I had a discussion with my teacher and he said history was his justification for why anarchism cannot work. I stated that most history has been ruled by government, and throughout history there are consistent examples of government being the cause of massive numbers of death.
I asked him what examples of society he knew of that are anarchist in nature. He responded the foraging era. I was wondering if anyone can clarify if this is true or not?
I’m not sure how he got to the point that government should be justified, but is this an approach similar to Hobbes? I’m curious what others would think is wrong with this?
Pre-agricultural society might have been “anarchy” but it wasn’t really “anarcho-capitalism”. However, many early tribal societies had minor forms of despotism. Strong-man chiefs and whatnot. Property rights were questionable, etc.
He’s also making a bit of a non-sequiter by implying that government brought us out of the foraging era, and implying that anarchy would put us back there. The argicultural revolution was what brought us out of the hunter-gatherer mode, and the state probably followed that. There’s several theories as to the formation of the state. I’ve heard basically three general theories:
1.) Nomadic raiders formed the State as they raided the “rich” farms. After time the farmers submitted themselves to the raiders
2.) Farmers formed the State as a defensive apparatus against nomadic raiders.
3.) Early agricultural centers became the State as they subjegated and enslaved regional people to work the land.
As to how it happened exactly we’re not sure, it might have arisen in different ways in different regions. There were other “anarchic” societies in more recent times. Such as the Icelandic Commonwealth.
He is full right. Anarchy has actually been the societal form for the largest part of human history. But until ion can find a satisfactory definition of the state (hence of anarchy), we can make very little of this datum. In the post in my link I discuss the issue of tribal anarchy, if you’re interested.
I agree with Merlin that tribal societies were anarchic in nature.
To argue that States brought societies out of the foraging era would be an example of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, at best. However, it actually goes against the empirical evidence. Nothing about agriculture suggests that it’s incompatible with anarchy.
Much/most of Europe during the Middle Ages was actually pretty anarchic, aside from the whole serfdom thing. I think the reason why Europe gained ascendancy over other parts of the world was due to its political fragmentation combined with some degree of political mobility. In other words, it was socially and politically more dynamic. This allowed greater capital accumulation.
Evidence may suggest that the entire Harappan Civilization was anarchic. It lasted for at least 700 years – far longer than the Icelandic Commonwealth.
Prehistoric modes of living were anarchist in the same sense that primitive animist cults which are totally decentralised and spread exclusively by oral tradition are “atheist”.
If you use a very narrow definition of the terms “anarchist” and “atheist” in this sense, you’re technically correct, but it’s a very narrow definition. Prehistoric modes of living certainly weren’t libertarian, anarcho-capitalist or voluntarist, just as animist cults aren’t skeptical or rationalist. They may not have had a “state” as understood in the modern era, but they certainly did believe in the legitimacy of force and domination. They had primitive slavery, and the modern state is just a very sophisticated form of slavery.
There was no state the way we understand the state today, because there was no written language, permanent human settlement or any of the technologies or propagandas developed to allow a large centralised state to take shape.
However, the state, as we understand it today, cannot possibly have been a consistent enabling vehicle for human progress and development as complex beings up to this point. It fed off the products of cooperation, and continues to feed off it today. It is ridiculous to suggest that the warlords/marauders who first resolved to legitimise their terror with theology and propaganda were aiding the farming, hunting and trading peoples they preyed off in any way. The farming and trading peoples were aiding themselves by cooperating peacefully to be productive, and the warlords were preying off them. Nothing has changed, except the sophistication and scale of the state apparatus, including its rationalising theology.
If humans were, in the main, the wild beasts straining to tear out each others’ throats that your teacher implies, the state would not be capable of stopping them. There is not a policeman for every civilian, and policemen and other state functionaries are just people in any case. If it is simply the belief in the state’s legitimacy which keeps the violence at bay, then why wouldn’t a belief in the illegitimacy of violence alone be sufficient to prevent it at least as effectively as the state is able to? Why is a coercive monopoly with only ceremonial accountability and consumer sovereignty a more efficient and effective means of providing security and enforcing the rule of law than a free market, when every other consumer good or service under the sun is best served by the free market?