Controversial Historical Opinions You Have

[Susano]

It's pretty clear the hobbits are his ideal society, and they have elements of gift economy. His customs and traditions would see poverty and wealth regulated to some degree. He's more of a throwback to a mythical agrarian past than an ancap.

Click to shrink...

Eh, I definitely agree with that it's highly mythicalized, but the Shire parts of The Fellowship make it quite clear that class differences exist in the Shire, that there more reputable families and less reputable ones, that there are rich people (like Bilbo and Frodo) and that there are even people in relative poverty (but of course, since it's the Shire, they don't actually go hungry). Sure, the social inequalities are somewhat mitigated by Hobbit customs, but they are definitely part and parcel of the entire social makeup. I think that all is sort of ancapish, just not the stereotypical image of ancaps we have where everything is corporate; but it pretty much is rich people being rich without any pesky state interference and being looked up as the reputable people in society, while that all is presented as an ideal setting.

 

[Nyvis]

Eh, I definitely agree with that it's highly mythicalized, but the Shire parts of The Fellowship make it quite clear that class differences exist in the Shire, that there more reputable families and less reputable ones, that there are rich people (like Bilbo and Frodo) and that there are even people in relative poverty (but of course, since it's the Shire, they don't actually go hungry). Sure, the social inequalities are somewhat mitigated by Hobbit customs, but they are definitely part and parcel of the entire social makeup. I think that all is sort of ancapish, just not the stereotypical image of ancaps we have where everything is corporate; but it pretty much is rich people being rich without any pesky state interference and being looked up as the reputable people in society, while that all is presented as an ideal setting.

Click to shrink...

It's more Jeffersonian than the modern ancapism if you really want an Americanism.

Though you'll note most of the wealth difference is personal wealth and status. And the wealthy are supposed to share the wealth through feasts proportional to what they have, which reminds me of big men in quite a few traditional cultures.

In the end it's an attempt at an utopia within the cultural parameters of our own status quo, so it tries its best to be good without challenging the idea of richer and poorer people. The result end up being even more alien to me because the ability to sustain such a kind society with wealth disparity looming is a dubious prospect to a materialist like me.

 

[Terminator57]

It's more Jeffersonian than the modern ancapism if you really want an Americanism.

Though you'll note most of the wealth difference is personal wealth and status. And the wealthy are supposed to share the wealth through feasts proportional to what they have, which reminds me of big men in quite a few traditional cultures.

Click to shrink...

This is for example the case in certain countries of Central Asia where during weddings it is a question of prestige to feed these guests well.

 

[Fourthspartan56]

Eh, I definitely agree with that it's highly mythicalized, but the Shire parts of The Fellowship make it quite clear that class differences exist in the Shire, that there more reputable families and less reputable ones, that there are rich people (like Bilbo and Frodo) and that there are even people in relative poverty (but of course, since it's the Shire, they don't actually go hungry). Sure, the social inequalities are somewhat mitigated by Hobbit customs, but they are definitely part and parcel of the entire social makeup. I think that all is sort of ancapish, just not the stereotypical image of ancaps we have where everything is corporate; but it pretty much is rich people being rich without any pesky state interference and being looked up as the reputable people in society, while that all is presented as an ideal setting.

Click to shrink...

True but it's not like capitalism created the concept of wealth, pre-capitalist agrarian societies also had well-off families and those who were not. I think Nyvis is right on the money by calling it agrarian, if we look at actual an-caps they want a nightmare of modern capitalism but with corporations taking the place of the state. That's not the Shire, and I don't just mean defacto. Even theoretically their visions are radically different.

 

[Terminator57]

True but it's not like capitalism created the concept of wealth, pre-capitalist agrarian societies also had well-off families and those who were not. I think Nyvis is right on the money by calling it agrarian, if we look at actual an-caps they want a nightmare of modern capitalism but with corporations taking the place of the state. That's not the Shire, and I don't just mean defacto. Even theoretically their visions are radically different.

Click to shrink...

