Iceland and the demise of Anarchy

[NathanCJohnson]

Medieval Iceland is held up as an anarchocapitalist model. I do admire the freedom of Iceland's non-territorial jurisdiction. We should be able to choose our leaders as they did (not just the illusion of democratic choice). But I was interested to learn the demise of this freedom came from an extension of land property rights much as Henry George predicted.

http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/append139.html
"The transformation of possession into property and the resulting rise of hired labour was a key element in the accumulation of wealth and power, and the corresponding decline in liberty among the farmers. Moreover, with hired labour springs dependency -- the worker is now dependent on good relations with their landlord in order to have access to the land they need. With such reductions in the independence of part of Icelandic society, the undermining of self-management in the various Things was also likely as labourers could not vote freely as they could be subject to sanctions from their landlord for voting the "wrong" way ("The courts were less likely to base judgements on the evidence than to adjust decisions to satisfy the honour and resources of powerful individuals." [byock, Op. Cit., p. 185]).

The political transition within Icelandic society went hand in hand with an economic transition (both tendencies being mutually reinforcing). Initially, when Iceland was settled, large-scale farming based on extended households with kinsmen was the dominant economic mode. This semi-communal mode of production changed as the land was divided up (mostly through inheritance claims) between the 10th and 11th centuries. This new economic system based upon individual possession and artisan production was then slowly displaced by tenant farming, in which the farmer worked for a landlord, starting in the late 11th century. This economic system (based on tenant farming, i.e. capitalistic production) ensured that "great variants of property and power emerged." [Kirsten Hastrup, Culture and History in Medieval Iceland, pp. 172-173]

So significant changes in society started to occur in the eleventh century, as"slavery all but ceased. Tenant farming . . . took [its] place." Iceland was moving from an economy based on possession to one based on private property and so "the renting of land was a widely established practice by the late eleventh century . . . the status of the godar must have been connected with landownership and rents." This lead to increasing oligarchy and so the mid- to late-twelfth century was "characterised by the appearance of a new elite, the big chieftains who are called storgodar . . . [who] struggled from the 1220s to the 1260s to win what had earlier been unobtainable for Icelandic leaders, the prize of overlordship or centralised executive authority." [byock, Op. Cit., p. 269 and pp. 3-4]

[TheRobin]

why did they sell their farms to landlords in the first place?

[Jetrpg22]

Its reads more like letting people take the land from undernearth you is a bad idea. Or maybe more to the point they were not anarchist but a minimalist form of goverbnment, in fact the article states as much. And then as the government / lord grew more powerful they just said all the land is ours and you may use it ... for a fee.

Its fedulism based piramarly on tribe/ or selection group not region.  Sorry if i find it hard to buy that this fedual system was an example of anarachy.

 

"a central legislature and uniform, country-wide judicial and legal systems," - did we miss this part?

"Through copoperation among their members, hreppar organised and controlled summer grazing lands, organised communal labour, and provided an immediate local forum for settling disputes. " - or this part? I mean come on could i just be like no i don't wanna listen to that dude and i am going to keep working the land i have been? I bet no, thus the land was owned.

 

 

 

why did they sell their farms to landlords in the first place?

They didn't it was already control by a small governing body.