You must log in or register to comment.
Explanation: A rare bit of OC from me!
As surprising as it might sound, the Roman Republic had no formal policing forces at all! An unusual point of unity between an ancient polity noted for its sense of hierarchy, and hierarchy-averse modern anarchist ideology!
The Romans, you see, had a very minimalistic government in the period of the Republic precisely because they feared the imposition of tyranny by government fiat. For that matter, only the most important issues were covered by criminal law - treason, murder, abuse of power, rape, and false testimony. Everything else - from theft to assault to slander - was covered by civil law. So if there was a criminal on the loose, the thinking was that, as the community had agreed to make the laws, so too would the community band together to enforce them - it was a citizen’s responsibility, when called to, to help his neighbors seize hold of a dangerous criminal and bring him in for trial! And if the person was not a dangerous criminal, if it was only a civil dispute… what need was there for such urgency?
This… does have its weaknesses, and the Roman Empire would later see the vigiles, a formalized town watch with some policing duties (particularly separation of violent parties, and delivery of the accused to trial; not so much general crime prevention), and stationarii, legionary detachments tasked with suppressing banditry and other exceptionally violent crimes. Nevertheless, even in the Empire’s time, much of enforcement of civil law was down to oneself and one’s neighbors - people are noted as screaming at all hours of the night outside of folk who refuse to turn up for court in a reasonable amount of time; or when a judgement is reached by default if the accused doesn’t show up to a civil trial within the month, appearing with their friends and (entirely lawfully, as that was the expected enforcement mechanism!) seizing the ‘fined’ amount of property from the person’s home themselves!
I’m not an anarchist myself, and I consider, despite the abhorrent state of policing in my country and the importance of oversight of all positions of power in general, policing to be a positive institution overall. Conceptually, at least, for as much as American police do their damndest to drive the cost-benefit analysis into the red.
However, it is a demonstration of a legitimate and important point often raised by anarchists - that formal policing forces are not the difference between a (more or less) functioning society and chaos. They are a convenience, not a necessity, and policing forces are comparatively recent inventions. Modern policing dates only to the 19th century; post-Roman military policing only to the 16th century in most European cultures. Irregular and volunteer institutions of militia-watch date to the medieval period, but only with the emergence of high-density towns and cities. Before that, enforcement was by the community itself - sometimes good, sometimes bad.
The mutual aid functions of Roman collegia might also be of interest to anarchists looking for refutations to common canards of the supposed fantastic nature of anarchist solutions to problems. I may not agree with anarchist proposals as optimal, but I am often more than happy to lend a voice about whether they are functional!
I’m not an anarchist myself, and I consider… policing to be a positive institution overall.
noway
your whole post conflates hierarchical violence and distributed tyranny with anarchism. incredibly dishonest framing.
the people who had power were the patriarchs and patrons, ‘the community’ was free male citizens only. this excluded women, slaves and anyone who wasn’t a citizen.
local patrons (oligarchs) would mobilize client networks as private armies to collect debts and exert local control. this wasn’t limited to street violence, patron networks also dominated local legal systems.
patria potestas meant that households were formally domestic tyranny. heads of household had legal power of life and death over wives, children, and slaves.
none of this is anti-hierarchical or consensual. ‘no formal police’ just meant violence was privatized through patron-client networks and patriarchal households.
roman collegia were not mutual aid, they were hierarchical guilds with aristocratic patrons who had total control over the institution. they enforced trade monopolies and social conformity among members.
I may not agree with anarchist proposals as optimal, but I am often more than happy to lend a voice about whether they are functional
i think i’m fine without getting validation from the roman slave-state
your whole post conflates hierarchical violence and distributed tyranny with anarchism. incredibly dishonest framing.
Fucking what.
i think i’m fine without getting validation from the roman slave-state
Yes, yes, we get it, there’s nothing you hate more than examples of societal functioning that align with your professed values, unless the function in question is run by a genocidal bootlicker state you simp for, like the Soviet Union, the PRC, and fucking North Korea, which you assert has ‘anarchist tendencies’.
