regards all forms of political participation in the state and society as corrupting and futile.
How to improve: Explain why this leads directly to her conclusion that revolution rather than reform is the only option.
Mistake: Treating Kropotkin and Goldman as having identical arguments for revolution
Why this is incorrect: Both support revolution, but their specified arguments emphasise different things.
How to improve: Explain that Kropotkin links revolution to abolition of the state and private property and a positive utopian vision, while Goldman particularly stresses the futility of participation and reform.
Mistake: Inventing a detailed Goldman model of the future economy
Why this is incorrect: The specification does not give Goldman a detailed economic blueprint in her thinker content.
How to improve: Use Goldman for the ideas explicitly specified: immorality of the state, rejection of political participation, and revolution rather than reform.
Mistake: Treating "cold monster" as enough explanation
Why this is incorrect: Simply reproducing the phrase demonstrates very limited understanding.
How to improve: Explain that the phrase reflects Goldman's view that the state itself is immoral, making reform within state institutions insufficient.
Mistake: Writing a Kropotkin paragraph followed by a Goldman paragraph without comparison
Why this is incorrect: This can produce good AO1 knowledge but weak AO2 and AO3.
How to improve: Structure the essay around themes such as rejection of the state, methods of change and the future stateless society, using both thinkers within the same argument.
Exam-Style Questions ✍️
Question 1
Define mutual aid. (1 mark)
Answer:
The idea that the most successful species employ solidarity and co-operation rather than individualistic competition.
Question 2
Identify the two institutions Kropotkin believes revolution should abolish. (2 marks)
reveal mark scheme and indicative content
Answer:
the state
private property
Question 3
Explain how Kropotkin's idea of mutual aid supports the principle that anarchy is order. (4 marks)
reveal mark scheme and indicative content
Indicative mark scheme:
A strong response should explain that:
mutual aid stresses solidarity and co-operation rather than individualistic competition
this provides a basis for believing people can organise relationships without coercive government
removing coercive institutions allows human nature to flourish
social order can therefore emerge without a state
Question 4
Explain why Goldman rejects political participation. (6 marks)
reveal mark scheme and indicative content
Indicative mark scheme:
Credit developed explanation that:
Goldman considers the state immoral
political participation operates within the state and existing society
such participation is therefore corrupting
it is also futile because participation does not remove the fundamental institution of coercive state authority
reform leaves the basic state structure intact
Goldman therefore concludes that revolution rather than reform is the only option
Question 5
Explain two differences between Kropotkin's and Goldman's specified arguments for revolution. (8 marks)
reveal mark scheme and indicative content
Indicative mark scheme:
A strong response could explain that:
Kropotkin explicitly connects revolution with abolition of both the state and private property, while Goldman's argument centres particularly on the corruption and futility of political participation and reform.
Kropotkin provides a positive utopian vision of future stateless order based around mutual aid, while Goldman's specified content focuses more strongly on why existing state institutions must be rejected.
Both are revolutionary, but their justifications and emphases therefore differ.
Question 6
A political activist argues that elections and participation in existing political institutions cannot create genuine freedom because those institutions themselves are based upon immoral authority. The activist concludes that reform will never be sufficient.
Explain which specified anarchist thinker this most closely reflects and why. (8 marks)
reveal mark scheme and indicative content
Indicative answer:
This most closely reflects Emma Goldman.
A developed answer should explain that:
Goldman regards the state as immoral
she sees political participation in the state and society as corrupting
she also regards it as futile
participating within existing institutions therefore cannot produce genuine anarchism
she concludes that revolution rather than reform is the only option
Question 7
To what extent do Kropotkin and Goldman agree about how the state should be challenged? (12 marks)
reveal mark scheme and indicative content
Indicative mark scheme:
Agreement:
both reject continued state authority
both support revolution rather than the preservation of the existing state
neither believes conventional reform can provide the final anarchist solution
both connect removal of the state to greater liberty
Differences:
Kropotkin explicitly connects revolution to abolition of both state and private property
Kropotkin's mutual aid provides a positive explanation of how human nature can support stateless order
Goldman focuses more strongly on the corruption and futility of political participation
Goldman's specified argument establishes why reform fails, while Kropotkin's gives more detail about the future anarchist society
Judgement:
A strong conclusion might argue that agreement is substantial over the need for revolutionary rejection of state authority, while their different emphasis concerns the case used to justify revolution and the detail provided about the society that follows it.
Question 8
To what extent do anarchists agree that revolution is the best means of achieving a stateless society? (24 marks)
reveal mark scheme and indicative content
Indicative mark scheme:
A high-level response should compare agreements and tensions within anarchism, supported by appropriate specified thinkers.
Argument 1: Significant support for revolution
Several specified thinkers support revolutionary change.
Kropotkin supports revolution to abolish the state and private property.
Goldman argues that political participation is corrupting and futile, meaning revolution rather than reform is the only option.
Bakunin believes propaganda by the deed can spark revolution and that oppressive state power must be abolished.
This suggests substantial anarchist support for radical rather than reformist transformation.
Interim judgement: The revolutionary tradition is clearly significant within anarchism.
Argument 2: Anarchists are not united over revolution
Other specified thinkers demonstrate important disagreement.
Proudhon supports rejection and overthrow of the state through peaceful means.
Stirner's insurrection is explicitly not synonymous with revolution. His approach centres on individuals elevating themselves above established institutions and allowing those institutions to decay.
Interim judgement: The existence of peaceful and insurrectionary alternatives means revolution cannot be described as a universally agreed anarchist method.
Argument 3: Greater agreement exists over the destination
Despite disagreement over method, anarchists share a fundamental rejection of coercive political authority.
Goldman regards the state as immoral.
Kropotkin seeks its revolutionary abolition.
Bakunin considers state power oppressive.
Proudhon rejects the state peacefully.
Stirner's future society is no longer based upon state authority.
The method differs, but the movement towards statelessness is much more consistent.
Interim judgement: Anarchists agree much more strongly about the rejection of the state than about the means through which that rejection should occur.
Argument 4: Different routes are linked to different visions of stateless order
Kropotkin's revolution leads towards a utopian society where mutual aid permits human nature to flourish and anarchy produces order.
Stirner instead envisages a Union of Egoists emerging through insurrection.
Proudhon associates the stateless future with mutualism.
Goldman's specified ideas establish the necessity of revolution but do not provide a separate detailed blueprint for the future society.
This shows that disagreements over method are accompanied by disagreement about the precise nature of the society that follows.
Overall judgement
A well-supported conclusion could argue that revolution is a major but not universal anarchist method. Kropotkin, Goldman and Bakunin provide substantial revolutionary support, but Proudhon's peaceful approach and Stirner's distinct concept of insurrection prevent anarchism from having a single agreed strategy. The strongest unity lies instead in the ultimate objective: the rejection of coercive state authority and creation of a stateless society in which liberty makes social order possible.
Comments