Editing Anarchism (section)

== Criticism ==
{{Criticism section|date=May 2025}}
The most common critique of anarchism is the assertion that humans cannot [[Self-governance|self-govern]] and so a state is necessary for human survival.{{cn|date=May 2025}} Philosopher [[Bertrand Russell]] supported this critique, stating that "[p]eace and war, [[tariff]]s, regulations of [[Sanitation|sanitary]] conditions and the sale of noxious [[drug]]s, the preservation of a just system of distribution: these, among others, are functions which could hardly be performed in a community in which there was no central government."{{Sfn|Krimerman|Perry|1966|p=494}} Another common criticism of anarchism is that it fits a world of [[Isolationism|isolation]] in which only the small enough entities can be self-governing; a response would be that major anarchist thinkers advocated anarchist federalism.{{Sfn|Ward|2004|p=78}}

Another criticism of anarchism is the belief that it is inherently unstable: that an anarchist society would inevitably evolve back into a state. [[Thomas Hobbes]] and other early social contract theorists argued that the state emerges in response to natural anarchy to protect the people's interests and keep order. Philosopher [[Robert Nozick]] argued that a "[[night-watchman state]]", or minarchy, would emerge from anarchy through the process of an [[invisible hand]], in which people would exercise their liberty and buy protection from protection agencies, evolving into a minimal state. Anarchists reject these criticisms by arguing that humans in a [[state of nature]] would not just be in a state of war. [[Anarcho-primitivism|Anarcho-primitivists]] in particular argue that humans were better off in a state of nature in small tribes living close to the land, while anarchists in general argue that the negatives of state organization, such as hierarchies, monopolies and inequality, outweigh the benefits.<ref>{{Citation |last=Fiala |first=Andrew |title=Anarchism |date=2021 |editor-last=Zalta |editor-first=Edward N. |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2021/entries/anarchism |access-date=2023-06-17 |edition=Winter 2021 |publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University |encyclopedia=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy}}</ref>

Philosophy lecturer [[Andrew G. Fiala]] composed a list of common arguments against anarchism which includes critiques such as that anarchism is innately related to violence and destruction, not only in the pragmatic world, such as at protests, but in the world of ethics as well. Secondly, anarchism is evaluated as unfeasible or utopian since the state cannot be defeated practically. This line of arguments most often calls for political action within the system to reform it. The third argument is that anarchism is self-contradictory as a ruling theory that has no ruling theory. Anarchism also calls for collective action while endorsing the autonomy of the individual, hence no collective action can be taken. Lastly, Fiala mentions a critique towards philosophical anarchism of being ineffective (all talk and thoughts) and in the meantime capitalism and bourgeois class remains strong.{{Sfn|Fiala|2017|loc="4. Objections and Replies"}}

One of the earliest criticisms is that anarchism defies and fails to understand the biological inclination to authority.{{Sfn|Ferguson|1886}}{{primary inline|date=May 2025}} [[Joseph Raz]] states that the acceptance of authority implies the belief that following their instructions will afford more success.{{Sfn|Gans|1992|p=37}} Raz believes that this argument is true in following both authorities' successful and mistaken instruction.{{Sfn|Gans|1992|p=38}} Anarchists reject this criticism because challenging or disobeying authority does not entail the disappearance of its advantages by acknowledging authority such as doctors or lawyers as reliable, nor does it involve a complete surrender of independent judgment.{{Sfn|Gans|1992|pp=34, 38}} Anarchist perception of human nature, rejection of the state, and commitment to social revolution has been criticised by academics as naive, overly simplistic, and unrealistic, respectively.{{Sfn|Brinn|2020|p=206}} Classical anarchism has been criticised for relying too heavily on the belief that the abolition of the state will lead to human cooperation prospering.{{Sfn|Lucy|2020|p=162}}

[[Friedrich Engels]], considered to be one of the principal founders of Marxism, criticised anarchism's anti-authoritarianism as inherently counter-revolutionary because in his view a revolution is by itself authoritarian.{{Sfn|Tucker|1978}} A [[Socialist Workers Party (UK)|Socialist Workers Party]] pamphlet by  [[John Molyneux (academic)|John Molyneux]], ''Anarchism: A Marxist Criticism'' argues that "anarchism cannot win", believing that it lacks the ability to properly implement its ideas.{{Sfn|Dodds|2011}} The Marxist criticism of anarchism is that it has a utopian character because all individuals should have anarchist views and values. According to the Marxist view, that a social idea would follow directly from this human ideal and out of the free will of every individual formed its essence. Marxists state that this contradiction was responsible for their inability to act. In the anarchist vision, the conflict between liberty and equality was resolved through coexistence and intertwining.{{Sfn|Baár|Falina|Janowski|Kopeček|2016|p=488}}