Enjoy that boot leather, it’s painted a real nice shade of red. Or maybe that’s the blood of the proletariat covering it? I guess that makes it taste even better to fascist scum like you.
the people who had power were the patriarchs and patrons, ‘the community’ was free male citizens only. this excluded women, slaves and anyone who wasn’t a citizen.
The discussion is within the context of the citizen community. The exclusion of women and non-citizens from this discussion is not meant to present the Roman system as in some way laudable by modern standards, but to present that community enforcement on a roughly and formally non-hierarchical fashion is demonstrably possible.
local patrons (oligarchs) would mobilize client networks as private armies to collect debts and exert local control. this wasn’t limited to street violence, patron networks also dominated local legal systems.
Your characterization of patronage as consisting of oligarch-dominated street violence only holds any credibility in the city of Rome itself in the very last years of the Republic, but I guess your desperation to discredit any functioning of non-hierarchical non-institutionalized enforcement leads to that level of disingenuity, doesn’t it, bootlicker?
patria potestas meant that households were formally domestic tyranny. heads of household had legal power of life and death over wives, children, and slaves.
Patria potestas was not a legal function even by the mid-Republic, if it ever actually was, but thanks for demonstrating your ignorance of basic Roman law, including Roman marriage. What did you do, badly skim the wiki page on Roman law and decide you were an expert?
none of this is anti-hierarchical or consensual. ’no formal police’ just meant violence was privatized through patron-client networks and patriarchal households.
Again, reflecting a near-total ignorance of Roman law and society.
roman collegia were not mutual aid, they were hierarchical guilds with aristocratic patrons who had total control over the institution. they enforced trade monopolies and social conformity among members.
This is a particularly idiotic conflation of Roman collegia with later medieval guild systems, though unsurprising coming from a ignorant bootlicker like you.
‘bootlicker’ from the person who thinks policing is ‘positive institution overall’ and romanticizes oligarchic slave states.
it’s also rich calling me ignorant when all you’ve done is display manifest ignorance of anarchism
your posts suck ass, please do less
‘bootlicker’ from the person who thinks policing is ‘positive institution overall’ and romanticizes oligarchic slave states.
I’m sorry that you think that bootlicking for North Korea is in some way anti-authoritarian. I hope you get better - but I know fascists rarely do.
it’s also rich calling me ignorant when all you’ve done is display manifest ignorance of anarchism
Sorry that acknowledging that a lack of policing institutions is pretty core to most anarchist thought. I’m also sorry for pointing out that the fucking totalitarian states you bootlick for aren’t anarchist in the least.
dispersed, hierarchical violence isn’t necessarily better than centralized monopoly on violence, both are bad. you have just been desperate to run some revisionism though. like you keep calling me a fascist, despite you being the one trying to act like it was just a minor footnote that this was still an oligarchic slave state full of incredible violence.
you insist on making straw targets to go after, you make up shit constantly and haven’t been able to stop insulting me, nor have you really responded to anything I said.
also stop apologizing, it’s pathetic
dispersed, hierarchical violence
Thank you for again missing what has explicitly been stated in exchange for some weird pop-culture interpretation of Roman law.
like you keep calling me a fascist,
You bootlick for North Korea. There’s not much else you could be except a fascist. Unless you’d like to explain how Juche totally isn’t fascism for the class?
despite you being the one trying to act like it was just a minor footnote that this was still an oligarchic slave state full of incredible violence.
That was never denied, dipshit, and is entirely apart from the point being made. Sorry that you’re illiterate.
that was never denied, [insult] and is entirely apart from the point
you admit it was an oligarchic slave state full of violence but then go on to claim this doesn’t matter to your argument that it demonstrates ‘non-hierarchical community enforcement.’ a hierarchical slave state can’t demonstrate non-hierarchical anything. the violence and oligarchy are kind of the point.
i’m generally not interested in demonizing US-designated enemies when US imperialism is the primary issue. that don’t mean i endorse every part of those states, nor is it bootlicking. bootlicking would be romanticizing tyranny and defending policing as an institution.
Are you just forgetting about the Lictor? They were a fixture of regal, republic, and imperial Rome. You know, the guys with the fasces?
They were a direct and specific role doing state sanctioned violence for the Praetor. It seems overly selective to exclude this role in Roman society.
