section_path: Criticism
section_name: Criticism
paragraph_text: Criticism
  
  The most common critique of anarchism is the assertion that humans cannot self-govern and so a state is necessary for human survival. Philosopher Bertrand Russell supported this critique, stating that "eace and war, tariffs, regulations of sanitary conditions and the sale of noxious drugs, 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." Another common criticism of anarchism is that it fits a world of isolation in which only the small enough entities can be self-governing; a response would be that major anarchist thinkers advocated anarchist federalism.
  
  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 in order 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-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.
  
  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 whilst 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.
  
  Philosophical anarchism has met the criticism of members of academia following the release of pro-anarchist books such as A. John Simmons' Moral Principles and Political Obligations. Law professor William A. Edmundson authored an essay to argue against three major philosophical anarchist principles which he finds fallacious. Edmundson says that while the individual does not owe the state a duty of obedience, this does not imply that anarchism is the inevitable conclusion and the state is still morally legitimate. In The Problem of Political Authority, Michael Huemer defends philosophical anarchism, claiming that "political authority is a moral illusion."
  
  One of the earliest criticisms is that anarchism defies and fails to understand the biological inclination to authority. Joseph Raz states that the acceptance of authority implies the belief that following their instructions will afford more success. Raz believes that this argument is true in following both authorities' successful and mistaken instruction. 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. 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. Classical anarchism has been criticised for relying too heavily on the belief that the abolition of the state will lead to human cooperation prospering.
  
  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. Academic John Molyneux writes in his book Anarchism: A Marxist Criticism that "anarchism cannot win", believing that it lacks the ability to properly implement its ideas. 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.