Cards on the table, I actually like Scott's ideas. The general sentiment in the field is that they're interesting, but they haven't borne out as a general theory.
This paper is not a good argument in support of Scott though. The methodology relies far too heavily on the notoriously lacking independence of SCCS cultures and language, then fails to fully consider whether the assumptions underlying the rest of the methodology hold. I'm pretty certain they don't.
I can see why the authors took the steps they did, but they really should have noticed some red flags at multiple points in the process, based on what's in the paper.
"According to Scott, Mafia-style protection rackets compelled people to produce grain."
James Scott—an anarchist—lays the point bare: the state functions much like an aged, institutionalized mafia. A stationary bandit, not fundamentally different from the predatory groups it claims to suppress.
> the state functions much like an aged, institutionalized mafia
Which happens to prevent immature, dumb and cruel mafias from taking over, the latter are the wet dream of Anarchists, that's why they hate governments.
> not fundamentally different from the predatory groups it claims to suppress
"Fundamentality" is in the eye of the beholder. The objective qualitative and quantitative differences are enormous however, the rest is mud in the eyes.
>Which happens to prevent immature, dumb and cruel mafias from taking over, the latter are the wet dream of Anarchists, that's why they hate governments.
No, they hate governments because they think they’re a kind of mafia. Which anarchist likes cruel mafias?
Those anarchists who aren't dumb must like cruel mafias, this is a conclusion I reach by implication, not by their admission.
Anarchist's believes exclude or at least severely limit the state as a force that can prevent warlords, gangs and mob rule which inevitably arise in any power vacuum.
Ergo, those anarchists who aren't dumb, understand the above and by virtue of continuing to promote anarchy they prove that they like the inevitable result of their political program.
I get the sense smart anarchists don’t want no organization, but organization with borderline zero coercion, and they’ve got complicated ways they imagine that might be possible. I also think many consider an absence of coercion the aim, but don’t feel it can be reached; rather, we should approach it asymptotically. I’ve heard some say in response to the warlord point that an “anarchist society” (if such a thing could exist) would police the warlord, but through the spontaneous action of its participants, not with a centralized hierarchy+bureaucracy. Can you point to any specific anarchists as counterexamples?
Cards on the table, I actually like Scott's ideas. The general sentiment in the field is that they're interesting, but they haven't borne out as a general theory.
This paper is not a good argument in support of Scott though. The methodology relies far too heavily on the notoriously lacking independence of SCCS cultures and language, then fails to fully consider whether the assumptions underlying the rest of the methodology hold. I'm pretty certain they don't.
I can see why the authors took the steps they did, but they really should have noticed some red flags at multiple points in the process, based on what's in the paper.
"According to Scott, Mafia-style protection rackets compelled people to produce grain."
James Scott—an anarchist—lays the point bare: the state functions much like an aged, institutionalized mafia. A stationary bandit, not fundamentally different from the predatory groups it claims to suppress.
> the state functions much like an aged, institutionalized mafia
Which happens to prevent immature, dumb and cruel mafias from taking over, the latter are the wet dream of Anarchists, that's why they hate governments.
> not fundamentally different from the predatory groups it claims to suppress
"Fundamentality" is in the eye of the beholder. The objective qualitative and quantitative differences are enormous however, the rest is mud in the eyes.
>Which happens to prevent immature, dumb and cruel mafias from taking over, the latter are the wet dream of Anarchists, that's why they hate governments.
No, they hate governments because they think they’re a kind of mafia. Which anarchist likes cruel mafias?
> Which anarchist likes cruel mafias?
Those anarchists who aren't dumb must like cruel mafias, this is a conclusion I reach by implication, not by their admission.
Anarchist's believes exclude or at least severely limit the state as a force that can prevent warlords, gangs and mob rule which inevitably arise in any power vacuum.
Ergo, those anarchists who aren't dumb, understand the above and by virtue of continuing to promote anarchy they prove that they like the inevitable result of their political program.
I get the sense smart anarchists don’t want no organization, but organization with borderline zero coercion, and they’ve got complicated ways they imagine that might be possible. I also think many consider an absence of coercion the aim, but don’t feel it can be reached; rather, we should approach it asymptotically. I’ve heard some say in response to the warlord point that an “anarchist society” (if such a thing could exist) would police the warlord, but through the spontaneous action of its participants, not with a centralized hierarchy+bureaucracy. Can you point to any specific anarchists as counterexamples?
That bureaucracy is essentially Chesterton's Fence.