|
On April 14 2011 07:33 Signet wrote:
Imperialist nations didn't successfully invade indigenous people by chance. They had superior technology and stronger economies
Off topic but What allowed the spaniards to conquer the empires was diplomacy, deception and lack of experience from the natives. Economy and technology had very little impact to do with it. Most of the time the conquistadors were underfunded and undermanned for their job and unless youre counting calvary as state of the art technology of the 14th century, technology played very little role in defeating the natives.
|
On April 14 2011 07:33 Signet wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2011 06:05 pluvos wrote:On April 14 2011 05:36 Signet wrote:On April 14 2011 04:52 Wegandi wrote:
The truth of reality is that man is a creature of self-interest. It is one sociological reason socialism and communism do not work. For hive species like insectoids, yes, but humans are a race of individualistic creatures. We care about our own survival, our own well-being, and our own happiness. To the extent that the happiness of others makes ourselves happy, we help others. No one helps another person only to make themselves feel worse, or to be put in a worse position. That is just the nature of our species. I think Rand goes awry when she believes in universal or objective values. I am a subjectivist. Humans are not a hive species, but are a social species not an individualist "lone wolf" species. This same social behavior is seen in primates as well. It is natural for the basic layout of our societies to reflect this. This is possibly a reason why neither communism/socialism nor anarchy/anarchocapitalism have ever produced a lasting civilization. (in fact historically, true communist or anarchocapitalist societies are extremely rare, arguably nonexistent) Even something like the US during the early 1800s was a mixed capitalist economy with some amount of regulation. Please dont pull things out of your ass and present it as fact. Anarchism is the natural form of freedom, equality, democracy, voluntary association and ultimately true human liberation and contrary to your lies there have been anarchist societies throughout history that has shown that a society can be run totally decentralized without any authoritarian rulers, and btw they were economically more efficient than capitalist ones. Sadly those societies where crushed forcefully by imperialists becuase of the fear that when people saw a truly free society they would act to implement that in their own communitys and lives which threatens every social order today including our liberal "democracies" aka representative "democracy".(Please note im talking about Anarchism, also known as libertarian left or libertarian socialism, not so called "anarchocapitalism" which has nothing to with Anarchism) When you say "true communism", what are you referring to? Communism as is understood by working people (if so you are incorrect since by that definition its very close to Anarchism in regards to values and outlook), or "communism" as the soviet union and the united states propagandized? (basically a totalitarian ideology that is totally contrary to the actual meaning of communism) sorry for derailing the thread, maybie this is a discussion we could have in another thread but it pisses me of when people spout lies even if they might be based on ignorance. You might want to take your own advice. Your response would have been a lot better without all the fresh from the ass accusations about ignorance and lying. More to the point, you're hugely projecting about what you think I'm saying; most of the "lies" you're pointing out are things I neither said nor intended. Imperialist nations didn't successfully invade indigenous people by chance. They had superior technology and stronger economies which allowed them to be the invader rather than the invaded (in some cases, disease was also on their side -- however due to technology alone there was no way that the Incas were ever going to invade Spain, for example, and furthermore the resistance to disease is a byproduct of having a strong enough economy to be able to support high population densities living in some sort of city). It's no coincidence that the statist Maori all but wiped out the nearly stateless Moriori in the south Pacific. Only a statist society can really afford to have professional warriors to the degree that imperialist civilizations did; in an anarchist society, people must produce something of value to either sustain themselves independently or barter with others. Trying to sell warfare services in a free market would be a tough way to survive, particularly during peacetime. Note the lack of a moral statement about what the invaders did. I'm not saying that anarchist societies were 'worse' or that they were violent (I know anarchy is supposed to be peaceful). I said that it hadn't produced a lasting civilization. You pointing out that many anarchist societies have existed, only to be wiped out by stronger/more technologically developed civilizations, reinforces my point. Also note that I only said that true communism and anarchocapitalism haven't existed, and left anarchy out of that statement. It was precisely for that reason; I'm not as dumb as you'd like to imagine. I do agree that the line between communism and leftist anarchy can be blurry. When I said "true communism" I'm talking about the stateless society Marx envisioned which would theoretically follow after a period of state socialism (eg, USSR) in which the concept of private property would be abolished and people would live in a communal environment. Something like the original intent of the Israeli kibbutzim, or what some indiginous tribes have lived by such as the Moriori mentioned above or others in the Americas. Not the USSR (my use of "true" was specifically to make it clear that I'm not talking about the USSR or Maoist China). If you have disagreements with this and would like to express yourself more constructively, I'm legitimately interested in hearing them.
saying that you were lying was perhaps strong as it presumes malicious intent, however i did clarify that you might just be missinformed and thus expressing factually incorrect statements based on your ignorance on the subject. i think ignorance in this context is fairly straightforward and not used as an insult as you took it. for any part i played in this misscommunication, i apologize.
My point was that anarchist civilizations havent lasted becuase it was crushed by violence, not becuase a free anarchist society cannot work or be a good societal structure.
