Tyrranny or Anarchy?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ramo
But if it was so unstable, ready to fall at the drop of a hat,

Wars have a way of uniting a population against a common enemy. You can thank the fascists for being the reason that the anarchist experiment lasted as long as it did.

The Paris Commune was anarchist.

That contradicts what I said in what way?

[Lord Merciless]

In hunter-gatherer societies, economies, means of productions, and social interactions are simple. People can get around by just having informal rules. The question is: does it work for a society of billions?

As for other "anarchist" experiments throughout the history, they all failed.

What was the fate of the Catalanian group?

What was the fate of the Parisian commune?


The truth is, "anarchist" societies don't stand a chance when competing against well-organized, authoritian entities.

[Ramo]

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

How did Nobles protect serfs from other Nobles? Serfs were the people who suffered when Nobles decide that because their genes are so ****ed up, they had claims to another Noble's land.

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.

That's not relevant. The point is that there were feudal societies where Princes were too weak to do anything. It's true that their title might carry some prestige, but I'm sure that was the case with Afghanistan or Somalia to some extent.

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.

Ummm... in my ideal society (and certainly every other anarchist who knows what he's talking about) there would be no forced marriages. And there's no reason transfers of property can't be handled informally.

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 don't know how well it would work. I was simply pointing out an example where you were wrong. Again, asserting what would happen in such a society would be pure speculation.

I have no problem with minimal state authority.

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

That's a silly way of examining societies. If I killed you with a gun and you had no weapons should I conclude that I'm a better fighter than you?

Wars have a way of uniting a population against a common enemy. You can thank the fascists for being the reason that the anarchist experiment lasted as long as it did.

If the fascists didn't put up such a strong fight (thanks to the Germans), revolution across Spain likely would've occured.

[Ramo]

What was the fate of the Catalanian group?

What was the fate of the Parisian commune?

Vastly outmanned, outgunned, and deluded into thinking they could cooperate with the enemy. Which doesn't demonstrate anything but life can be a *****.

[DinoDoc]

If the fascists didn't put up such a strong fight (thanks to the Germans), revolution across Spain likely would've occured.

I love flights of fancy and speculation as much as the next person, but we sadly have to deal with reality when not writing historical fiction.

[Ramo]

As opposed to this: "You can thank the fascists for being the reason that the anarchist experiment lasted as long as it did."?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ramo
"You can thank the fascists for being the reason that the anarchist experiment lasted as long as it did."?

You mean to tell me that you haven't seen first hand how having a common enemy can rally support around a "State"?

PS I've seen no evidence whatsoever that an anarchist society can survive in the modern world, Ramo. The only two examples you can point to are short-lived faliures. So you'll have to forgive me if your cries of "If only ..." are taken with more than a pinch of salt.

[GePap]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Ramo
How did Nobles protect serfs from other Nobles? Serfs were the people who suffered when Nobles decide that because their genes are so ****ed up, they had claims to another Noble's land. [QUOTE]

The protection was protection from birgands and raiders- not other Nobles: that was not part fot he contract.

That's not relevant. The point is that there were feudal societies where Princes were too weak to do anything. It's true that their title might carry some prestige, but I'm sure that was the case with Afghanistan or Somalia to some extent.

That is very relevant. You can't simply ignore the question of legitimacy. As long as the tiel of King exist then Nobles can claim why the sytem needs to stay as is vs. the Serfs, and also any man who was ambitious enough could restore power to the center. Even when weak, the King or Emperor was kept? Why? Because it was a key component of the system_ even when it did not work.

Ummm... in my ideal society (and certainly every other anarchist who knows what he's talking about) there would be no forced marriages. And there's no reason transfers of property can't be handled informally.

There are many reasons why transfers of porperty can't be done informally: If any side questions the legitimacy of the transfer (hey, that was mine, you had no right to give it away!) then you have a dispute.

I don't know how well it would work. I was simply pointing out an example where you were wrong. Again, asserting what would happen in such a society would be pure speculation.

I have no problem with minimal state authority.

First, then you are a half-hearted Anarchist. Second: If you are unsure of it working, why propose it as a solution?

That's a silly way of examining societies. If I killed you with a gun and you had no weapons should I conclude that I'm a better fighter than you?

Yes, because the one with the gun was somehow able to get the gun, and thus in the game of survival, they were better. Its hash and unfair but true.

[Ramo]

You mean to tell me that you haven't seen first hand how having a common enemy can rally support around a "State"?

