Tyrranny or Anarchy?

[Lord Merciless]

Originally posted by Ramo
Seeing as how I'm an anarchist, it's somewhat annoying having the word repeatedly misrepresented.

The problem is YOU ALONE interpret the word differently than everyone else.

The meaning of a word is defined as how general public understands it, and not by an individual.

[Ramo]

No, just about everyone else is ignorant about a two century old political ideology and fundamental historical events. Like I told tandee, the general public has a wrong idea of what fascism or classical liberalism mean. The general public has the wrong idea of innumerable scientific terms. The general public can sometimes be pretty damn ignorant about a lot of stuff.

[GePap]

'Feudal' relationship emplies a set of duties impossed on both serf and master: it is not a one way relationship, so it is difficult to name Somalia as such: also, in a feudal relation, you still need some overarching Authority that enforces the duties of both: you still need a titular king or Emperor. Without one, a 'feudal' society can ahrdly exist.

Without public order of some type, private relations fall apart: How can a private individual maintain authority (over children or employees) woithout some sort of power over them or some sort of power to back their legitimacy? Anarchy at a small local level ends so quickly because some sort of, even just local public authority is needed for private life to continue, hence warlord.

All the 'Anarchist' societies you describe still exist in a world of order: this catalan experiment could never have occured in a land totally devoid of some sort of order: some warlord then comes and destroys it.

I agree that order can exist in small communities without having cohersive force, though shame-based cohersion is crucial. In large areas such a system can't survive, since it is too weak to survive the actions of some authoritative system: hence why all such 'anarchist' experiments fail badly.

[chequita guevara]

Anarchy, if it's communist anarchy and not Hobbsian anarchy.

[Lord Merciless]

Originally posted by Ramo
No, just about everyone else is ignorant about a two century old political ideology and fundamental historical events. Like I told tandee, the general public has a wrong idea of what fascism or classical liberalism mean. The general public has the wrong idea of innumerable scientific terms. The general public can sometimes be pretty damn ignorant about a lot of stuff.

Hmmm... sounds like intellectual elitism.

[SKILORD]

Originally posted by Gangerolf
I don't think an anarchy can exist for a long time. Sooner or later a leader or a group of leaders will emerge.

It can be said that tyranny cannot long last either as rebellions will eventually tear it apart.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by GePap
this catalan experiment could never have occured in a land totally devoid of some sort of order: some warlord then comes and destroys it.

Isn't that exactly what happened?

[Ramo]

'Feudal' relationship emplies a set of duties impossed on both serf and master: it is not a one way relationship, so it is difficult to name Somalia as such:

In feudal societies, obligations lords had on serfs were essentially nil. It was a nominal concept, with a few exceptions (Tibet, for instance, to a small extent). Of course, a prince may free serfs to undermine the nobility(i.e. 12th century England), but that significes a withdrawal from the feudal system.

also, in a feudal relation, you still need some overarching Authority that enforces the duties of both: you still need a titular king or Emperor. Without one, a 'feudal' society can ahrdly exist.

In many generally recognized as feudal societies, the authority of the Prince simply didn't exist. For instance, Japan during the Warring States period where the Emperor had no power.

Without public order of some type,

Not all anarchists, myself included, believe there should be absolutely no state coercion.

private relations fall apart: How can a private individual maintain authority (over children or employees) woithout some sort of power over them or some sort of power to back their legitimacy?

Parents need the state to enforce their authority over children? And again, anarchist societies are socialist.

Anarchy at a small local level ends so quickly because some sort of, even just local public authority is needed for private life to continue, hence warlord.

Not at all. In hunter-gatherer societies, anarchy has existed for thousands of years.

All the 'Anarchist' societies you describe still exist in a world of order: this catalan experiment could never have occured in a land totally devoid of some sort of order: some warlord then comes and destroys it.

I never said otherwise. Anarchists have no problem with order, and many anarchists don't have any problem with minimal state coercion.

I agree that order can exist in small communities without having cohersive force, though shame-based cohersion is crucial. In large areas such a system can't survive, since it is too weak to survive the actions of some authoritative system:

I don't know if I agree. I wouldn't support such a system, but seeing as how we haven't seen a single example of it, that's pure speculation.

hence why all such 'anarchist' experiments fail badly.

I think they stacked up damn well considering what they faced - overwhelming external force bent on destroying them.

Hmmm... sounds like intellectual elitism.

Yep.

[SKILORD]

I think they stacked up damn well considering what they faced - overwhelming external force bent on destroying them.

He has a point.

[GePap]

Originally posted by SKILORD


It can be said that tyranny cannot long last either as rebellions will eventually tear it apart.

What do you define as 'long'? Czarist rule in russia survived about 300 years or more, several human generations, ans survived many rebelions. Saddam has been in power 20 years plus, as if we don't invade, he could be there until he dies. The Roman empire lasted for centuries, so did the Byzantine, Ottoman, Chinese, Pharaonic, Persian, so forth and so on.

So, while I can give you many examples of 'tyrannies' lasting centuries, can you give me an example of ANY anarchist community, as you seek to define it, that has lasted a century?

No human system can survive indefinitely: changes in the socio-policial structure always undermine any system or force it to change.

[Ramo]

Isn't that exactly what happened?

Not really. If anything, the anarchist leadership was too statist. If they didn't believe in the fantasy that was the Popular Front, the situation might have turned out very differently.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by SKILORD
He has a point.

Catalonia never lasted long enough for internal problems to crop up. Basing your opinon on that "experiment" is like basing your opinion of communism solely on the Paris commune.

[Ramo]

So, while I can give you many examples of 'tyrannies' lasting centuries, can you give me an example of ANY anarchist community, as you seek to define it, that has lasted a century?

Countless hunter-gatherer communities.

[Ramo]

Catalonia never lasted long enough for internal problems to crop up.

But if it was so unstable, ready to fall at the drop of a hat, surely at least the signs of the internal problems would crop up.

communism solely on the Paris commune.

The Paris Commune was anarchist.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ramo


In feudal societies, obligations lords had on serfs were essentially nil. It was a nominal concept, with a few exceptions (Tibet, for instance, to a small extent). Of course, a prince may free serfs to undermine the nobility(i.e. 12th century England), but that significes a withdrawal from the feudal system.

Serfs were not slaves, and the basic obligation of Nobles was protection from others, so most Nobles did do their job.

In many generally recognized as feudal societies, the authority of the Prince simply didn't exist. For instance, Japan during the Warring States period where the Emperor had no power.

Even when the actual power of the King was nominal due to weakness in the post, the post still existed and any energetic leader who wanted could seek to restore central power. The claims of Nobles stille xisted in the King or Emperor: if the post was so useless, wehy not get rid of it? Because even when powerless, the king legitimizes the system, which is vital.

Parents need the state to enforce their authority over children? And again, anarchist societies are socialist.

On issue of marriage and estates? yes. Whether a kid gos to bed is not an issue for society: rules about who mqarries whom and transfers of property are.

Not at all. In hunter-gatherer societies, anarchy has existed for thousands of years.

But we aren't hunter gatheres living is bands of 120 or less. We are advanced post industrial, post agricultural societies of millions: I do not seek to run the US or any other state based on what worked for hunter-gatheres any more than a baseball team uses the playbook of a soccer team.

I think they stacked up damn well considering what they faced - overwhelming external force bent on destroying them.

Doing well means nothing when in the end you are dead. You either survive or not.

Yep.

At least we agree on the value of intellectual elitism