I dont agree with the argument that statist societies is the only kind that can sustain enough potential for violence to survive, we simply havent had a situation where an anarchist society has been in war with an equally strong statist enemy, in basically all cases it has been a big overwhelming state force crushing a smaller non-state entity. it would be like arguing that a democratic republic is superior to a more egalitarian society becuase the US crushed the sandanistas. In Spain during 1936-1939 when most of Spain was run by anarchistic principles the economical productivity actually increased, and if the only enemy they had was a capitalist statist society of relative equal outlook i have not seen any evidence that it wouldnt survive, instead of what happened in reality where basically every strong power in the world at that time helped to crush the anarchist revolution. self persevation and the lives of your family and loved ones is quite a good motivator for free people to organize and be a part of a militia that i would argue would be more focused and fiercer than soldiers whos motivation for fighting is monetary gain.
i tried to distuingish anarchism from any talk of the free market by saying that anarchocapitalists arent anarchists, an anarchist society does not have to consist of individuals trying to sustain themselves or barter to survive, quite the opposite. its a society that everyone can freely cooperate in through free association. anarchists dont have a detailed strict plan on how a perfect anarchist society looks like with all its structures and organizations (including the economy). to put it simply an anarchist society could theoretically run exactly like a state society with a standing army, the only difference is that there is no leeches sitting at the top making all the decisions, reaping all the profits whilst the normal people suffer, becuase everyone is cooperating on equal terms and the fruits of peoples labour actually goes to the people that created those benefits and the general public.
you say that you are not making a moral statement, so let me ask you, what is the meaning of pointing out that no anarchist societies has persisted? seems to me like you are implying that they were inferior becuase they were crushed by violence. in that case you are making a moral statement which is basically that "might makes right", if so then i think you just found a justification for fascism, seems like a pretty efficient system if maximum potential of violence is the relevant variable. even if it was true (which has not been proven) that anarchist societies would be less capable of violence, what would that say about anarchism? that it doesnt work becuase violence is what is relevant to a society and its therefore inferior? if so then again fascism would not be a bad state system.
true communism has existed, becuase after the supposed transition from state socialism, communism basically is anarchism. the main differences is the road to get there (and anarchists might be a little more varied in how society looks but the core values are the same). A good example of anarchism or final state communism is examples you yourself point out, and for modern examples the paris commune and Spain during the spanish revolution are good ones.
i look forward to your reply
|
On April 14 2011 08:03 Wegandi wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_CommonwealthMost scholars agree that it was largely anarcho-capitalist in nature. It lasted over 300 years. Is that lasting enough? There doesn't need to be a monetary incentive to provide for defense of ones property and community. Preservation of ones culture and wealth is sufficient. Militia's are both the rightful defense of a Republic and of an Anarchy. There are significant pros and cons, but needless to say the history of militia's are largely successful, compared to large standing armies. I mean anarchic Ireland survived for a thousand years and fought off the English for many decades. Selling warfare (defense) services (do arms count?) isn't that difficult. Surely, there is demand? I do however agree with many of your points made, but you make significant lapses in historical evidence.
Excellent example.
If I had come across that on my own, I'd have thought it was minarchist due to the Althing having many properties of a government and the godar being able to effectively conscript their followers in the case of war, but if scholars consider this anarcho-capitalist then I won't dispute that classification.
300 years, hmm I dunno. That would be like the United States ceasing to exist in 2076 or so. It's long enough to last for many generations' entire lifetimes, but by the standards of nations it's not really that long.
Ultimately, (paraphrasing the wiki article), it fell apart due to a) inability to resolve domestic disputes and b) inability to deal with an aggressive statist power for a sustained amount of time. These are two big issues why I think a society must have some level of government to survive in the modern world. The military history of Iceland article also states that eventually, these chieftains became more powerful and started a civil war. I view this as the natural progression of a stateless society - that, over time, someone will fill in the power vacuum. Maybe that sucks, but it's the way history has played out.
(random aside, "minarchist" seems like such a tautology to me - the minimum state necessary for a civilization to survive and have stability. but if an anarchist state could do both, then it would be minarchist by definition.)
|
On April 14 2011 09:26 Signet wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2011 08:03 Wegandi wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_CommonwealthMost scholars agree that it was largely anarcho-capitalist in nature. It lasted over 300 years. Is that lasting enough? There doesn't need to be a monetary incentive to provide for defense of ones property and community. Preservation of ones culture and wealth is sufficient. Militia's are both the rightful defense of a Republic and of an Anarchy. There are significant pros and cons, but needless to say the history of militia's are largely successful, compared to large standing armies. I mean anarchic Ireland survived for a thousand years and fought off the English for many decades. Selling warfare (defense) services (do arms count?) isn't that difficult. Surely, there is demand? I do however agree with many of your points made, but you make significant lapses in historical evidence. Excellent example. If I had come across that on my own, I'd have thought it was minarchist due to the Althing having many properties of a government and the godar being able to effectively conscript their followers in the case of war, but if scholars consider this anarcho-capitalist then I won't dispute that classification. 300 years, hmm I dunno. That would be like the United States ceasing to exist in 2076 or so. It's long enough to last for many generations' entire lifetimes, but by the standards of nations it's not really that long. Ultimately, (paraphrasing the wiki article), it fell apart due to a) inability to resolve domestic disputes and b) inability to deal with an aggressive statist power for a sustained amount of time. These are two big issues why I think a society must have some level of government to survive in the modern world. The military history of Iceland article also states that eventually, these chieftains became more powerful and started a civil war. I view this as the natural progression of a stateless society - that, over time, someone will fill in the power vacuum. Maybe that sucks, but it's the way history has played out. (random aside, "minarchist" seems like such a tautology to me - the minimum state necessary for a civilization to survive and have stability. but if an anarchist state could do both, then it would be minarchist by definition.)
