Anarchy and aristocracy
-
- Posts: 2138
- Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm
Anarchy and aristocracy
So the notion that anarchists must overthrow the aristocracy is mistaken. Anarchists are natural allies with aristocrats; neither submits readily to the authority of others. The working class (proletariat) wears many political hats, but as a class it believes in "law and order" (as the American press terms it). Communism, Socialism, Capitalism, Democracy, or Autocracy may appeal to the working class, but not anarchy. Anarchy is reserved for the aristocrats (in nature if not in title).
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7991
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: Anarchy and aristocracy
I guess I see the king as the head aristocrat. Both the king and his court are very far removed from the rabble. True the king's competition comes from the aristocracy, but make no mistake seekers of the crown don't want this particular king, but they very much support the position of king, they just want themselves to be the king. So they are by definition monarchists.Ecurb wrote: ↑May 29th, 2021, 8:46 pm Aristocrats are anarchists by nature. They despise the king, and often assasinate him, or rebel against him, or force him to give away his powers at Runnymede. The aristocrat's castle defies the king. The arsitocrat also despises priests: the religious notion that all men are equals before God is anethema to him. The aristocratic personality is such that it desires to get its own way; the knight (a minor aristocrat) is prepared to fight for it.
So the notion that anarchists must overthrow the aristocracy is mistaken. Anarchists are natural allies with aristocrats; neither submits readily to the authority of others. The working class (proletariat) wears many political hats, but as a class it believes in "law and order" (as the American press terms it). Communism, Socialism, Capitalism, Democracy, or Autocracy may appeal to the working class, but not anarchy. Anarchy is reserved for the aristocrats (in nature if not in title).
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7148
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: Anarchy and aristocracy
You cannot caricature an entire socio-political system buy the results of a single breach of protocol.Ecurb wrote: ↑May 29th, 2021, 8:46 pm Aristocrats are anarchists by nature. They despise the king, and often assasinate him, or rebel against him, or force him to give away his powers at Runnymede. The aristocrat's castle defies the king. The arsitocrat also despises priests: the religious notion that all men are equals before God is anethema to him. The aristocratic personality is such that it desires to get its own way; the knight (a minor aristocrat) is prepared to fight for it.
So the notion that anarchists must overthrow the aristocracy is mistaken. Anarchists are natural allies with aristocrats; neither submits readily to the authority of others. The working class (proletariat) wears many political hats, but as a class it believes in "law and order" (as the American press terms it). Communism, Socialism, Capitalism, Democracy, or Autocracy may appeal to the working class, but not anarchy. Anarchy is reserved for the aristocrats (in nature if not in title).
In the medieval system, all aristocrats depndended on the relationships between the king has his barons. The Crisis of King John was unusual. John was responsible for gathering resources for his foolish brother's idiotic galavanting about in the Middle East. John had to raise taxes for the war effort whilst also charged with collecting a ranson for RIchard when he was kidnapped- In relative terms the amount still hold the record for the highest ever ransom demand in history; for which the phrase "King's Ransom" gained its coinage. This massive pressure led to John exceeding his customary authority causing the Magna Carta crisis.
All systems have tensions and balances. Calling aristocrats anarchist "by Nature" is an abuse of language.
-
- Posts: 2138
- Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm
Re: Anarchy and aristocracy
Here in Oregon antifa and the anarchists have been rioting almost every night for more than a year. Are these anarchists working class people? Not most of them. Most of them are young, priviledged Americans.
Of course it is true that all generalizations tend to be overstated, but why beat around the bush by over-qualifying? Obviously, the aristocrats (whether modern or ancient) tend to be those who benefit most from the status quo. Rich Capitalists benefit from the property laws that are created by the State, and enfoced by the minions of the State. Nonetheless, the tend to SEE THEMSELVES as freedom-loving, government-resistant libertarians, even anarchists. My original post was meant to point out the irony of this position. Who will rule? The nobles or the king? Who will rule? The elected officials or the Capitalists. The desire of both the aristocrats and the capitalists for control puts them in opposition to the Government, and their opposition borders (at least) on having anarchic tendencies.
-
- Posts: 2138
- Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm
Re: Anarchy and aristocracy
We all appreciate the history lecture, Sculptor, but it seems a bit far-fetched. Richard was ransomed in 1194, he died in 1199, John became king and the Magna Carta was signed in 1215. Richard hadn't been adventuring in the Middle East for 20+ years when it was signed, which, given the average lifespan of the era, was about 3 generations.Sculptor1 wrote: ↑May 30th, 2021, 6:01 pm
You cannot caricature an entire socio-political system buy the results of a single breach of protocol.
In the medieval system, all aristocrats depndended on the relationships between the king has his barons. The Crisis of King John was unusual. John was responsible for gathering resources for his foolish brother's idiotic galavanting about in the Middle East. John had to raise taxes for the war effort whilst also charged with collecting a ranson for RIchard when he was kidnapped- In relative terms the amount still hold the record for the highest ever ransom demand in history; for which the phrase "King's Ransom" gained its coinage. This massive pressure led to John exceeding his customary authority causing the Magna Carta crisis.
