Is Feudalism a form of Anarchism?

[Saarang Sahasrabudhe]

My name is Saarang. I'm 24. I'm from Mumbai, India. I'm new here. I watch FDR videos from time to time. I also bought Mr. Molyneux book Practical Anarchy and I skimmed through it. I'm re-reading it now with a slower pace, but I have a historical doubt which is not covered in the book. It's about the feudal system in Medieval Europe. Is this an historical example of Anarchism?

Some context first. In addition to being a fan of FDR, I'm a fan of two other people relevant in my question. First is Ayn Rand. Second is Shad M Brooks.

 

The first person may answer your question as to why I am inquiring (though not yet accepting) topics like Anarchism. The second person has an online YouTube channel called Shadiversity on all things Medieval like Castles, Swords, Architecture, Best Medieval Weapons to fight Medieval Mythical Creatures....you get the point. He has a video on Castles and the relevance of their design to the political system prevalent in Europe i.e. feudalism. I am providing a link for that video below. It's 15 min long, but you can watch about half of it. Watch it first:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6nq6nFaCWM

 

From what I understand from this video, feudalism was a political system in which political power was not executed by a king or monarch. Instead, political power was placed in the hands of local lords or nobles who ruled a certain portion of a kingdom locally. In theory, the king or monarch then supervised these nobles and is said to have conferred his political power to these feudal lords. In practice though, these lords had a lot of autonomy (like training their own armies and making their own rules), and even had many conflicts with each other in which the king could do nothing. And most people in Europe lived their daily lives under the protection of such feudal lords, also with some degree of autonomy or indirect freedom.

 

Now, why am I saying that this system is the same as Anarchism? For that I must first, as is Objectivist tradition, begin by defining my basic concepts. Specifically, the concepts of "Ethics", "Politics" & "Economics". Ethics or Morality is the study of determining what Values and/or Goals one should pursue in life. Economics is the study of incentives i.e. given one knows what Goals or Values to aim, how to best provide incentive to other people (as well as yourself) in achieving those goals? Politics, according to me, is the concept bridging Ethics & Economics. On one hand, one can think of it as the economics of the use of physical force to achieve certain moral values. On the other hand, one can also think of it as the study of how to arrive in agreement socially on a certain moral value or goal, before one figures out how to achieve that goal.

 

Now, systems like Capitalism, Socialism, Communism, etc. are informally referred to as Political Systems. But technically they are economic (or politico-economic) systems, not political systems i.e. they are incentive systems for people to follow in order to achieve certain political values. The political system may be referred as Libertarianism, Social Democracy, Totalitarianism, etc. Now on such a framework, Anarchism is an economic or an incentive system. Politically, it is a how not a what. And as an incentive system, it advocates a decentralized (and somewhat voluntary) group of organizations which perform the function of a government locally with little use of force. This is structurally really, really similar to feudalism.

 

Now I can think of two objections which you might make:

1. A feudal lord is not quite the same as a Dispute Resolution Agency (DRO): This is true. As I understand, the structure of a DRO is similar to an insurance company and nothing like that of a feudal lord, who often ruled by inheritance and almost certainly with force. (A closer medieval analogy would be the Church ex-communicating people convicted of crimes.) But in one sense, the function or intent of a feudal lord (for the most part) can certainly be described as "resolving local disputes". And even though there were many battles and wars in the Medieval period, they didn't fight all the time! There were long peaceful times which were ruled by these feudal lords (though not as peaceful compared to modern standards). So perhaps I am stretching the concept of Anarchism here. It may not be Mr. Molyneux's version of Anarchism, but perhaps a version of Anarchism.

