ordinary people. The Philippine state is undoubtedly a source of oppression, exploitation, and political marginalization, but the flipside of any state–citizen relationship is that the state needs to make concessions to its citizens when forcefully pressured by them to do so. Since this dynamic is left out of Umali’s story, we hear little of the successful popular struggles in the Philippines for expanded state-recognized rights of ordinary people, for example the right to land for the landless (under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of ), the indigenous people’s right to claim their ancestral land (under the Indigenous People’s Rights Act of ), and an expansion of the right to welfare, even if implementation is still deficient. Second, his model based on precolonial times is a bit shaky. Umali acknowledges the constant threat of mutual warfare and raiding that existed between communities, but offers no suggestion how an “archipelagic confederation”would be able to maintain peace and secure protection for its inhabitants. Moreover, the type of precolonial communities he refers to is, surprisingly, that of datu-headed communities, which were, indeed, quite autonomous but far from egalitarian (marked instead by hierarchy, slavery/bonded labour, and occasional slave raiding). Much closer to his anarchist community ideal are non-violent indigenous hunter-gatherer and shifting cultivator communities, whose current remnants in remote regions of the Philippines are studied by anthropologists – work that Umali hardly uses, even though he claims there is much to learn from the “wisdom” of current indigenous communities. Third, Umali encourages people to self-organize along lines of shared interests, but implementation seems unproblematic and examples are not discussed. Those interested in actual cases of direct democracy in the Philippines (including challenges and possible solutions) will need to look elsewhere. The vast literature on the bumpy road of cooperatives in the Philippines might be a starter.

中文翻译：

---

拉莱·哈利利。战争与贸易的筋骨。阿拉伯半岛的航运和资本主义。Verso, London [etc.] 2020. xvi, 352 pp. Ill. Maps。20.00 英镑。（纸质：11.99 英镑；电子书：20.00 英镑。）

普通人。菲律宾国家无疑是压迫、剥削和政治边缘化的根源，但任何国家与公民关系的另一面是，国家需要在其公民受到强烈压力时做出让步。由于 Umali 的故事中忽略了这种动态，我们很少听到菲律宾为扩大国家承认的普通民众的权利而成功的民众斗争，例如无地者的土地权（根据  综合土地改革法） )、土著人民要求其祖传土地的权利（根据  的土著人民权利法），以及扩大福利权，即使实施仍然不足。其次，他基于前殖民时代的模型有点不稳定。Umali 承认社区之间存在相互战争和袭击的持续威胁，但没有提供“群岛联盟”如何能够维持和平并为其居民提供安全保护的建议。此外，令人惊讶的是，他所指的前殖民社区类型是以大图为首的社区，这些社区确实非常自治，但远非平等主义（取而代之的是等级制度、奴隶制/奴役劳动和偶尔的奴隶袭击）。更接近他的无政府主义社区理想的是非暴力的土著狩猎采集者和流动的耕种者社区，人类学家研究了菲律宾偏远地区目前的残余物——乌马利几乎不使用这些工作，尽管他声称有很多东西可以学习当前土著社区的“智慧”。第三，Umali 鼓励人们按照共同的兴趣进行自我组织，但实施似乎没有问题，也没有讨论示例。那些对菲律宾直接民主的实际案例（包括挑战和可能的解决方案）感兴趣的人将需要寻找其他地方。关于菲律宾合作社崎岖道路的大量文献可能是一个开端。