Are you just forgetting about the Lictor? They were a fixture of regal, republic, and imperial Rome. You know, the guys with the fasces?
Who had no independent power to arrest or detain individuals beyond the power held by other citizens.
‘Other citizens’ such as: the Praetor; hence the rest of the comment. They served a critical role for the local rulers and magistrates.
’Other citizens’ such as: the Praetor;
No, I mean that the lictors had no power beyond that of other citizens. The lictors had no ability beyond what we would regard as a “citizen’s arrest”. They had no power of their own. If a Praetor told a random citizen on the street to arrest another, the process would be entirely and exactly the same, as well as the punishment for not doing so - nil. A detainment by a lictor was not any more legally binding than a detainment by anyone else. Lictors had no authority, and even the authority of their magistrate was extremely limited in that their detainments, likewise, were not regarded as more lawful than any other citizen bringing in another to court.
hence the rest of the comment. They served a critical role for the local rulers and magistrates.
Not really? Lictors were overwhelmingly ceremonial at any time beyond the earliest years of the Republic.
They were the embodiment and a measurement of the imperium which gave authority over government and military command. Not every citizen held that authority or command, nor does it mean lictors acted independently in their role.
Getting back to it, this meme appears to require a very specific and literal use of ‘cop’ to work.
They were the embodiment and a measurement of the imperium which gave authority over government and military command.
Imperium was by the nature of Roman law extremely limited and specific. What you’re saying has no relevance to the authority of a magistrate to make detentions of citizens on the grounds of criminal or civil wrongdoing.
Getting back to it, this meme appears to require a very specific and literal use of ‘cop’ to work.
“Getting back to it”
Your entire point is that lictors are, in your view, cops, so there’s no ‘back to it’ involved.
If you feel so strongly about the word usage, please define ‘cop’ for me in such a way that would not imply that anarchist polities also have ‘cops’.
My initial point being that they did state sanctioned violence, which was their role, ceremonial and otherwise.
They were a direct and specific role doing state sanctioned violence for the Praetor.
So: the association with being a direct embodiment of state authority and power of violence.
This is a place for undogmatic shitposting and memes from a progressive, anti-capitalist and truly anti-imperialist perspective, regardless of specific ideology.
Romans maintained slavery, they still minted coins for debts. The cops were the slavers themselves. Your comprehension of
capereis cognitive dissonance.Romans maintained slavery, they still minted coins for debts.
… there’s a reason anarchists are shown washing their hands afterwards.
The cops were the slavers themselves.
Are we redefining ‘cops’ as ‘anyone involved in enforcing societal standards’?
Your comprehension of capere is cognitive dissonance.
… fucking what. Do you not understand what capere is, or are you trying to relate property law to the broader point of a lack of institutional enforcement?
No, the original definition of captors . Did Romans capture and kept slaves, or did they not?
property law to the broader point of a lack of institutional enforcement
Property law to own slaves ? And enforce your demands on them?
No, the original definition of captors.
… an 18th century AD etymology has little to do with Roman law, unless your understanding of history, already impressively bad, is even worse than previously suggested. Capere is a legal term in Roman law, so if you aren’t actually using that in its intended meaning, I’d advise you to fuck off and stop embarrassing yourself by trying to pretend to know anything about the subject being discussed.
Did Romans capture and kept slaves, or did they not?
Yes? That was never in dispute. Unless you think cops are a necessary institution for slavery?
Property law to own slaves ? And enforce your demands on them?
… you do realize what ‘police’ refers to, right.
Pug, why are slavers necessary? Why must anyone be policed by masters?
They aren’t necessary. That’s not the point of any of this.
The only point being made, as explicitly pointed out in the explanation you failed to read, is that policing institutions are not inherent or necessary to community enforcement of norms and laws, contrary to the copaganda pushed in the modern day. This is, and I quote my fucking self in this very comment section, "An unusual point of unity between an ancient polity noted for its sense of hierarchy, and hierarchy-averse modern anarchist ideology!
