Preview

To What Extent Are the Ideas of Hobbes and Kropotkin Relevant Today? Discuss with Reference to Scott Turner's Article 'Global Civil Society, Anarchy and Governance'

Better Essays
Open Document
Open Document
1800 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
To What Extent Are the Ideas of Hobbes and Kropotkin Relevant Today? Discuss with Reference to Scott Turner's Article 'Global Civil Society, Anarchy and Governance'
To what extent are the ideas of Hobbes and Kropotkin relevant today? Discuss with reference to Scott Turner's article 'Global civil society, anarchy and governance'.

Modern day technological advances and globalisation are posing challenges for the traditional realist state centric system. Through the development of organizations such as the European Union and also non-governmental organizations such as Amnesty international the concept of a global civil society emerges. While the idea that a global civil society more accurately describes modern day political and international relations than the assumptions of realism is debatable, it poses a different perspective. It terms of Hobbes and Kropotkin they offer conflicting views on the state and anarchism. Hobbes’ ideas are fundamentally realist and Kropotkin’s ideas revolve largely around cooperation characterised by the organizations aforementioned. This essay will explore Hobbes and Kropotkin’s ideas in more detail in order to derive if they are relevant today with close reference to Scott Tuners article ‘Global civil society, anarchy and governance’.

To derive to what extent Hobbes and Kropotkin’s theories are applicable to modern day societies their key ideas must be understood; Hobbes’ anarchist argument is structured around the belief that there must be a social contract and an overarching sovereign to prevent a constant state of war. His realist views constrict him to believe that as there is no international governing authority, no global leviathan, states will be in constant pursuit to validate their power. Tuner epitomises this when he explains that ‘the only law is the natural right of self-preservation’ between states. Hobbes views societies that exist without a sovereign and state as barbarian cultures.
Kropotkin however believed an ideal society is a stateless society, one that could be attained through anarchy. He believed an ideal society could be conceived in which a sovereign did not exist.

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    Hobbes added to the ideas of democracy by creating the idea that all men are born bad with an urge for war. He stated that in order to have a stable society, government would be required to strictly watch and govern each citizen. He writes that man should give down their power to a much bigger government in order to maintain a single power that can help control the masses. This bigger…

    • 507 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    All anarchists believe in a stateless society due to individuals being able to regulate themselves. They would argue that there has not always been a state and therefore doesn’t have to be one in modern day. However, critiques would argue that this is a fantasy and so is impossible.…

    • 964 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    According to Hobbes, government is needed so that society will not collapse into violence due to humanity’s selfish desires and self-interest. Hobbes believes that humanity’s natural state is motivated by self-interest and will do everything they can to succeed in their endeavors. People will do whatever it takes to fulfill what their idea of ‘good ’is. When everyone acts this way it quickly devolves into chaos, war, and violence.…

    • 266 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    According to Hobbes, a government is needed to create social order. Because humans are naturally self-persevering, they are always in a state of conflict with one another. There are fundamental laws that a government set is place to restrain natural human…

    • 789 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Hobbes was a philosopher who saw humans as a purely physical being. He believed that all human actions can be explained through the motions in our bodies. According to Hobbes all feelings and emotions are a result of phantasms, our perception of the objects around us. This perception is a motion within our bodies and each person perceives these phantasms differently causing love, hate, desires, and what we think is good and bad. Every feeling that comes from ones perspective has a physical feeling, such as desires can cause certain pains and it is only human nature that one does whatever is needed in order to relieve those pains. Hobbes therefore sees humans as being able, by their state of nature, to take or do whatever necessary for themselves even if it shows no regard for the other people their actions may harm. This inevitably would end up in a fight for survival or “the war of all against all”. In order to prevent such a war from happening Hobbes thought it necessary that the individuals must promise each other to give up their right to govern themselves to the sovereign for the mutual benefit of the people. This sovereign then has absolute power to rule with no questions asked and not to only act on behalf of the citizens but to completely embody their will. In summation, Hobbes believed that society could only exist under power of the sovereign and that life in the state of nature is violent, short and brutish, as all men act on self-interest.…