I'm not too rigid as I will settle for Republican City-States as an alternative to my preferential Voluntaryist society. While not ideal, I could tolerate the injustice of a small-uniform flat external taxation (tariff) to fund courts and local constable. The Constable could call on the local militia in times of need. Else wise all functions left to free-peoples.
Most civilizations do not last for 300 years, so I would consider that successful. I would also argue that while the US may exist today, it is functionally different than the form of Government which existed prior to both the 'Civil' War and the 17th Amendment. Just like Rome is divided into epochs where it went from a Republic to an Empire. France has been through what, five or six Republics since 1790.
Medieval Iceland was anarcho-capitalist per se, but it did have many anarcho-capitalist qualities and principles. Somaliland would be the modern day equivalent as the Xeer is highly voluntaryist/an-cap.
Ultimately no society will last forever, that goes for States and anarchies, but I think the goal should be to work towards a completely voluntary society. We've come a long way, and I think we will continue to make large strides in the future. Now, if only the East would crack open some Lao Tzu :p
|
On April 14 2011 09:26 Signet wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2011 08:03 Wegandi wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_CommonwealthMost scholars agree that it was largely anarcho-capitalist in nature. It lasted over 300 years. Is that lasting enough? There doesn't need to be a monetary incentive to provide for defense of ones property and community. Preservation of ones culture and wealth is sufficient. Militia's are both the rightful defense of a Republic and of an Anarchy. There are significant pros and cons, but needless to say the history of militia's are largely successful, compared to large standing armies. I mean anarchic Ireland survived for a thousand years and fought off the English for many decades. Selling warfare (defense) services (do arms count?) isn't that difficult. Surely, there is demand? I do however agree with many of your points made, but you make significant lapses in historical evidence. Excellent example. If I had come across that on my own, I'd have thought it was minarchist due to the Althing having many properties of a government and the godar being able to effectively conscript their followers in the case of war, but if scholars consider this anarcho-capitalist then I won't dispute that classification. 300 years, hmm I dunno. That would be like the United States ceasing to exist in 2076 or so. It's long enough to last for many generations' entire lifetimes, but by the standards of nations it's not really that long. Ultimately, (paraphrasing the wiki article), it fell apart due to a) inability to resolve domestic disputes and b) inability to deal with an aggressive statist power for a sustained amount of time. These are two big issues why I think a society must have some level of government to survive in the modern world. The military history of Iceland article also states that eventually, these chieftains became more powerful and started a civil war. I view this as the natural progression of a stateless society - that, over time, someone will fill in the power vacuum. Maybe that sucks, but it's the way history has played out. (random aside, "minarchist" seems like such a tautology to me - the minimum state necessary for a civilization to survive and have stability. but if an anarchist state could do both, then it would be minarchist by definition.)
Not to have a debate about Iceland or anything, but Iceland's "anarcho-capitalist" period was pre-capitalist. Farmers we independent (no wage labor) and had geographically distinguished farmers' councils. There was even summer time communal land for new members to set up shop. The society was also patriarchal\matriarchal in some legal respects as many pre-capitalist systems are.
Byock's Viking Age Iceland is a good source on the period.
The system effectively fell apart after slavery had ended and was replaced by tenant farming and rent. Concentrated wealth in the hands of landowners and the church allowed them to attempt to centralize power. As in everywhere else, they succeeded.
Don't take my word for it, there are plenty of histories of medieval Iceland to choose from and I read Viking Age Iceland quite a while ago. The idea that a pre-capitalist society with communal elements is a good example of anarcho-capitalism is pretty farfetched to me.
|
On April 14 2011 09:44 Romantic wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2011 09:26 Signet wrote:On April 14 2011 08:03 Wegandi wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_CommonwealthMost scholars agree that it was largely anarcho-capitalist in nature. It lasted over 300 years. Is that lasting enough? There doesn't need to be a monetary incentive to provide for defense of ones property and community. Preservation of ones culture and wealth is sufficient. Militia's are both the rightful defense of a Republic and of an Anarchy. There are significant pros and cons, but needless to say the history of militia's are largely successful, compared to large standing armies. I mean anarchic Ireland survived for a thousand years and fought off the English for many decades. Selling warfare (defense) services (do arms count?) isn't that difficult. Surely, there is demand? I do however agree with many of your points made, but you make significant lapses in historical evidence. Excellent example. If I had come across that on my own, I'd have thought it was minarchist due to the Althing having many properties of a government and the godar being able to effectively conscript their followers in the case of war, but if scholars consider this anarcho-capitalist then I won't dispute that classification. 300 years, hmm I dunno. That would be like the United States ceasing to exist in 2076 or so. It's long enough to last for many generations' entire lifetimes, but by the standards of nations it's not really that long. Ultimately, (paraphrasing the wiki article), it fell apart due to a) inability to resolve domestic disputes and b) inability to deal with an aggressive statist power for a sustained amount of time. These are two big issues why I think a society must have some level of government to survive in the modern world. The military history of Iceland article also states that eventually, these chieftains became more powerful and started a civil war. I view this as the natural progression of a stateless society - that, over time, someone will fill in the power vacuum. Maybe that sucks, but it's the way history has played out. (random aside, "minarchist" seems like such a tautology to me - the minimum state necessary for a civilization to survive and have stability. but if an anarchist state could do both, then it would be minarchist by definition.) Not to have a debate about Iceland or anything, but Iceland's "anarcho-capitalist" period was pre-capitalist. Farmers we independent (no wage labor) and had geographically distinguished farmers' councils. There was even summer time communal land for new members to set up shop. The society was also patriarchal\matriarchal in some legal respects as many pre-capitalist systems are. Byock's Viking Age Iceland is a good source on the period. The system effectively fell apart after slavery had ended and was replaced by tenant farming and rent. Concentrated wealth in the hands of landowners and the church allowed them to attempt to centralize power. As in everywhere else, they succeeded. Don't take my word for it, there are plenty of histories of medieval Iceland to choose from and I read Viking Age Iceland quite a while ago. The idea that a pre-capitalist society with communal elements is a good example of anarcho-capitalism is pretty farfetched to me.
