Introduction
Robert Paul Wolff offers a compelling and meticulous defense of anarchism that deviates from the convoluted tapestry of anarchist thought, characterized by both passionate exuberance and lucid coherence. While anarchists traditionally diverge in their views, ranging from anarcho-capitalism to comprehensive communism, Wolff’s exposition distills the core principle of anarchism: the absence of rulership, an+archos. His defense is built on a deductive argument, hinging on the pivotal assertion that a state, by virtue of its inherent coerciveness, is consequently undesirable.
Wolff’s Perspective on Anarchy
Wolff’s defense aligns with a broader philosophical consensus that there is no moral obligation to obey or support an evil state. This notion, while shared across various Western ideologies, is not exclusive to anarchism. It has deep roots in Christian tradition, reflecting the perennial tension between ecclesiastical doctrines and state mandates. Throughout history, Christian thought has oscillated between Aquinas’ advocacy for resisting tyranny and Luther’s call for obedience to even unjust governments (123). This tension culminated in the Enlightenment assertion that legitimate governance must not contravene ‘higher laws’ stemming from nature or natural rights.
Wolff’s argument proceeds from this widely accepted premise, forging a link to anarchism by underscoring the state’s intrinsic immorality. He posits that the state’s coercive nature is antithetical to individual freedom and autonomy, which are pivotal to human dignity. His thesis rejects the necessity of the state for a decent life, challenging the democratic belief that the state can be purified through democratic means (123). Instead, Wolff suggests that the state, no matter how democratically adorned, remains a rotten fish that ornate sauces cannot salvage.
In Wolff’s view, the anarchist’s vision is not one of chaos but of voluntary associations and continuous consent, a society where coercive structures are dismantled and replaced with self-governance. This ideal aligns with the Enlightenment values of liberty and self-determination. Wolff’s discourse on anarchism does not advocate for an absence of order but beckons toward a higher order—one which is not imposed but agreed upon by free individuals.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Robert Paul Wolff revitalizes the anarchist argument through a reasoned, deductive approach, appealing to the shared values of Western philosophical traditions. He strips anarchism of its historical incoherence, presenting a compelling, intellectually robust case for a ruler-less society. Wolff’s defense is not an endorsement of disorder but an invitation to envision a society based on the highest ideals of consent and liberty.