Should there be a Government? Bakunin’s Theory Bakunin was born into an aristocratic family that had its fair share of privileges

Subject:PhilosophyPrice: Bought3

Share With

Should there be a Government? Bakunin’s Theory

Bakunin was born into an aristocratic family that had its fair share of privileges. He lived in a time when poor peasants lived in deplorable conditions, and he saw it possible for these people to form a communist society based on equality for all. In his adult life, he was enthused with the notion of a revolution as this was the only way to overthrow the oppressive government. He was dubbed an anarchist from the anarchist theory, which says that society needs to be organized in voluntary associations rather than the normal huge governments. Anarchists had the idea that large governments were undemocratic, coercive, and tended to force themselves on people (Bakunin et al., 1990). To create a just and prosperous society, Bakunin suggests changes on how government should administer its authority; he also points out the faults in government and produces solutions to end the tyranny of governments.

Bakunin did not favor the presence of governments and saw it as a power instituted to protect the needs of a specific class of people. After the Industrial Revolution in England, there was a rising class of wealthy and powerful people who comprised factory owners. The people working in these factories lived an unacceptable life and did not have rights, and it was almost impossible for them to change the outlook of their life. Bakunin saw this as an injustice that the government-backed since the factory owners had a huge say in government (Newman, 2001). That prompted him to want a revolution that would overthrow these powers.

This kind of treatment made him propose solutions that were in confrontation with the government. For one, he called for justice in light of the injustices experienced by workers in the industrial system. He also admonished governments’ need to protect the factory owners and called for the workers' rights to be put into effect. Since the factories were the source of wealth, he called out to people to seize them, which would take power away from the factory owners and, by extension, the government. He wanted the abolition of government which was in contrast to Marx’s idea, who wanted the proletariats to take control of the government.

Bakunin also believed that governments instituted social controls that helped them maintain control. He mentions religion, which was used to make the working class obedient to the ruling class. Religion was a good form of control as it made it hard for the people to revolt due to fear of punishment. He added that some of these religious institutions were financially supported by the government. Therefore he argued that religious institutions were a tool used by governments to control the people. Through this, the government maintained not only economic controls but also maintained social controls.

Additionally, he argues that governments, above all else, cared for their interests. He adds that even though governments pass legislation protecting their citizens when directly confronted, it results in brutal force through the military to regain control. Bakunin argues that governments lack morality, and in truth, they are only out to get omnipotence at all costs. This made him support various political factions that would lead to the demise of governments.

Bakunin's most central point of view was that governments try to monopolize allegiance. Through systemic injustices, they convert people from being human beings to being citizens. They try to place themselves as the final point of reference and produce a state morality solely responsible for their interests. When coming up with morality rules, it is not a matter of what is good or bad but what is good or bad for the government's wellbeing. He then terms states as 'prisons of peoples' as the citizens are subjected to state morality and not human morality.

Another part of Bakunin's narrative is that most governments are aggressively affected through military force. To preserve its power, a state needs a huge army that protects itself from both internal and external invasion. This also poses a huge problem for weak states due to their incapability of having a big army; thus, they can be swallowed up by bigger states. Moreover, he adds that states do not tolerate equivalence as all of them want supremacy. That promotes endless wars like the Cold War stemming up from competition and jealousy. That results in conquerors and enslaved people. Since states depend on ultimate control, a universal state is impossible as there have to be in-groups and out-groups to effect total control.

The state, according to Bakunin, adopts a one-size-fits-all policy and does not consider the differences in people. Because governments control a wide assortment of people, it is hard for them to answer their people's individual needs truly. In turn, that creates a world where there are people that are sacrificed for the good of a group of people. That makes the state arbitrary as it sacrifices the needs of some of its people for its purposes (Wolf, 1999). This it does by luring its people to a state of dullness as stupefied people are easy to control. As the majority of people are kept ignorant, the ruling class then reinstates itself as the leading humanity, much to the detriment of the working class and peasants.

I think Bakunin is right in very many respects. His notion that most governments are self-serving is almost spot on. Governments are mostly made of an elite group that only focuses on their immediate needs and does not care about its citizens. Most governments, as history attests, are run by cartels that are only out for their interests. These states institute regulations and laws that only benefit their needs, and the population is left to live in sub-par conditions. I agree with this idea and have no reservations concerning the fact that most states only look out for their interests.

Bakunin also raises pertinent issues concerning how government tends to control its people. For one, they use social controls mostly in the form of religion to institute fear and hence maximum submission by its people. Most religions advocate for extreme obedience, which means that the people under religions will have qualms when it comes to revolting against its government. Such controls make it possible for them to continue their control for years on end. Economic controls also form up as one of the most carefully crafted means of control towards a certain population. Burdening the working class and the peasants with work, creating an environment non-tolerant to organized groups make it possible for governments to control their people by ensuring they are not empowered enough to revolt against them.

There are some drawbacks to his philosophy. For one, he does not give a possible solution to the problem of governance. It would be hard to control organized factions, as he advocates. Nonetheless, what is clear is that his theories raise fundamental questions on how governments should treat their citizens. The question of whether governments should be in existence is a difficult one to answer. However, governments should not seek to rule their citizens with an iron fist, but they should be instead focused on creating better lives for their citizens. Bakunin gives clear explanations on the faults of having governments. There need to be powers instituted that will fairly inspect the runnings of government to create a free and fair society.