    • 1014 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    It is a brutish and violent nature. In the absence of culture, arts, science, reading or writing, humans, possibly, are more related to animals, since animals also live in the state of nature, and who always fight for domination. This rather negative view is Hobbe’s main reason why there should be a government. There should be an authority to establish peace. In peace, numerous achievements can be obtained. In peace does humanity progress. It might be argued that Hobbes demands a despot, an autocracy. Still, is not that better than the state of nature? There might be many opposing arguments especially that of the anarchists, yet Hobbe’s examples might not be conquered because they are succinct and feasible. They are plausibly impregnable because they are factual, not idealist. Leviathan does convincingly argue, and this monster in the state of nature does devour…

    • 1395 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    The peaceful revolts that this paper deals with is concerned with using violence only if inalienable rights are threatened and stresses the importance of only using violence, which can quickly lead to death, as a last resort. In any case, initiating change by way of political activism, rallying support and spreading ideas, has proven to be some of the best ways to create change within a community, or even the world. Revolt in this sense is not one that is no different than war with a noble cause, it is a series of political, mental and ethical battles that must be fought in order to eschew from needless death as well as holding onto civility, a concept which Thomas Hobbes took to the extreme. Hobbes believed that revolts should never be initiated by the public for the sake of peace. Hobbes believed that although the cost of peace was high, as a society, it is our collective duty to sell our rights for it.…

    • 1401 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Better Essays

    Hobbes Second Amendment

    • 562 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Evaluating the topic of discussion thought Hobbesian perspective, the hypothetical scenario of a civic uprise against a tyrannical sovereign a temporary return to the state of nature becoming the…

    • 562 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Better Essays

    Thomas Hobbes, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Thomas Paine, three great political philosophers, all view the nature of man and society as anarchical, which is a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority, making it “war of all against all”. The utopian society of individuals enjoys complete freedom without government, wherein there is a display of a lack of morality for most of the time.…

    • 1380 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Hobbes, T. (1972). The Case against anarchy. In J. Rachels & F. Tillman (Eds.) Philosophical…

    • 1243 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Bibliography: Gauthier, D. (1969) The Logic of ‘Leviathan’: The Moral and Political Theory of Thomas Hobbes. United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.…

    • 3361 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    “Anarchy, as a political concept, is a naive floating abstraction: . . . a society without an…

    • 492 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Hobbes Vs Kropotkin Essay

    • 1275 Words
    • 6 Pages

    In today’s world, there is an overwhelming presence of violence, war, and a lack of peace. Thomas Hobbes and Peter Kropotkin have undoubtedly embedded their names into history as some of the greatest masterminds of political philosophy. In the Hobbes’ Leviathan, he launches his strong belief of the muse of states and legitimate governments. Much of the book demonstrates the need of a robust central authority to avoid the evil of discordance and warfare. On the other hand, Kropotkin advocated a more-so communist society freed from any sort of government. Kropotkin’s Mutual Aid, which was written in response to Thomas Huxley’s social…

    • 1275 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    Which again is an accepted “Y” , to offer a more accurate “Z” then the stray from a totalitarian reign must start we must start realizing that aside from these clams the needs of man will always be very different. There is no way to make an exhausted claim of government prosper under the previous inferences. For the common good to prosper it would have to be apart of the law not just the reason for the law. In having a government more equated to the people without out sovereignty but still the fear of punishment there can be an implement established. The implement of the want of the fear of punishment because the man becomes the one in control. The common good can then become the private good because the majority of the common are the majority of the private. Hobbes gives the power of the many to the few or to the one in hopes of less dissension and peace, but it instead would give the potential for the State to have to much control (Which has to be good control or bad control.) Within that control over the masses there is a greater chance of that control being misguided if we strictly accept “Y” (the nature of…

    • 706 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    This philosophical study will define the contrasting forms of government that are the result of John Locke’s belief in the innate good of humankind in contrast to the innate evil of Thomas Hobbes’ authoritarian governance. Locke and Hobbes initially agree on a pre-history of human life in the “state of nature” by acknowledging the less organized rules and laws of human civilization under God. In agreement, these philosophers understand the “invention” of governments by human beings through the authority of God, but they contrast each other on the methods of governing. Locke’s major difference with Hobbes is based on the innate good of human beings that cooperated with each other in a state of nature, which defines he believed in a checks and…

    • 983 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Better Essays