I define capitalist interchangable with the free-market. Seventy-Five percent of the US population prior to the Civil War were proprietors (self-employed). Most farmer's today are likewise self-employed. All capitalism is, is a system of private property via homesteading, and the free exchange of ones just property as John of Paris put it:
[property]..is acquired by individual people through their own skill, labour and diligence, and individuals, as individuals, have right and power over it and valid lordship; each person may order his own and dispose, administer, hold or alienate it as he wishes, so long as he causes no injury to anyone else; since he is lord.
Or, in Aquinas' view:
The initial right of each person is to ownership over his own self, in Aquinas’s view in a ‘proprietary right over himself’. Such individual self-ownership is based on the capacity of man as a rational being. Next, cultivation and use of previously unused land establishes a just property title in the land in one man rather than in others.
Even in the 1800s there were many communal accords within the united States. They were voluntary associations. There were a few famous ones which I use to demonstrate the failure of such arrangements, but I respect a free persons right to choose to live in such a way as he wishes as long as he does not infringe on the liberties of another.
However, communal arrangements mostly forbid the use of money or mediums of exchange, and certainly do not sell goods. This [market or capitalist system] was most common in Medieval Iceland, especially in their legal system which was remunerative.
|
On April 14 2011 08:26 NIJ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2011 07:33 Signet wrote:
Imperialist nations didn't successfully invade indigenous people by chance. They had superior technology and stronger economies Off topic but What allowed the spaniards to conquer the empires was diplomacy, deception and lack of experience from the natives. Economy and technology had very little impact to do with it. Most of the time the conquistadors were underfunded and undermanned for their job and unless youre counting calvary as state of the art technology of the 14th century, technology played very little role in defeating the natives.
This is so OT but I find it really interesting  So...
I agree with this for the most part. However, I'm looking at technology and its role in colonialism/imperialism from a very broad perspective. I'll elaborate using the Spanish and Incas as an example, because they're one of the main case studies in Guns, Germs, and Steel which I've recently read and therefore am a little fresher on. (noting that other civilizations such as the Aztecs, for example, did not have all of the same disadvantages -- however, they also were more difficult to conquer I believe)
Of the Spanish and the Inca, only the Spanish knew how to make ships capable of sailing an army across the Atlantic to their rival's lands to attempt invasion. That itself is a big technological difference and ensures that only one civilization of the two was capable of conquering the other.
But even if the Incas knew how to make a ship that could sail the Atlantic, the next question is how they could have afforded to? Spain was in the business of conquering large portions of entire continents. Doing this over the course of decades cost a fortune - not just in terms of gold, but in terms of producing an armada of ships and sending/supplying large armies across an ocean - but the Spanish government could afford it. I'm doubtful that the Incas or Aztecs could have afforded to do the same. Small-scale fighting along one's borders or the occasional full-scale invasion of a bordering neighbor requires nowhere near the dedication of resources and production that invading a distant power on another continent does. (even with today's technology, it still costs an incredible amount for the US to sustain an army fighting a war in Afghanistan, and we've "only" been at this for 10 years)
Lack of experience is interesting. In some of the first battles, this could be expected. But why did the Incas never adapt - learn the tactics, prepare countermeasures? For one, they had no written language. (technology) A Spanish commander could record the events of a battle and accurately communicate with other military figures back home, who could use this to prepare. An Inca who witnessed their army get killed would find it difficult to widely disseminate the specifics of how that happened. As a result, the Spanish armies effectively grew more prepared to deal with the Incas over time, while the Inca warriors did not evolve their tactics at the same rate.
So yes, some of the battles may have been luck. Also the Spanish may have used trickery to fool their enemies into thinking they would be at peace, then attacked by surprise. (although, a more developed political and military system that includes deceptive tactics is itself a kind of "technology" in the sense that it is applied knowledge) However, this only made things easier for them. In the end, they had such a significant technological advantage and such a stronger economy back home that the final outcome was inevitable - if the King of Spain wanted South America's gold badly enough, he was going to get it. If nothing else, they could have waited 100 years and then come back with an even larger technological gap, as they were not only more advanced but were developing at a faster rate.
|
On April 14 2011 09:03 pluvos wrote:
saying that you were lying was perhaps strong as it presumes malicious intent, however i did clarify that you might just be missinformed and thus expressing factually incorrect statements based on your ignorance on the subject. i think ignorance in this context is fairly straightforward and not used as an insult as you took it. for any part i played in this misscommunication, i apologize.
OK, thank you for clarifying your intent
My point was that anarchist civilizations havent lasted becuase it was crushed by violence, not becuase a free anarchist society cannot work or be a good societal structure.
