So you’re contending that there have never been citizen’s militias or citizen’s tribunals? Do the French and Spanish know?
You keep using that word “full time” like it was something I said.
Sure (not specifially “major roadway contruction” but on that scale.. That’s not the only organization of its kind, either.
Look, I get your larger point - there’s a point at which all that organization is enforcing its own organizational will rather than the will of society as a whole. Anarchism hopes to put enough checks and balances in place there to prevent that from happening. So if you choose to view that as just another kind of democracy like any other, that’s not wholly inaccurate, and I’m OK with that. I’m also ok with other flavours of anarchism that are more in line with what you are prescribing as true anarchism, but they’re not my ideal.
Indeed, but when that democracy has a full-time professional bureaucracy, full-time professional police force, full-time professional politicians and full-time professional judges, all enforcing laws upon people by means of coercion and threat of violence it is no kind of Anarchism at all.
You expect there to be career public officials such as Judges, but they won’t be full time. What are you suggesting here, that people learn to be judges and neurosurgeons, but they work 4 hours a day as dustmen?
At this stage you really need to explain what you are proposing, because I thought that we had already settled that they would be career public officials.
Well if you are claiming that you mentioned cpaitalism, provide apost number so we can all see where you mentioned it. Because I am calling bullshit on this one. You never mentioned capitalism at all.
Why would you even bother to deny this when it is so easy to demonstrate that you are using dishonest tactics?
I honestly don’t know what you hope to gain by making such claims. Everyone can see where you said that all economic action is both political and hierarchical. If you want to clarify, then clarify. But don’t tyr to tell us that you never said such a thing.
Nuff said.
If you are going to continue to utilise such dishonest tactics the I honestly have no further interest in engaging you, since it is clearly futile.
There are things call that, but what you haven’;t shown is how something called a citizen’s court with career judges and a militia with career soldiers is any different to what any western democracy already has. Call it a citizen’s court, call it a kangaroo court. Call it whatever you like, but explain how it differs from what already exists.
Then explain how someone can be a career public officials and not a full time public official.
Once again, when you say that someone is a career judge, it’s not our fault if we assume that you are using that term in the normal sense of a full time judge who has devoted their working life to that position.
You seem to be implying that someone will be a career judge in their coffee break.
It’s not even a single organisation. That organisation lists projects such as “Schools, Sanitary Facility, etc”. That’s not even remotely on the same scale as major roadway construction. That’s the sort of project that engineering *students *get given for work experience. It’s not even remotely comparable to overseeing major roadway construction
Care to try again?
That isn’t my point. My point is that when you have a career professional bureaucracy, a career professional police force, career professional politicians and career professional judges, all enforcing laws upon people by means of coercion and threat of violence then you don’t have anything that could be remotely be considered to meet any standard of Anarchism that I have ever seen or anything that the average person would consider anarachism. You have a governed state regulated by a multi-layered bureaucracy and legal system. The very antithesis of Anarchism.
IOW it’s a Tower of Babel situation, where you use the word in a way that nobody else in the entire world uses it to describe a system that nobody else int he entire world would consider to be remotely like anarchism.
That’s the final straw. Combined with you dishonest tactics it is quite clear that you are just wasting my time and have no interest in discussing this subject in good faith.
Never mind ostracisation, the punishments included mutilation, ritual combat, branding and banishment. If Cohen says that HGs never engaged in such punishments then that is easily refuted using online sources.
Does he make such a claim?
I can’t see how a law system, overseen by elders, enforced in such a manner, and regulating property ownership, social role, sexual behaviour and land utilisation can held to be anarchic.
Of course I did. Just because I didn’t mention it by name doesn’t mean I didn’t mention it.
So, that’s “Can’t read”, then? Once again: I said “All economic action is political” AND THEN I said “a fundamentally undemocratic and hierarchical economic structure” but at no point did the word “all” qualify the latter. To repeat: I said all economic actions are political , I said capitalism is embedded in Western democracy, but I never said all economic actions are capitalism, so the latter statement isn’t linked to the former the way you have linked it. And yes, anyone can read what I wrote and see that.
Jeepers, man, you’re doing that “Argument by extreme aggression” thing again, that gets you all het up (need I mention 2-foot jumps?). Possibly take a breather?
No, son, it’s a joke (based on the fact that if you ask any two anarchists, you’ll get three definitions of anarchism.) Even the Wiki article acknowledges how many different interpretations of it there are. We’re nothing if not inveterate splitters.
Your misreading of one sentence does not make me dishonest. But whatever floats your boat.
In the same way any other social and political scientist was: from researching the available historical and anthropological evidence. Why, did you think he made his pronouncements after consulting his crystal ball?
Because the word “anarchy” has a generally understood meaning that isn’t consistent with what anarchism means to achieve. Anarchism hopes to achieve a society with no rulers (the root meaning of anarchy) not no rules (the modern meaning of anarchy)
But I’m sure you can look up the difference. If you didn’t know that already.
I’m not sure he used a crystal ball, but did he in fact use any actualy research of evidence related to hunter-gatherer societies? How much time did Engels spend outside of comfortable accomodations in Germany?
Just saying “Engels said so” isn’t a super convincing position, I guess is what I’m saying.
Of course; why wouldn’t he have? As with any other social scientist, the factual claims made in his scholarly writings are sourced. He may not have done field work himself, though that’s hardly unusual.
Most of his adult life.
I don’t think it’s a convincing position either, but it’s not one I’ve advanced in this thread. Providing a citation is not the same as argumentum ad verecundiam.
What’s to look up? It’s a false distinction. No rulers = no rules = anarchy = Somalia, not Libertopia or Revolutionary Spain or some shit. (The Spanish Revolutionaries, had they managed to avoid getting crushed by the Republic and Franco in turn, would have found it necessary at some point to betray their anarcho-syndicalist principles and form a government (though they might give it a different and dishonest name) to keep the system going; otherwise, Somalia.)
I agree that it’s a True Scotsman type argument. The moment that you have a “community consensus” decision that is not unanimous, you have government. I believe that there have been very few, if any, real societies that have had no government structures. Certainly, there have been very libertarian societies, but even in those, if you just go around raping and pillaging all day then SOMETHING is going to be done about you even if there is no formal “Criminal Code” or institutionalized police forces or jails.
You don’t NEED to have a farcical aquatic ceremony to have “government”.
In When did killing become a public offense, not just a private one? , I pointed out that once upon a time even crimes as serious as murder weren’t punished by the authority of a centralized state. So of course society is going to have rules enforced by tradition or consensus or private oaths of fealty, but the enforcement could conceivably be much more decentralized.