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7148
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: Anarchy and aristocracy
Your objection is not relevant.Ecurb wrote: ↑May 31st, 2021, 9:42 pmWe all appreciate the history lecture, Sculptor, but it seems a bit far-fetched. Richard was ransomed in 1194, he died in 1199, John became king and the Magna Carta was signed in 1215. Richard hadn't been adventuring in the Middle East for 20+ years when it was signed, which, given the average lifespan of the era, was about 3 generations.Sculptor1 wrote: ↑May 30th, 2021, 6:01 pm
You cannot caricature an entire socio-political system buy the results of a single breach of protocol.
In the medieval system, all aristocrats depndended on the relationships between the king has his barons. The Crisis of King John was unusual. John was responsible for gathering resources for his foolish brother's idiotic galavanting about in the Middle East. John had to raise taxes for the war effort whilst also charged with collecting a ranson for RIchard when he was kidnapped- In relative terms the amount still hold the record for the highest ever ransom demand in history; for which the phrase "King's Ransom" gained its coinage. This massive pressure led to John exceeding his customary authority causing the Magna Carta crisis.
John's England ran a deficit for well beyong his own reign to pay off debts incurred to to Richard's failed project.
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8385
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Anarchy and aristocracy
"Antifa" has become just a noise, a sound, in the US these days. It stands for "anti-Fascist". So who are the Fascists that they riot against? For if there are none, then there can be no anti-Fascists either, by definition. Maybe they are good people, who riot for good reasons, but you have been prompted to call them "antifa" by your news media? I don't know. But I don't think Fascists, or their opponents, have a great deal to do with this topic, do they?
"Who cares, wins"
-
- Posts: 2138
- Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm
Re: Anarchy and aristocracy
Since you ask, the "fascists" that the Portland rioters (who self-dentify as "antifa") are protesting against include, among others, the police, the Proud Boys and Patriot Prayer. The latter two groups are accused of being White Supremicists, and there have been several bloody street fights between them and those self-identifying as "antifa" and/or "anarchists".Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑June 1st, 2021, 9:32 am
"Antifa" has become just a noise, a sound, in the US these days. It stands for "anti-Fascist". So who are the Fascists that they riot against? For if there are none, then there can be no anti-Fascists either, by definition. Maybe they are good people, who riot for good reasons, but you have been prompted to call them "antifa" by your news media? I don't know. But I don't think Fascists, or their opponents, have a great deal to do with this topic, do they?
The only reason I mentioned them is because most of the protesters are have what might be described as "aristocratic" backgrounds (using my notion that in a Capitalist society rich people are the new "aristocrats"). This supports my notion that anarchy is often associated with the aristocracy, while the working class is for law and order.
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8385
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Anarchy and aristocracy
I agree with your identification of The Rich as modern-day aristocrats. But I have difficulty recognising White Supremacists, or those who protest against them, as "aristocrats" or as "anarchists". That some anti-Fascist protesters come from better-off households doesn't seem to say much: these modern-day aristocrats are rather richer than simply "better-off", I feel.Ecurb wrote: ↑June 1st, 2021, 10:45 amSince you ask, the "fascists" that the Portland rioters (who self-dentify as "antifa") are protesting against include, among others, the police, the Proud Boys and Patriot Prayer. The latter two groups are accused of being White Supremicists, and there have been several bloody street fights between them and those self-identifying as "antifa" and/or "anarchists".Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑June 1st, 2021, 9:32 am
"Antifa" has become just a noise, a sound, in the US these days. It stands for "anti-Fascist". So who are the Fascists that they riot against? For if there are none, then there can be no anti-Fascists either, by definition. Maybe they are good people, who riot for good reasons, but you have been prompted to call them "antifa" by your news media? I don't know. But I don't think Fascists, or their opponents, have a great deal to do with this topic, do they?
The only reason I mentioned them is because most of the protesters are have what might be described as "aristocratic" backgrounds (using my notion that in a Capitalist society rich people are the new "aristocrats"). This supports my notion that anarchy is often associated with the aristocracy, while the working class is for law and order.
"Who cares, wins"
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8385
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Anarchy and aristocracy
Sorry, that didn't turn out to be as clear as I had intended. I mean to say that those protesters who are from moderately well-off households aren't aristocrats. The real modern-day aristocrats are a lot richer than just "moderately well-off".Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑June 1st, 2021, 11:39 am That some anti-Fascist protesters come from better-off households doesn't seem to say much: these modern-day aristocrats are rather richer than simply "better-off", I feel.
"Who cares, wins"
-
- Posts: 2138
- Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm
Re: Anarchy and aristocracy
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7991
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: Anarchy and aristocracy
Both sides of that fight are somewhat diverse. For example the "fascist" side does include neo-nazis, white supremacists and police supporters with some overlap. Similarly the "anti-fascist" side includes those opposed specifically to neo-nazis, but also those against white supremacy, those seeking police reform, and anarchists. That's why some protests don't result in vandalism and others do.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑June 1st, 2021, 9:32 am"Antifa" has become just a noise, a sound, in the US these days. It stands for "anti-Fascist". So who are the Fascists that they riot against? For if there are none, then there can be no anti-Fascists either, by definition. Maybe they are good people, who riot for good reasons, but you have been prompted to call them "antifa" by your news media? I don't know. But I don't think Fascists, or their opponents, have a great deal to do with this topic, do they?
2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
2023 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023