Yes, I'm in agreement with the gist of this statement. I'm taking into account that the ability to defend oneself from violent, external forces in a characteristic that a state does - or at least has done - a better job of providing.
I dont agree with the argument that statist societies is the only kind that can sustain enough potential for violence to survive, we simply havent had a situation where an anarchist society has been in war with an equally strong statist enemy, in basically all cases it has been a big overwhelming state force crushing a smaller non-state entity. it would be like arguing that a democratic republic is superior to a more egalitarian society becuase the US crushed the sandanistas. In Spain during 1936-1939 when most of Spain was run by anarchistic principles the economical productivity actually increased, and if the only enemy they had was a capitalist statist society of relative equal outlook i have not seen any evidence that it wouldnt survive, instead of what happened in reality where basically every strong power in the world at that time helped to crush the anarchist revolution. self persevation and the lives of your family and loved ones is quite a good motivator for free people to organize and be a part of a militia that i would argue would be more focused and fiercer than soldiers whos motivation for fighting is monetary gain.
This could be true. However,
you say that you are not making a moral statement, so let me ask you, what is the meaning of pointing out that no anarchist societies has persisted? seems to me like you are implying that they were inferior becuase they were crushed by violence. in that case you are making a moral statement which is basically that "might makes right", if so then i think you just found a justification for fascism, seems like a pretty efficient system if maximum potential of violence is the relevant variable. even if it was true (which has not been proven) that anarchist societies would be less capable of violence, what would that say about anarchism? that it doesnt work becuase violence is what is relevant to a society and its therefore inferior? if so then again fascism would not be a bad state system.
I don't mean that might makes right. I mean that might allows one to defend themselves from the aggression of others. Human history - even, the history of life on earth - is full of violence. The evolution of both organisms and of civilizations has been cruel and ruthless. To survive, an organism or a civilization must be able to protect itself against this... practicality is a virtue. If a peaceful commune is geographically bordering a fascist imperial state, its members will be dead or subject to the oppression of the fascists if they are unable to defend themselves. They're no better off in the long run than the citizens of the fascist state.
Fascism is a bad state system for many reasons. I suppose you could say that one of the few good things about the system is that members of a fascist society would be better-protected from external force than members of a peaceful commune. But the extreme oppression of its own citizens is intolerable. I don't need to accept the countless terrible things about fascism in order to get the same level of protection. I get that level of protection right now. And while our system is far from perfect (and I'm definitely not making an argument for the status-quo), it's also far from Nazi Germany. I'll take representative democracy and push for libertine social policies rather than authoritarian ones.
Regarding efficiency of soldiers, this is going to be conjecture either way. However, I'd say that the ability of a state to raise a large army is a practical virtue. A slightly more efficient army that is outnumbered 100:1 is still going to lose.
Some of that of course comes down to the size of the state/entity. But that's another potential issue - anarchy may work for farming communes or largely independent bands of Medieval Icelanders. How far does it scale upwards? What would prevent massive domestic disputes if an area the size of NYC is composed of, say, 80,000 chiefdoms (which people may join or leave freely) of roughly 100 people each all interacting in a 470 sq mile area? I suspect that there's an upper bound on how large an anarchy can become before there's a need for bureaucracy to develop - for justice reasons if nothing else.
true communism has existed, becuase after the supposed transition from state socialism, communism basically is anarchism. the main differences is the road to get there (and anarchists might be a little more varied in how society looks but the core values are the same). A good example of anarchism or final state communism is examples you yourself point out, and for modern examples the paris commune and Spain during the spanish revolution are good ones.
This is fair, I agree it's the same in the end.
|
On April 14 2011 09:56 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2011 09:44 Romantic wrote:On April 14 2011 09:26 Signet wrote:On April 14 2011 08:03 Wegandi wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_CommonwealthMost scholars agree that it was largely anarcho-capitalist in nature. It lasted over 300 years. Is that lasting enough? There doesn't need to be a monetary incentive to provide for defense of ones property and community. Preservation of ones culture and wealth is sufficient. Militia's are both the rightful defense of a Republic and of an Anarchy. There are significant pros and cons, but needless to say the history of militia's are largely successful, compared to large standing armies. I mean anarchic Ireland survived for a thousand years and fought off the English for many decades. Selling warfare (defense) services (do arms count?) isn't that difficult. Surely, there is demand? I do however agree with many of your points made, but you make significant lapses in historical evidence. Excellent example. If I had come across that on my own, I'd have thought it was minarchist due to the Althing having many properties of a government and the godar being able to effectively conscript their followers in the case of war, but if scholars consider this anarcho-capitalist then I won't dispute that classification. 