 

2. The feudal system wasn't created to protect freedom or individual rights: Again, this is also true. But remember how we defined our concepts here. Anarchism, as I understand the concept, is an incentive system. Mr. Molyneux version of his Moral-Political-Economic system may best be described as Libertarian Anarchism i.e. his moral-political views of Liberty dictate the necessity of Anarchy as an incentive system. In early Medieval Europe, most feudal systems were necessitated by a lack of available resources i.e. most people in a kingdom simply didn't have the resources to have large governments or monarchies like those of Rome before. And they knew they needed some form of organization performing the function of a government. So, a (somewhat secular) decentralized system of mini-kings or lords was what they came up with. And at least in their early years, most people living under feudalism had some sort of autonomy in their private lives. So it may called at best as a non-moral application of Anarchism.

 

In later decades and centuries, the political ideas of monarchy (and Christianity) abolished the early feudal system to a structure more akin to absolute monarchies. But, according to me, early Medieval feudal system was an instance of Anarchism. If my identification is correct, then one can say some good (and possibly some bad) things about Anarchism. What do you think?

[barn]

Hi @Saarang Sahasrabudhe

° Is it true that Anarchy stands for RULES while NO RULERS?

° Is there any flavour of Anarchy where coercion doesn't defeat the basic principle upon which Anarchy is founded on (not to be confused with free to choose options due to strong incentives)?

° Say there had been no large armies in possession of Lords, Vassals, Overlords...how else would they have been able to enforce their will on the 'have nots'?

° Using today's standards, who were the biggest criminals back then and why were they able to take advantage of others?

° Can we say looking back at feudalism that one of its stronger property was aiding individual economic independence, lifting people out of poverty, encouraging more freedoms?

p. s. (From India? Fantastic! Welcome!)

[ofd]

Historically, situations of anarchy lead to feudal systems. These may be permanent or be overthrown for other political systems.

[Saarang Sahasrabudhe]

I'll begin by updating what I said in my previous post. Then I will respond to @barn 's questions:

On What is Anarchism?

I confess that I didn't see the Wikipedia page on Anarchism when I posted my last post. Here is the link for that:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism

And here is the link for feudalism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism

In light of these pages, I may be wrong in calling feudalism a form of Anarchism. I need some advice here. What I did get right about feudalism was that: a.It is an decentralized system of governance (as opposed to a kingdom), and b.There is a (somewhat limited) element of voluntary cooperation involved in this system. This is exemplified by the feudal systems of Lords, Vassals & Fiefs. For now I can call it best as "Localism", but perhaps not Anarchism. Please comment on this...

Even if I may be wrong on the Anarchism part, I still think I may have made a good point by calling Anarchism as an incentive or economic system. It explains why mutually contradictory and exclusive political philosophies seem to advocate Anarchy in the Wikipedia page e.g. "Anarcho-Communism" & "Individualist Anarchism". Politically, it is a how, not a what. For instance, socialism is defined as a politico-economic (or incentive) system where the means of production are owned collectively or by an elected state. Note that this definition does not tell you which philosophies or political ideals advocate Socialism. Please comment on this too....

On other opinions which might agree with my original post:

I may be wrong about this, but I am not the only one who thinks that Feudalism has some Anarchist or at least freedom-loving elements to it. I saw a movie called Robin Hood (2010), where Robin Hood apparently negotiates a deal with the King of England for a charter of rights and relative self-governance, if his men help the king fight against France (this may also have something to do with the Magna Carta). Here is a link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Hood_(2010_film)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0955308/

On Early European Feudalism:

Here I have done some research correctly. When I said that feudalism may be a form of Anarchism, I mean specifically about Early Medieval Feudalism. I am defining a niche time period here, so I will explain this. By Early Medieval Feudalism, I mean the feudal systems in Europe which existed pre-Crusade Wars i.e from 5th century to 12th century (particularly 9th to 11th century). Feudalism still existed four more centuries after the Crusades, but its form was becoming more and more like a monarchy after the Crusade Wars i.e. the size of territories grew bigger, the armies grew larger, etc.

Finally, I answer some of @barn 's questions:

On 2/13/2018 at 5:15 PM, barn said:

Hi @Saarang Sahasrabudhe

° Is it true that Anarchy stands for RULES while NO RULERS?