It depends on what you call wealth, if it is wealth in the sense of possession of things capitalism don't cerated the conept of wealth but if it is wealth in the sense of the accumulation of Capital-Money I think it is.
In addition, in pre-capitalist societies, there are obstacles preventing a lasting accumulation of wealth.

 

[Fourthspartan56]

It depends on what you call wealth, if it is wealth in the sense of possession of things capitalism don't cerated the conept of wealth but if it is wealth in the sense of the accumulation of Capital-Money I think it is.
In addition, in pre-capitalist societies, there are obstacles preventing a lasting accumulation of wealth.

Click to shrink...

I'm not arguing there is no relationship between capitalism and wealth, my point is that "wealth difference exists" describes pre-capitalist societies too and thus isn't a good reason to consider his ideal society an-cap.

 

[Terminator57]

I would qualify that by saying that the difference in wealth exists in certain pre-capitalist societies. Moreover, these societies were not anarcho-capitalists since the economy was embedded in society and the Market did not play an institutionalized role there (markets and not the Market). To return to the Hobbit, we should be interested in the modalities of exchanges in this society to determine whether or not it has an anarcho-capitalist type.

 

[Sulemain]

I would qualify that by saying that the difference in wealth exists in certain pre-capitalist societies. Moreover, these societies were not anarcho-capitalists since the economy was embedded in society and the Market did not play an institutionalized role there (markets and not the Market). To return to the Hobbit, we should be interested in the modalities of exchanges in this society to determine whether or not it has an anarcho-capitalist type.

Click to shrink...

I mean historically speaking, the prices of commodities did rise and fall according to supply and demand in ancient and medieval societies. We have records of this.

But regarding the Shire, this strikes me as assuming class and exchange and all that was as important to Tolkien's world view as it is to yours. Understanding what Tolkien desired involves understanding Tolkien thought and felt, and the important point is that Tolkien wasn't a materialist.

Having a method or theory of understanding the world is fine, although I would argue that practically speaking understanding the world through a single theory or method is impossible, but on the flip side expecting other people, thinkers, philosophers and creators to be operating in the same world view is hubristic and leads to problems.

 

[Terminator57]

I mean historically speaking, the prices of commodities did rise and fall according to supply and demand in ancient and medieval societies. We have records of this.

But regarding the Shire, this strikes me as assuming class and exchange and all that was as important to Tolkien's world view as it is to yours. Understanding what Tolkien desired involves understanding Tolkien thought and felt, and the important point is that Tolkien wasn't a materialist.

Having a method or theory of understanding the world is fine, although I would argue that practically speaking understanding the world through a single theory or method is impossible, but on the flip side expecting other people, thinkers, philosophers and creators to be operating in the same world view is hubristic and leads to problems.

Click to shrink...

Certainly there were price fluctuations but the prices were framed whether it was by moral principles or by political power. Moreover, commodification did not concern all of society as it is today in ancient times.
We are well aware that Tolkien's work is fantasy but we can despite that think of a socio-economic analysis of the society depicted I think, after all I read a Marxist analysis of Games of Throne some time ago : it's just a brainstorming exercise.

 

[tankdrop24]

It's more Jeffersonian than the modern ancapism if you really want an Americanism.

Though you'll note most of the wealth difference is personal wealth and status. And the wealthy are supposed to share the wealth through feasts proportional to what they have, which reminds me of big men in quite a few traditional cultures.

In the end it's an attempt at an utopia within the cultural parameters of our own status quo, so it tries its best to be good without challenging the idea of richer and poorer people. The result end up being even more alien to me because the ability to sustain such a kind society with wealth disparity looming is a dubious prospect to a materialist like me.

Click to shrink...

Honestly it's the almost the kind of wishful thinking critics like to accuse leftists of.

It's basically just 'the government and politics goes away and no one has to think about that ever again and everything is just fine'. No one has to put any work in of making democracy part of their lives.