300 years, hmm I dunno. That would be like the United States ceasing to exist in 2076 or so. It's long enough to last for many generations' entire lifetimes, but by the standards of nations it's not really that long. Ultimately, (paraphrasing the wiki article), it fell apart due to a) inability to resolve domestic disputes and b) inability to deal with an aggressive statist power for a sustained amount of time. These are two big issues why I think a society must have some level of government to survive in the modern world. The military history of Iceland article also states that eventually, these chieftains became more powerful and started a civil war. I view this as the natural progression of a stateless society - that, over time, someone will fill in the power vacuum. Maybe that sucks, but it's the way history has played out. (random aside, "minarchist" seems like such a tautology to me - the minimum state necessary for a civilization to survive and have stability. but if an anarchist state could do both, then it would be minarchist by definition.) Not to have a debate about Iceland or anything, but Iceland's "anarcho-capitalist" period was pre-capitalist. Farmers we independent (no wage labor) and had geographically distinguished farmers' councils. There was even summer time communal land for new members to set up shop. The society was also patriarchal\matriarchal in some legal respects as many pre-capitalist systems are. Byock's Viking Age Iceland is a good source on the period. The system effectively fell apart after slavery had ended and was replaced by tenant farming and rent. Concentrated wealth in the hands of landowners and the church allowed them to attempt to centralize power. As in everywhere else, they succeeded. Don't take my word for it, there are plenty of histories of medieval Iceland to choose from and I read Viking Age Iceland quite a while ago. The idea that a pre-capitalist society with communal elements is a good example of anarcho-capitalism is pretty farfetched to me. I define capitalist interchangable with the free-market. Seventy-Five percent of the US population prior to the Civil War were proprietors (self-employed). Most farmer's today are likewise self-employed. All capitalism is, is a system of private property via homesteading, and the free exchange of ones just property as John of Paris put it: Show nested quote +[property]..is acquired by individual people through their own skill, labour and diligence, and individuals, as individuals, have right and power over it and valid lordship; each person may order his own and dispose, administer, hold or alienate it as he wishes, so long as he causes no injury to anyone else; since he is lord. Or, in Aquinas' view: Show nested quote +The initial right of each person is to ownership over his own self, in Aquinas’s view in a ‘proprietary right over himself’. Such individual self-ownership is based on the capacity of man as a rational being. Next, cultivation and use of previously unused land establishes a just property title in the land in one man rather than in others. Even in the 1800s there were many communal accords within the united States. They were voluntary associations. There were a few famous ones which I use to demonstrate the failure of such arrangements, but I respect a free persons right to choose to live in such a way as he wishes as long as he does not infringe on the liberties of another. However, communal arrangements mostly forbid the use of money or mediums of exchange, and certainly do not sell goods. This [market or capitalist system] was most common in Medieval Iceland, especially in their legal system which was remunerative.
The problem with the highly decentralized free market is that it tends to centralize... pre Civil War the US was only beginning to Industrialize.
Because of the large concentrations of capital, factory workers couldn't really be self-employed. And efficiency of larger groups works well with a smaller number of decision makers... if the decision makers are suitably connected to the welfare effects of their decisions.
So power tends to centralize as technology allows and requires it.
|
On April 14 2011 09:58 Signet wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2011 08:26 NIJ wrote:On April 14 2011 07:33 Signet wrote:
Imperialist nations didn't successfully invade indigenous people by chance. They had superior technology and stronger economies Off topic but What allowed the spaniards to conquer the empires was diplomacy, deception and lack of experience from the natives. Economy and technology had very little impact to do with it. Most of the time the conquistadors were underfunded and undermanned for their job and unless youre counting calvary as state of the art technology of the 14th century, technology played very little role in defeating the natives. This is so OT but I find it really interesting So... I agree with this for the most part. However, I'm looking at technology and its role in colonialism/imperialism from a very broad perspective. I'll elaborate using the Spanish and Incas as an example, because they're one of the main case studies in Guns, Germs, and Steel which I've recently read and therefore am a little fresher on. (noting that other civilizations such as the Aztecs, for example, did not have all of the same disadvantages -- however, they also were more difficult to conquer I believe) Of the Spanish and the Inca, only the Spanish knew how to make ships capable of sailing an army across the Atlantic to their rival's lands to attempt invasion. That itself is a big technological difference and ensures that only one civilization of the two was capable of conquering the other. But even if the Incas knew how to make a ship that could sail the Atlantic, the next question is how they could have afforded to? Spain was in the business of conquering large portions of entire continents. Doing this over the course of decades cost a fortune - not just in terms of gold, but in terms of producing an armada of ships and sending/supplying large armies across an ocean - but the Spanish government could afford it. I'm doubtful that the Incas or Aztecs could have afforded to do the same. Small-scale fighting along one's borders or the occasional full-scale invasion of a bordering neighbor requires nowhere near the dedication of resources and production that invading a distant power on another continent does. (even with today's technology, it still costs an incredible amount for the US to sustain an army fighting a war in Afghanistan, and we've "only" been at this for 10 years) Lack of experience is interesting. In some of the first battles, this could be expected. But why did the Incas never adapt - learn the tactics, prepare countermeasures? For one, they had no written language. (technology) A Spanish commander could record the events of a battle and accurately communicate with other military figures back home, who could use this to prepare. An Inca who witnessed their army get killed would find it difficult to widely disseminate the specifics of how that happened. As a result, the Spanish armies effectively grew more prepared to deal with the Incas over time, while the Inca warriors did not evolve their tactics at the same rate. So yes, some of the battles may have been luck. Also the Spanish may have used trickery to fool their enemies into thinking they would be at peace, then attacked by surprise. (although, a more developed political and military system that includes deceptive tactics is itself a kind of "technology" in the sense that it is applied knowledge) However, this only made things easier for them. In the end, they had such a significant technological advantage and such a stronger economy back home that the final outcome was inevitable - if the King of Spain wanted South America's gold badly enough, he was going to get it. If nothing else, they could have waited 100 years and then come back with an even larger technological gap, as they were not only more advanced but were developing at a faster rate.