° Is there any flavour of Anarchy where coercion doesn't defeat the basic principle upon which Anarchy is founded on (not to be confused with free to choose options due to strong incentives)?

° Say there had been no large armies in possession of Lords, Vassals, Overlords...how else would they have been able to enforce their will on the 'have nots'?

° Using today's standards, who were the biggest criminals back then and why were they able to take advantage of others?

° Can we say looking back at feudalism that one of its stronger property was aiding individual economic independence, lifting people out of poverty, encouraging more freedoms?

p. s. (From India? Fantastic! Welcome!)

I think I answered you by giving you a link. On the last (and second) question I have given you a hint on my answer in defining Early Medieval Feudalism, but I will elaborate. Assuming that that period really was dominated by anarchist period, at least three major factors contributed to it's demise:

1. Lack of an Aristotelean philosophy to provide a basis for political freedom (John Locke provided this function for America's Enlightenment thinkers)

2. Lack of clear political goals: Although there were some times of peace in these period, most people in Europe still would have been more morally comfortable with Kingdom style state (like those of Rome before or Absolute Monarchies afterwards). And Christianity certainly didn't help matters.

3.The disruption caused by War: When many feudal lords joined forces and pooled resources for the Crusade Wars, it must have caused large changes in the organizational structure of governance. These changes, according to me, were never undone in later years and led to feudalism's abolition by monarchies.

As to your other questions, I simply don't know. I have not thought enough about it yet... I'm new here!

[RichardY]

Feudal Contract. So a Count/Earl may have a particular county associated with a title. Basically he can claim/extort a local rent or levy from the people living there, if they will not or can't pay, the peasents can get evicted from the land. There is also a lack of incentive to invest in the land when you & your family can be removed arbritarily. De facto ownership is maintained by the feudal lord, which ultimately centralises the exercise of power in an area. 

No Feudalism is not a form of Anarchism. Communism(The elimination of property) I would say is one half of anarchism, as well as Anarcho-Capitalism(Private Property) the other half. Anarchism being property/ethics & morality. To be honest I'm not entirely sure of the different implications of Morality, Ethics & Property, I think a lot of it may even depend on how a persons psychology is genetically influenced.

[barn]

Hi there,

3 hours ago, Saarang Sahasrabudhe said:

the Wikipedia page

I recommend NOT USING 'Wackopedia' as 'stock'.

There could be an argument made, when necessary it could be discussed. (for now, let's say it's NOT my arbitrary choice of 'go to', standard)

Have you tried infogalactic.com (or any other 'impartial-ish' collection of data-set) ?

                                                  -    +     -   

I would be curious to know how (if you'd thought about it) feudalism could be a benefit to our current society, adapted, overhauled to the societies the people are living in currently on this fragile speck of dust, among the stars.

                                                  -    +     -   

I am ambivalent having deeper 'going intos' until the questions I had proposed to you remain unanswered.

It's not an argument but a personal preference, no hard feelings if you disregard them.

                                                  -    +     -   

If it makes you any more cosy here, being new can be a descriptor for myself too in many ways.

Fear not what you'll find, if you're dedicated to the truth.

 

Barnsley

[EGreg]

There were many small systems of government. Tribes, for instance. Feudalism is an example that's actually far more structured. The Japanese feudal system with the shogun was likewise structured. Tribal chiefs often interacted with kings.

Democracy is a relatively recent form of governance when applied to an entire nation-state (and not just a city). The Romans had a form of democracy called a Republic. The USA modeled its ideas on various democratic (demo kratos is greek for "the people's power") governments including the Romans. And then other nations followed in the last few centuries. It seems to be a pretty good idea, leading to a lot more liberal and technologically advanced societies than previously existed.

[Saarang Sahasrabudhe]

To comments made by @RichardY :

On 2/15/2018 at 12:59 AM, RichardY said:

No Feudalism is not a form of Anarchism. Communism(The elimination of property) I would say is one half of anarchism, as well as Anarcho-Capitalism(Private Property) the other half. Anarchism being property/ethics & morality.

