Do anarchists want to eliminate all the power or only juridical one?

Question

I often see as a criticism of anarchism that power has a natural occurrence. It's impossible to eliminate power. There will always be an authority.

However, I always thought that the total elimination of power is not the purpose of anarchists. I thought that only coercive power should be eliminated in the view of anarchists. It is very obvious that even among friends there are those who usually suggest something and those who accept or reject it, where we can say the first has greater power. In masses, those who can produce better arguments will be leaders and the others their followers. Leaders have greater power than followers. It is so obvious that this kind of power is inherent to humanity, because it arises from individual differences.

But all of this power that I described is not coercive. If a friend asks you to go hiking, you can refuse. You can always reject anything the leader says. But when the government says "You cannot use drugs, otherwise we'll imprison you", it is impossible to say "No". Government does not recognize "No". Therefore, it is coercive by definition.

So, do anarchists really want to eliminate all power, even leadership, which is implausible, or only eliminate juridical power?

Answer 1

The goal of anarchism

Anarchism envisages a post-state society of autonomous individuals and of voluntary, non-coercive social aggregates (such as communes and co-operatives).

There is scope for government in the sense of a co-ordinating body but this itself will be a voluntary, non-coercive social aggregate. A govermment can have a juridical function : to promulgate, administer, and to determine breaches of laws and to settle disputes about the interpretation of laws. But in the exercise of this function, no coercion is present or is permitted.

No force or coercion

An anarchist society cannot accommodate power in the sense of force or coercion.

Force : A has the power of force over B when A gets (or can get) B to do X regardless of B's volition (e.g. A controls or can control B by physical superiority - 'brute force')

Coercion : A has coercive power over B when A gets (or can get) B to do X by threat (e.g. A threatens to make B worse off relative to some baseline if B does not do X : lots of conditions have to be added such as that A must have certain motives, intentions and beliefs, else what appears to be a threat is not actually so, also B must believe that A's threat is credible and must do X because of A's threat and not because s/he was going to do X anyway, plus the 'worse off' must refer to a state of affairs that B considers not trivial but seriously detrimental to his or her interests)

Forms of power

However, I always thought that the total elimination of power is not the purpose of anarchists.

That's dead right.

To remove force and coercion is not to exclude power from society. Without force or coercion I can still exercise power over you by the use of persuasion or manipulation or by charisma or strength of personality. To suppose that such elements could all be removed from an anarchist society appears excessively optimistic. There is also the power of public opinion - the serpent in the anarchist garden as it has been called.

---

Bibliography

Alan Wertheimer, Coercion (Studies in Moral, Political and Legal Philosophy), ISBN 10: 0691077592 / ISBN 13: 9780691077598 Published by Princeton Univ Press, 1988.

Robert Nozick, 'Coercion', White Morgenbesser (ed.), Philosophy, Science, and Method: Essays in Honor of Ernest Nagel. St Martin's Press. pp. 440--72 (1969).

David E. Apter & James Joll ed., Anarchism Today (Studies in comparative politics), ISBN 10: 0333120418 / ISBN 13: 9780333120415 Published by Macmillan, 1971.

I am unable to reference the 'serpent' quote : apologies.

Answer 2

One of the best approaches to this question is In Defense of Anarchism since it deals with 'legitimacy' (or not) of government and the difficulties of 100% agreement in every single decision (therefore coercion-free at all times). Since there will not be 100% agreement, some kind of coercion will always exist in a society with boundaries. I'm setting aside the off-grid, outlaw of old, since law now seems to stretch into the farthest corners of a given nation-state.

However, I believe the secondary question, 'coercion about what' is also very important. Vanilla vs. chocolate isn't too dire, but important decisions (except Brexit apparently!) usually require a supermajority of 66% or 75% on the given question. There will always be a 'tyranny of the majority' problem lurking somewhere, when people try to do things together.

Incidentally, for those that don't go right through Wolff's book, he was interested in electronic solutions to voting, well before internet access became widespread.

Answer 3

No Gods No Masters anthology p382

I don't think anarchists want to do away entirely with the judicial process, though at least some would want to do away with prisons. The idea seems to be more about returning its powers to a stateless people or working class.

Answer 4

I can identify three levels of sophistication among anarchists:

First are those who, like teenagers, reject all forms of authority or coercion; these would imagine a world where no one has authority over another.

A little more sophisticated would be anarchists who have lost faith in the government and even the constitution. Here the aim is to break down government to the point that a new regime is required. The form of government, in the new regime, may or may not feature in their plans.

Lastly would be those who realize that government grows organically from simple voluntary authority, and that any regime change will inevitably lead to a similar status quo. there aim is not to break down but to challenge.

So to answer the question for each: 1. All, 2. It depends, 3. No