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.
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.
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.
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.
So your position is, then, that no part of Roman society was capable of being non-hierarchical because of the hierarchical nature of the state, and that, thus implied by said argument, no state, being innately hierarchical institutions, can demonstrate any aspect of non-hierarchical function in the societies they rule over?
Stunningly moronic and self-defeating. But I presume you’ll carve out all sorts of exceptions for your favorite genocidal police states that you constantly jerk off your murder-boner for.
i’m generally not interested in demonizing US-designated enemies when US imperialism is the primary issue.
No, but you are interested in praising them and engaging in atrocity denial. Tell us again how anarchism is one of the major contributors to Juche ideology. Or would you like me to quote you? I’m sure I can find it with a quick search.
that don’t mean i endorse every part of those states, nor is it bootlicking.
“It’s not bootlicking when I simp for a totalitarian police state, because US bad!”
Boot leather must taste delicious for you to be so eager and consistent in seeking it out.
bootlicking would be romanticizing tyranny and defending policing as an institution.
I love the part where you romanticize “AES” police states and defend them, and then deny it. But fascists like you have never believed that words have to mean anything.
I had to go and search for what you’ve got stuck in your craw about me.
I was saying that a core principle juche expresses (each revolution must be carried out by its own people, not directed by foreign powers) has genuine resonance with anarchist anti-imperialism, and that this principle has an anarchist lineage even if dprk juche as practiced is relatively inconsistent beyond that. i was citing shin chae-ho’s juche framework; he was literally warning other koreans about accepting help from even well-meaning foreign revolutionary movements.
So your position is … that no part of Roman society was capable of being non-hierarchical because of the hierarchical nature of the state
no, my point was that you’re romanticizing the conditions of ‘non-heirarchical’ tyranny by a bunch of slavers and patriarchs
thus implied by said argument, no state, being innately hierarchical institutions, can demonstrate any aspect of non-hierarchical function in the societies they rule over?
i did not say hierarchical states can’t contain horizontal practices.
i’m saying that horizontal practices among people constituted by their shared dominance over an excluded class aren’t evidence of non-hierarchical organization in any meaningful sense. they’re evidence that ruling classes can coordinate horizontally, which has never been in dispute.
Stunningly moronic and self-defeating. But I presume you’ll carve out all sorts of exceptions for your favorite genocidal police states that you constantly jerk off your murder-boner for.
gross, sexist insult. wish i could say it was surprising, but i am talking to the nazi dog
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 think i’m fine without getting validation from the roman slave-state
Fucking what.
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 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.
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 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?
Again, reflecting a near-total ignorance of Roman law and society.
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
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.
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
Thank you for again missing what has explicitly been stated in exchange for some weird pop-culture interpretation of Roman law.
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?
That was never denied, dipshit, and is entirely apart from the point being made. Sorry that you’re illiterate.
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.
So your position is, then, that no part of Roman society was capable of being non-hierarchical because of the hierarchical nature of the state, and that, thus implied by said argument, no state, being innately hierarchical institutions, can demonstrate any aspect of non-hierarchical function in the societies they rule over?
Stunningly moronic and self-defeating. But I presume you’ll carve out all sorts of exceptions for your favorite genocidal police states that you constantly jerk off your murder-boner for.
No, but you are interested in praising them and engaging in atrocity denial. Tell us again how anarchism is one of the major contributors to Juche ideology. Or would you like me to quote you? I’m sure I can find it with a quick search.
“It’s not bootlicking when I simp for a totalitarian police state, because US bad!”
Boot leather must taste delicious for you to be so eager and consistent in seeking it out.
I love the part where you romanticize “AES” police states and defend them, and then deny it. But fascists like you have never believed that words have to mean anything.
I had to go and search for what you’ve got stuck in your craw about me.
I was saying that a core principle juche expresses (each revolution must be carried out by its own people, not directed by foreign powers) has genuine resonance with anarchist anti-imperialism, and that this principle has an anarchist lineage even if dprk juche as practiced is relatively inconsistent beyond that. i was citing shin chae-ho’s juche framework; he was literally warning other koreans about accepting help from even well-meaning foreign revolutionary movements.
no, my point was that you’re romanticizing the conditions of ‘non-heirarchical’ tyranny by a bunch of slavers and patriarchs
i did not say hierarchical states can’t contain horizontal practices.
i’m saying that horizontal practices among people constituted by their shared dominance over an excluded class aren’t evidence of non-hierarchical organization in any meaningful sense. they’re evidence that ruling classes can coordinate horizontally, which has never been in dispute.
gross, sexist insult. wish i could say it was surprising, but i am talking to the nazi dog