Rallying around the state is what screwed the anarchists in the first place. If they carried through with the revolution, the Popular Front be damned, they would've acheived far greater success.

I don't see why what I wrote was any more speculation than what you wrote.

PS I've seen no evidence whatsoever that an anarchist society can survive in the modern world, Ramo. The only two examples you can point to are short-lived faliures..

The Zapitastas, particularly the Morelos Commune lasted quite a bit longer than those two examples. So did the anarchists in the Ukraine, but to a lesser extent.

So you'll have to forgive me if your cries of "If only ..." are taken with more than a pinch of salt.

There are only a few examples of modern anarchist philosophy put into practice. In all cases they were crushed by overwhelming external force. It's absurd to use such a tiny sample, with such abnormally strong biases, to pass judgement on anarchism.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ramo
The Paris Commune was anarchist.

It was communist. Where do you think the word comes from?

Seriously though, the government of the commune was neither communist nor anarchist. It was a workers government and it still operated within capitalist rules.

[Ramo]

The protection was protection from birgands and raiders- not other Nobles: that was not part fot he contract.

The protection was hardly very effective. What it comes down to is that Nobles were protecting their property. They acted in their best interests, not in the interests of the serfs. All this talk of obligation and duty on the part of the nobility is bull****.

That is very relevant. You can't simply ignore the question of legitimacy.

There were groups in Somalia and Afghanistan that I'm sure were seen as having a more valid claim to rule. That's why it's irrelvent. The Prince was in no way essential to feudalism.

As long as the tiel of King exist then Nobles can claim why the sytem needs to stay as is vs. the Serfs,

Huh?

and also any man who was ambitious enough could restore power to the center. Even when weak, the King or Emperor was kept? Why? Because it was a key component of the system_ even when it did not work.

How is an ambitious king restoring power to the center any different from the Taliban restoring power to the center in Afghanistan.

What it comes down to is that both examples of "anarchy" are in fact examples of feudalism, with some irrevent semantics issues.

There are many reasons why transfers of porperty can't be done informally: If any side questions the legitimacy of the transfer (hey, that was mine, you had no right to give it away!) then you have a dispute.

There are plenty of societies where it hasn't been done formally (for most people).

First, then you are a half-hearted Anarchist. Second: If you are unsure of it working, why propose it as a solution?

I was referring to the idea of the lack of all state authority which you are attacking. I don't advocate that, I just think your criticisms are unfair.

Yes, because the one with the gun was somehow able to get the gun, and thus in the game of survival, they were better. Its hash and unfair but true.

1. We're talking about world powers funding the fascists (the Germans) and the Stalinstists (the Soviets). The anarchists areas had superior industry in Spain to both the fascists and Stalinists (the center of the anarchists was Barcelona).
2. I meant that example primarily to mean manpower, which was the primary issue. There isn't much you can do about that.

[Ramo]

It was communist. Where do you think the word comes from?

Seriously though, the government of the commune was neither communist nor anarchist. It was a workers government and it still operated within capitalist rules.

Worker co-ops ended up running lots of businesses. The principle for the Commune were autonomous cities in a confederation. The government was extremely democratic. Sure sounds anarchist to me (though it's true it didn't go far enough).

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ramo
There were groups in Somalia and Afghanistan that I'm sure were seen as having a more valid claim to rule. That's why it's irrelvent. The Prince was in no way essential to feudalism.

Actually, no, there were no groups in Afghanistan and Somalia that could claim some legitimacy of rule. Sonmalia fell into anarchy when the disctator was overthrown, and no replacement government came. In Afghnanistan, once the warlords overthrew the government installed in 1992, you had chaos and no one had a legitmate claim.

Huh?

Why should the Serf's seek some sort of Republic, or anarcho-syndicalist commune? Because the Nobles got their estates from the king/Emperor, who's legitimacy came from God himself: and you can't question God, now can you?

How is an ambitious king restoring power to the center any different from the Taliban restoring power to the center in Afghanistan.

What it comes down to is that both examples of "anarchy" are in fact examples of feudalism, with some irrevent semantics issues.

Because the Taliban was creating a new centralizing system different form the one before, not reenforcing the old one: The Taliban brough new Laws, not a restoration of the old. And semantics are everythign, since your own claim that they are not anarchy derives from your definition of anarchy, an issue of semantics.

There are plenty of societies where it hasn't been done formally (for most people).