I will tell you where exactly I was coming from when I claimed that feudalism may be a form of anarchism. But first, let me clarify my definitions. I view Anarchism as a politico-economic system or an incentive system as I call it. It is a means by which certain political goals are to be achieved. The specific moralities or political goals for which one might adopt Anarchism are not subsumed in the concept. This is why words like "Anarcho-Communism" & "Anarcho-Capitalism" while being (seemingly) mutually contradictory, have clearly defined meanings. So politically, it is a how and not a what.

Coming back to why I thought (and still somewhat think) that Feudalism is a form of Anarchism, if not at least decentralized self-governing societies. I am linking a video below about Castles. Specifically, how its early design was influenced by the prevailing form of government: feudalism. It's a fifteen minute video, and I'm afraid you would have to watch the whole thing to understand:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Li33U-0vdw8

(I want to emphasize that by Feudalism here I am referring to early Feudalism i.e. pre-Crusade War feudalism. More on that in some of my previous post above..)

Now why did I doubt my own question in later posts? Here's why: If Anarchism primariliy and essentially means a stateless, decentrailzed, somewhat self-governing incentive system adopted by some society, then early Feudalism would classify as an example of Anarchism (based on the video I linked). Hell, some of these societies even longed for rights and freedom. For example:

https://tonynatalie.weebly.com/magna-carta.html

The Wikipedia page adds additional elements (possibly with justification) to my conception of Anarchism. It adds things like non-hierarchy, (morality driven) free association, and a politically driven goal to oppose the formation of any state on principle. These things don't apply to feudalism. Which is why I posted my question here...

To @barn:

To the extent I thought about it, I don't think Feudalism should be adopted by any modern society. I was actually trying to claim a negative failed example of Anarchism. The only thing i did like about feudalism politically is the military-tactical use of castles. See this video for what I mean (its also 15-min long. Sorry!):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6nq6nFaCWM

The method of the feudal Europeans to create infrastructure to support their form of government, all on their own with little resources, is ingenious for the time period. I think (on a hunch) that if there is an explicit Anarchist society (like Mr.Molyneux's "Dispute Resolution Organizations"), its military structure (if it has a military or police force), would have similarities to the tactics used by the feudal lords. Mind you, I am referring to tactics here not political goals!

Edited February 22, 2018 by Saarang Sahasrabudhe
Grammatical sentencing error at "So properties. Politically"

[Saarang Sahasrabudhe]

 

[Saarang Sahasrabudhe]

Message got repeated three times. Sorry!

Edited February 24, 2018 by Saarang Sahasrabudhe
Message got repeated three times by accident!

[Saarang Sahasrabudhe]

Above message got repeated in this post. Sorry!

Edited February 24, 2018 by Saarang Sahasrabudhe
Message got repeated three times by accident!

[Saarang Sahasrabudhe]

So sorry about sending the post thrice. There were some technical issues. It was hidden for some time and I cound'nt turn it off. Sorry!

[barn]

To @Saarang Sahasrabudhe

Noted.

Thanks.

 

[RichardY]

@Saarang Sahasrabudhe

Anarchism means the absence of rulers and by consequence a state, although it would depend on what you mean by state, would a person be refering to an imposed political organisation by force or an established ethno-cultural tradition, a state of affairs. 

Feudalism has rulers, the feudal lord, but is not necessarily a state, as lands can be inherited in other areas, The King of England aquiring Aquitaine in France through marriage.

Anarcho-Capitalism, so no rulers of capital. Or Anarcho-Communism, no rulers, lets have communism now..... If you had a purely Anarcho-Capitalist society all the land could be purchased by a relatively small group of families through wealth generated by their existing capital, making a large number of the population tenants overtime, resulting in rent seeking. To resolve a situation like that something like the homesteading principle could be used to avoid absentee landlords. I think even in an Anarchic society magistrates would be required to settle disputes, the difference would be they'd only derive as much moral authority as the local population was willing to give them.