Huh? what? there was no battles to be adapted. In both aztec and incan cases, these empire fell in pretty much one single decisive battle. And you keep mentioning how spain couldve been powerful enough to invade but that didn't happen. thousands of men (in pizzaro's case hundreds) are what I would hardly call an invasion force, no less the "power of spain". You need to review alot of history. I dont want to post a wall of text of off topic stuff just to get thru it. pm or make new thread if you're interested.
|
On April 14 2011 10:31 Signet wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2011 09:03 pluvos wrote:
saying that you were lying was perhaps strong as it presumes malicious intent, however i did clarify that you might just be missinformed and thus expressing factually incorrect statements based on your ignorance on the subject. i think ignorance in this context is fairly straightforward and not used as an insult as you took it. for any part i played in this misscommunication, i apologize.
OK, thank you for clarifying your intent Show nested quote +
My point was that anarchist civilizations havent lasted becuase it was crushed by violence, not becuase a free anarchist society cannot work or be a good societal structure.
Yes, I'm in agreement with the gist of this statement. I'm taking into account that the ability to defend oneself from violent, external forces in a characteristic that a state does - or at least has done - a better job of providing. Show nested quote +
I dont agree with the argument that statist societies is the only kind that can sustain enough potential for violence to survive, we simply havent had a situation where an anarchist society has been in war with an equally strong statist enemy, in basically all cases it has been a big overwhelming state force crushing a smaller non-state entity. it would be like arguing that a democratic republic is superior to a more egalitarian society becuase the US crushed the sandanistas. In Spain during 1936-1939 when most of Spain was run by anarchistic principles the economical productivity actually increased, and if the only enemy they had was a capitalist statist society of relative equal outlook i have not seen any evidence that it wouldnt survive, instead of what happened in reality where basically every strong power in the world at that time helped to crush the anarchist revolution. self persevation and the lives of your family and loved ones is quite a good motivator for free people to organize and be a part of a militia that i would argue would be more focused and fiercer than soldiers whos motivation for fighting is monetary gain.
This could be true. However, Show nested quote +
you say that you are not making a moral statement, so let me ask you, what is the meaning of pointing out that no anarchist societies has persisted? seems to me like you are implying that they were inferior becuase they were crushed by violence. in that case you are making a moral statement which is basically that "might makes right", if so then i think you just found a justification for fascism, seems like a pretty efficient system if maximum potential of violence is the relevant variable. even if it was true (which has not been proven) that anarchist societies would be less capable of violence, what would that say about anarchism? that it doesnt work becuase violence is what is relevant to a society and its therefore inferior? if so then again fascism would not be a bad state system.
I don't mean that might makes right. I mean that might allows one to defend themselves from the aggression of others. Human history - even, the history of life on earth - is full of violence. The evolution of both organisms and of civilizations has been cruel and ruthless. To survive, an organism or a civilization must be able to protect itself against this... practicality is a virtue. If a peaceful commune is geographically bordering a fascist imperial state, its members will be dead or subject to the oppression of the fascists if they are unable to defend themselves. They're no better off in the long run than the citizens of the fascist state. Fascism is a bad state system for many reasons. I suppose you could say that one of the few good things about the system is that members of a fascist society would be better-protected from external force than members of a peaceful commune. But the extreme oppression of its own citizens is intolerable. I don't need to accept the countless terrible things about fascism in order to get the same level of protection. I get that level of protection right now. And while our system is far from perfect (and I'm definitely not making an argument for the status-quo), it's also far from Nazi Germany. I'll take representative democracy and push for libertine social policies rather than authoritarian ones. Regarding efficiency of soldiers, this is going to be conjecture either way. However, I'd say that the ability of a state to raise a large army is a practical virtue. A slightly more efficient army that is outnumbered 100:1 is still going to lose. Some of that of course comes down to the size of the state/entity. But that's another potential issue - anarchy may work for farming communes or largely independent bands of Medieval Icelanders. How far does it scale upwards? What would prevent massive domestic disputes if an area the size of NYC is composed of, say, 80,000 chiefdoms (which people may join or leave freely) of roughly 100 people each all interacting in a 470 sq mile area? I suspect that there's an upper bound on how large an anarchy can become before there's a need for bureaucracy to develop - for justice reasons if nothing else. Show nested quote +
true communism has existed, becuase after the supposed transition from state socialism, communism basically is anarchism. the main differences is the road to get there (and anarchists might be a little more varied in how society looks but the core values are the same). A good example of anarchism or final state communism is examples you yourself point out, and for modern examples the paris commune and Spain during the spanish revolution are good ones.
This is fair, I agree it's the same in the end.
As far as anarchy and its geographic size is concerned, yes, anarchy is predisposed to smaller areas, just as Republics are. Brutus and Centinel rightfully argued that a Republic cannot function in entities larger than a few hundred thousand persons, and of geographic size not encompassing more than the smaller colonial nations (The Articles of Confederation was essentially the American Union (the first 'EU' so to speak)...it was supposed to have little to no power and the member states were sovereign free-nations. The point was for libertarian benefits -- free-trade, free-travel, etc.).
As for NYC is concerned, you might be intrigued by Kowloon Walled City:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kowloon_Walled_City
|
laissez-faire capitalism?
Read the jungle that will give you a good idea how that worked out.
|
On April 14 2011 12:12 Warhawkq wrote:
laissez-faire capitalism?
Read the jungle that will give you a good idea how that worked out.
