Anarchism and non-domination

In this article we recover the classical anarchist deployment of republican tropes of non-domination, tyranny and slavery, to expose the conservative limits of the contemporary neo-Roman republican revival. For the anarchists, the modern nation state and the institution of private property are antit...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inJournal of political ideologies Vol. 24; no. 3; pp. 221 - 240
Main Authors Kinna, Ruth, Prichard, Alex
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Abingdon Routledge 02.09.2019
Taylor & Francis Ltd
Subjects
Anarchism
Commitment
Deployment
Despotism
Dominance
Freedoms
Innovations
Political parties
Private property
Property
Republicanism
Slavery
State
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary:In this article we recover the classical anarchist deployment of republican tropes of non-domination, tyranny and slavery, to expose the conservative limits of the contemporary neo-Roman republican revival. For the anarchists, the modern nation state and the institution of private property are antithetical to freedom as non-domination, acting as structural constraints to freedom rather than the means for its realisation. We re-examine the grounds of this critique to advance two arguments. First, that a commitment to either the state or private property represents an unwarranted positive moral and ethical commitment that skews the negative theory of freedom contemporary republicans seek to develop. Second, the prior moral commitment to the state renders neo-Roman republicanism fundamentally conservative. Anarchist theories of freedom as non-domination push much further than the contemporary republican revival seems to permit, opening new possibilities for institutional and constitutional innovation while remaining consistent with the core republican normative value of non-domination.
ISSN:1356-9317
1469-9613
DOI:10.1080/13569317.2019.1633100