And I explicitly pointed out you crossposted to the wrong community, failing to read the sidebar, burrying yourself deeper for master-led policing that Romans enforced in their republics. You may not need a «VIGILES» to reinforce slavery, but you’re in the wrong community to seize our intellects.
Begone with this slavepaganda!
And I explicitly pointed out you crossposted to the wrong community, failing to read the sidebar,
Because I… pointed out that a core piece of anarchist ideology is possible, despite the naysaying of many modern statists?
I’m sorry that I didn’t realize supporting the validity of anarchist conceptions of society was against the sidebar of this community. It must be in the special section that only illiterates can see.
burrying yourself deeper for master-led policing that Romans enforced in their republics.
Again, an utterly fucking stupid reading of both the explanation and of Roman law.
You may not need a «VIGILES» to reinforce slavery, but you’re in the wrong community to seize our intellects.
Begone with this slavepaganda!
what
the roman structure of violence was a police state even if it didn’t go by that name. “no cops” includes cops who didn’t call themselves cops.
further, the roman patrician created a patriarchal racial hierarchy in which they violently oppressed anyone they deemed too different from themselves. the primary necessity of the roman legion was to create a standing army to enforce the senate’s strangle hold of rome’s control of “their” region. they even created illusory merit based positions amongst their ranks but still treated proletariat and plebian who demonstrated merit as an under clase to the patricians called the “novo homo”
the thing you gotta understand about Ur-Fascismo is that it has been present in every civilization since grain was first domesticated. the only thing that changed in the 1840s is that we named opposition to it “anarchism” and in the 1920s it named itself fascism. i even think we ought to stop calling fascism fascism since that’s what it wants us to call it and start calling it by a name that is inherently embarassing like “groompftisch grunglitime” but that’s net necessarily an expedient way to go about life since you’d have to explain to groompftish grunglites why you’re calling them that
I’ll leave the Roman history alone since idk the first thing about it. But I want to push back on the broad definition of fascism. Fascism isn’t just whenever there’s violent power. It’s a specific ideology that emerged after WWI in Europe. It’s a hypernationalist rejection of the status quo. It distills the will of the people into one visionary leader and removes traditional limits on his power to bring the nation forward. Imposing modern terminology on ancient societies is just trying to create some grand narrative of history that happens to be climaxing.
Regardless, we should be able to criticize societal structures from the past using present day analysis. If that is not possible, then that shows a fundamental weakness of our analysis.
Agreed. But modern ideologies didn’t exist back then so they shouldn’t be used to describe historical ways of thinking.
the roman structure of violence was a police state even if it didn’t go by that name. “no cops” includes cops who didn’t call themselves cops.
Which cops were those? What functions were carried out by this segment of the population which were cops, but according to you, had no name?
This is apart from the issue that ‘police’ and ‘police state’ are not synonymous.
further, the roman patrician created a patriarchal racial hierarchy in which they violently oppressed anyone they deemed too different from themselves.
What.
That’s not even close.
the primary necessity of the roman legion was to create a standing army to enforce the senate’s strangle hold of rome’s control of “their” region.
… the Legions weren’t even a standing army until Augustus’s time. They were ad-hoc militia until the Late Republic, and then temporarily-raised units from then until the Empire. Nor was garrison duty a major function of the mid-Republican Legions.
they even created illusory merit based positions amongst their ranks but still treated proletariat and plebian who demonstrated merit as an under clase to the patricians called the “novo homo”
That’s not at all what ‘novo homo’ means. The plebeian/patrician divide was functionally dead by the early 3rd century BCE, and even before that, primarily related to candidacy for specific offices. Fuck, for that matter, even patrician families could include novi homines.
the thing you gotta understand about Ur-Fascismo is that it has been present in every civilization since grain was first domesticated. the only thing that changed in the 1840s is that we named opposition to it “anarchism” and in the 1920s it named itself fascism. i even think we ought to stop calling fascism fascism since that’s what it wants us to call it and start calling it by a name that is inherently embarassing like “groompftisch grunglitime” but that’s net necessarily an expedient way to go about life since you’d have to explain to groompftish grunglites why you’re calling them that
“Everything that isn’t anarchism is fascism” is not a particularly useful way to use the term ‘fascism’, for… numerous reasons.