 

[bookwyrm]

Yeah I think the Shire and Tolkien's ideal agrarian utopia do have class differences but those differences would be not reallly capitalistic in focus but primarially in the organization of land-use and the needs of the harvest. You would have your Hobbit first families acting not as strictly titled nobility but as squires and gentry, retaining the remants of feudal obligations in the Shire's land management and collecting rents from their properties that were chartered back in the days of Arnor and living in ancestral comfy Hobbit holes like Bag End, but over the centuries huge parts of the Shire would have reverted to legally unclaimed and unorganized territories (see- the expansion of Buckland) free to then be developed by common custom and mutlifaceted shared grazing and waste plots and like a ceremonial golden coin given to Thain Took every generation, with most farming hobbit smallholders occupying a spectrum between freehold yeoman on one hand who individualistically hold sole right to their property and pure renting tenants who work as semi-itinerant laborers and technically don't own any stake of property and are only property-based rights and franchises in their local community. Though in practice a lot of the specifics of property rights and communal and feudal obligations are probably not very well in keeping with the times as the hobbits semi-anarchistically move themselves around and rearrange their inheritances to meet the best uses for workable land plots and the primary divison wouldn't be offical title but whether or not you lived in one of the old school manorial folklands, in one of the relatively newer bouroughs or townships, or as a tradeshobbit in a physically and socially in-between space.

 

[ScottishMongol]

Tolkien probably would have agreed with the School of Tillers, one of the Hundred Schools of Thought from the Chinese Warring States Period.

They basically believed in agrarian communalism but also thought there should be a king, only he was, you know, just some guy.

The ruler of Teng is an upright and worthy ruler. However, he has yet to hear the Way. A wise ruler tills the land together with his people to make his living. He governs while cooking his own meals. Now, that Teng has granaries and treasuries means that [the ruler] inflicts hardship on the people to fatten himself. How can he be a worthy ruler?

Click to shrink...

 

[the atom]

Orwell is a weird leftist.

It's definitely not a materialist position, so it can't be a Marxist one.

Click to shrink...

Unless the definition of materialism has wildly changed it is arguably the only materialist position on the matter.

I have to disagree there? Similiarly toxic ideas where floating around in other capitalist countries pre WW1. Nazism as in the NSDAP is specifically German sure but similar material circumstances that would have subjected other capitalist systems to tremendous stress would have created similar outcomes. Saying capitalism caused the Nazis says a lot about how you percieve capitalism's inherent nature and inability to deal with certain problems.

Click to shrink...

But the Nazis only happened in one country. I'm not sure why it's value as a rhetorical device should have an impact on the statement's validity.

 

[Sulemain]

Orwell is a weird leftist.

It's definitely not a materialist position, so it can't be a Marxist one.

Click to shrink...

Leftist and Marxist aren't synonyms my friend.

 

[veteranMortal]

Leftist and Marxist aren't synonyms my friend.

Click to shrink...

Orwell was, and claimed to be, a leftist in the sense of actually wanting to abolish private property - that is to say, not a liberal who wants more welfare or what have you - and as such, his political position was likely at least in part descended from Marxist thought; I don't believe he was a utopian, and pretty much all other strains of leftist thought owe something to Marxist theory.

 

[Anchises]

But the Nazis only happened in one country. I'm not sure why it's value as a rhetorical device should have an impact on the statement's validity.

Click to shrink...

I'm not sure why the statement is supposed to be invalid in the first place? People that use it, like me, are happy to explain what they mean. I don't see what is concealed with
the statement?

 

[the atom]

I'm not sure why the statement is supposed to be invalid in the first place? People that use it, like me, are happy to explain what they mean. I don't see what is concealed with
the statement?

Click to shrink...

I never said it was either of those things? I just thought your defence of the statement was weak because it seemed to be explicitly predicated in its rhetorical usefulness rather than any inherent historical reasoning.

Edit: wait I see what you mean. I think by 'concealing' they mean that the statement 'capitalism causes Nazism' polishes away the innumerable contingent factors that actually led to Nazism.

 

[Nyvis]

Unless the definition of materialism has wildly changed it is arguably the only materialist position on the matter.

Click to shrink...

Sorry if that was unclear, I meant materialist in the Marxist sense, which is contrasted with utopian. As in, material conditions drive history, not ideas. And the material conditions of different so called totalitarian regimes can be extremely divergent.

Leftist and Marxist aren't synonyms my friend.

Click to shrink...