You realize that The Jungle was a novel, not a historical account, correct? I'm not here to defend the 1906 meat-packing industry, but he was just a journalist going for shock value.
Of Upon Sin Clair, Theodore Roosevelt said, "I have an utter contempt for him. He is hysterical, unbalanced, and untruthful. Three-fourths of the things he said were absolute falsehoods. For some of the remainder there was only a basis of truth."
|
On April 14 2011 11:15 NIJ wrote:
Huh? what? there was no battles to be adapted. In both aztec and incan cases, these empire fell in pretty much one single decisive battle. And you keep mentioning how spain couldve been powerful enough to invade but that didn't happen. thousands of men (in pizzaro's case hundreds) are what I would hardly call an invasion force, no less the "power of spain". You need to review alot of history. I dont want to post a wall of text of off topic stuff just to get thru it. pm or make new thread if you're interested.
Aahhh you're right, I'm thinking of the Mayans being more difficult not the Aztecs. (it took well over a century until the last Mayan stronghold fell) I'm mixing stuff up... completely my mistake. I'm also counting the rebellions that followed after the fallout of Cajamarca as part of the conquest when I'm talking about the Inca (~40 years).
re: military strength, that's kinda my point. Thousands of Spanish were able to win these decisive victories and put down rebellions. While Cajamarca was a surprise attack, it was nonetheless ~170 vs 7000. But the Spanish had steel armor and swords. (and cannons; guns were useless in this close range battle) I know the Inca entered unarmed; I had thought that once the battle started they armed themselves but I don't know that for sure. They had leather armor which was useless against steel swords. When the Inca tried to retake Cuzco, they ran into the same problem where their weapons were only somewhat effective, but Spanish swords and cannons were completely effective against them. Defeat was an inevitable consequence of this imbalance and the germ imbalance.
re: the power of Spain - could thousands of indigenous Americans have conquered Spain or large parts of Europe? No.
I will review though, I am clearly mixing things up. My bad.
|
On April 13 2011 12:59 gogogadgetflow wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2011 12:54 Offhand wrote:On April 13 2011 11:19 gogogadgetflow wrote:
Like all philosophers worth their salt, Rand developed a specific understanding (Objectivism) of Metaphysics, Epistemology, Ethics, Politics, and Aesthetics. You can't exclude someone from the philosophy club simply because you don't agree with his/her views. That's fine but then your group of philosophers also contains Bill Hicks and Sam Kinison. So maybe the club isn't so elite all the time. Aren't you the guy who was in this thread 2 months ago just trolling?
So why am I wrong? Rand is a philosopher in that she claims to have a philosophy. That puts her on the same level as comedians, tv pundits, and crazies. You actually have to prove your theory has some merit (go ahead, I haven't seen any examples of objectivist societies succeeding) before anyone takes you seriously.
Keep in mind the most powerful economy in the world is a Neo-Liberal state (the US) and the next most powerful economy in the world will be a communist state (China). So your theory of government noninterference being better needs to have some solid evidence for it, and some solid evidence against reality.
|
On April 14 2011 23:43 Offhand wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2011 12:59 gogogadgetflow wrote:On April 13 2011 12:54 Offhand wrote:On April 13 2011 11:19 gogogadgetflow wrote:
Like all philosophers worth their salt, Rand developed a specific understanding (Objectivism) of Metaphysics, Epistemology, Ethics, Politics, and Aesthetics. You can't exclude someone from the philosophy club simply because you don't agree with his/her views. That's fine but then your group of philosophers also contains Bill Hicks and Sam Kinison. So maybe the club isn't so elite all the time. Aren't you the guy who was in this thread 2 months ago just trolling? So why am I wrong? Rand is a philosopher in that she claims to have a philosophy. That puts her on the same level as comedians, tv pundits, and crazies. You actually have to prove your theory has some merit (go ahead, I haven't seen any examples of objectivist societies succeeding) before anyone takes you seriously. Keep in mind the most powerful economy in the world is a Neo-Liberal state (the US) and the next most powerful economy in the world will be a communist state (China). So your theory of government noninterference being better needs to have some solid evidence for it, and some solid evidence against reality.
Actually, China is not Communist. They are quite Capitalist. Of course, they are also massively socially authoritarian like Singapore, but nevertheless still much more Capitalist than Communist. They are much more closer to Corporatism, than Laissez-Faire though.
|
Looking forward to how they did adapting the book to a movie.
Scanning the posts here always interesting to see who the discussions go when Rand is brought up. One thing to rember is Rand was born in russian and spent the first 20 years of her life there leaving in 1926. So she was exposed to the extream poles of economics first hand.
One of the key points is the Rand was not blindly "pro big business" the biggest villain in the book was a one of the business fat cats. Instead it is a glorification of the individual (talent and drive).
It is such an interesting topic on balance the rights of the individual vs those of the society and how to maximize value creation through the optimal balance of oversight/freedom.
Back to the OP with the movie coming out the WSJ had a couple articles on Rand's views.
Interesting reads.
Give these a read.
Remembering the real Ayn Rand
Rights of the Individual
|
On April 14 2011 12:12 Warhawkq wrote:
laissez-faire capitalism?
Read the jungle that will give you a good idea how that worked out.
It's not like the long history of government funded war is any better.
|
It's funny because any objectivist knows better than to argue for 8 pages on someone elses standards.
|
...After this long thread, has anyone actually gone to see the movie? It did come out on the fifteen, according to Wiki.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