Example? Still more hunter gatherers? And also, do you differantiate between lending and passing ownership?

1. We're talking about world powers funding the fascists (the Germans) and the Stalinstists (the Soviets). The anarchists areas had superior industry in Spain to both the fascists and Stalinists (the center of the anarchists was Barcelona).
2. I meant that example primarily to mean manpower, which was the primary issue. There isn't much you can do about that.

On the manpower issue: I can argue that a tyrannical system can more efficently harness its manpower for offensive and defensive needs long term than an anarchy.
Second: Unless there is some immense cataclysm, any 'anarchist' system exists in a world of Authoritarian ones. You can't ignore outside players when comparing the situation in spain, since outside players are as much part of the game as the Spaniards themselves. You can't expect a system of fully isolationist powers: that is simply historically inaccurate and naive.

[Ramo]

Actually, no, there were no groups in Afghanistan and Somalia that could claim some legitimacy of rule.

Without a doubt, certain people saw certain groups as having a better claim to rule than others. Just because no one was able to sieze power, doesn't mean the claims don't exist.

Why should the Serf's seek some sort of Republic, or anarcho-syndicalist commune? Because the Nobles got their estates from the king/Emperor, who's legitimacy came from God himself: and you can't question God, now can you?

There were not that many feudal societies where the prince was seen as connected to God. Sure, China and Japan, but not much else. In Europe, legitmacy came from the Pope. Only after feudalism was declining did European kings claim a connection to God.

Because the Taliban was creating a new centralizing system different form the one before, not reenforcing the old one

How is that relevant? A King's son or a noble who usurped the King might have a very different policy.

Example? Still more hunter gatherers?

Yep. I'm not very familiar with this subject, but I'm sure there are plenty of civilized examples.

And also, do you differantiate between lending and passing ownership?

How would I? I don't have any problems with property titles. Again, I'm defending the hypothetical anarchist who advocates no public authority.

I can argue that a tyrannical system can more efficently harness its manpower for offensive and defensive needs long term than an anarchy.

By manpower, I mean that the Stalinists had more of a population at their disposal.

The anarchist militias were perfectly effective in the war, with plenty of volunteers (before Madrid started undermining them).

Unless there is some immense cataclysm, any 'anarchist' system exists in a world of Authoritarian ones. You can't ignore outside players when comparing the situation in spain, since outside players are as much part of the game as the Spaniards themselves. You can't expect a system of fully isolationist powers: that is simply historically inaccurate and naive.

What's naive is saying that because Stalin and Hitler gave two side lots of modern vastly superior weapons, their governments are somehow superior to the anarchists. It's absolutely historically inaccurate to say that because the anarchists had so many external problems, their government is ineffective.

I'll grant you that anarchism is not the best type of society if you want assistance from totalitarian states, but I see that as a good thing.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ramo
Without a doubt, certain people saw certain groups as having a better claim to rule than others. Just because no one was able to sieze power, doesn't mean the claims don't exist.

But there was no clear, legitimate claim, which is what matters.

There were not that many feudal societies where the prince was seen as connected to God. Sure, China and Japan, but not much else. In Europe, legitmacy came from the Pope. Only after feudalism was declining did European kings claim a connection to God.

In both Inca and aztec societies the Nobles cliam divine authority, specially in the Inca authority which was more feudal. In fact, I can't think of any feudal societies in which the nobles claimed that the general legitmacy of their claism came from divine sources. Can you name me any?

How is that relevant? A King's son or a noble who usurped the King might have a very different policy.

Policy and Law are not the same. BUsh and Clinton have different policies, but they work in the same system, with the same set of basic laws (the Constitution). The Taliban came to power seeking to create a state based on the Koran and Sharia Law, which makes the system they sought fundamentally different from those government of the past. Again, it is a question of what makes the enitre system legitimate: any sytem needs legitimacy. the question is where they seek it.

What's naive is saying that because Stalin and Hitler gave two side lots of modern vastly superior weapons, their governments are somehow superior to the anarchists. It's absolutely historically inaccurate to say that because the anarchists had so many external problems, their government is ineffective.

I never said their government was inefficient (government? in an anarchy?) but I can say that it could not survive long-term in a system of states.

I'll grant you that anarchism is not the best type of society if you want assistance from totalitarian states, but I see that as a good thing.

The failure of the Anarchist to get backing from any outside power speaks to their great weakness. After all, none of the dmeocracies lifted a finger to help them, and I doubt they ever would have.