I know. But most utopian socialists are weird.

 

[Sulemain]

Sorry if that was unclear, I meant materialist in the Marxist sense, which is contrasted with utopian. As in, material conditions drive history, not ideas. And the material conditions of different so called totalitarian regimes can be extremely divergent.



I know. But most utopian socialists are weird.

Click to shrink...

Marxists do not have a monopoly on the correct analysis of history. Hell, they don't have a monopoly on analysis in total. Just because someone isn't a materialist doesn't make them weird or wrong.

Maybe you can look at the ideas of those totalitarian regimes then? History has a lot going on in it, you know. Looking at material conditions does not preclude looking at ideas, philosophy and so forth, or vice versa.

 

[the atom]

Sorry if that was unclear, I meant materialist in the Marxist sense, which is contrasted with utopian. As in, material conditions drive history, not ideas. And the material conditions of different so called totalitarian regimes can be extremely divergent.

Click to shrink...

I understand the meaning but the argument that the material conditions of totalitarian regimes are highly divergent isn't an obvious one.

The distinction between the Soviets and their foes is nearly always drawn on surface level ideological grounds.

Marxists do not have a monopoly on the correct analysis of history. Hell, they don't have a monopoly on analysis in total. Just because someone isn't a materialist doesn't make them weird or wrong.

Click to shrink...

Materialism is a very valid way of looking at history but Marxists haven't had a monopoly on that for a very long time either.

I find modern self identified Marxists actually tend to be more likely than not to actively reject materialist analysis, oddly enough.

 

[veteranMortal]

I understand the meaning but the argument that the material conditions of totalitarian regimes are highly divergent isn't an obvious one.

The distinction between the Soviets and their foes is nearly always drawn on surface level ideological grounds.

Materialism is a very valid way of looking at history but Marxists haven't had a monopoly on that for a very long time either.

I find modern self identified Marxists actually tend to be more likely than not to actively reject materialist analysis, oddly enough.

Click to shrink...

The nazis went out of their way to deliberately exterminate 12 million people along ethnic lines. This feels, to me, to be fucking obviously more than a "surface level ideological ground" for being different from the soviets who, for all their multitude of evils, didn't do the fucking holocaust.

 

[Fourthspartan56]

The nazis went out of their way to deliberately exterminate 12 million people along ethnic lines. This feels, to me, to be fucking obviously more than a "surface level ideological ground" for being different from the soviets who, for all their multitude of evils, didn't do the fucking holocaust.

Click to shrink...

Yeah, this is what offends me about centrist false equivalencies about the Soviets and Nazis. They desperately ignore that one side had Generalplan Ost and the other... didn't.

Which is a problem, hate Stalin all you want but when you're whitewashing Nazis by implication that's rather unacceptable.

 

[Sulemain]

The nazis went out of their way to deliberately exterminate 12 million people along ethnic lines. This feels, to me, to be fucking obviously more than a "surface level ideological ground" for being different from the soviets who, for all their multitude of evils, didn't do the fucking holocaust.

Click to shrink...

No the Soviets didn't do the Holocaust.

But state-directed ethnic violence up until and including genocide was part of the Soviet system.

 

[Nyvis]

I understand the meaning but the argument that the material conditions of totalitarian regimes are highly divergent isn't an obvious one.

The distinction between the Soviets and their foes is nearly always drawn on surface level ideological grounds.

Click to shrink...

I dunno, one of the big points in leftist analysis of the soviet union is that they had to deal with basically not having a proletariat left when they emerged out of the civil war. Hardly comparable to the fascists, who subverted countries who had a sizeable proletariat but where the left failed to array it into a fighting force.

 

[Fourthspartan56]

No the Soviets didn't do the Holocaust.

But state-directed ethnic violence up until and including genocide was part of the Soviet system.

Click to shrink...

True enough, which makes the insistence on comparing Stalin to the Nazis all the more foolish.

Anyone looks better when compared to monsters like them. It's very counterproductive to try to criticize someone by comparing them to much worse actors. Rather looking at Stalin and the system he ruled by their own merits is far more effective. Because there's no room for Lesser evilism.