David Pakman: Is Common Ownership Authoritarian?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 4 жов 2024
- This is a response to David Pakman's claim that collectivisation or common ownership is authoritarian. In saying that a free, egalitarian, self-determining society cannot come about through an authoritarian apparatus, he inadvertently gives the central reason why anarchists support prefiguration.
FYI he talks at length about libertarian socialism and Catalonia at 9:20 in this video ua-cam.com/video/k79wCaFgU40/v-deo.html
So you're just going to ignore the entire this entire video just like David likes to ignore every other part of socialism where it actually works
I'm aware of this video and to be honest, that only makes Pakman's recent comments on socialism bewildering. In the video you link to, he does, as you say, analyse libertarian currents within socialism in some depth, yet his more recent comments convey the impression that he isn't aware of said currents within socialism. His recent comments seem, in this light, a tad dishonest.
maybe he just doesn't see any significant difference between authoritarian socialism and libertarian socialism and so he lumps them both in together. that is also my stance.
what exactly seems the same to you between workers federations and vanguard parties?
delegates quickly devolving into leaders for the sake of expediency
"I don't believe authoritarianism or violence will ever lead to a just and equal society and that's why we need private property. Please ignore the thousands of police officers, security guards, and literal death squads necessary to guarantee my right to private property as they are of course necessary and good."
-David Pakman
Thought Slime so there would be know thievery in communism?People are still going to do bad things,punching people out of anger would still happen,not unless everyone has guns police would be necessary for the protection of citizens,and I doubt literally everyone having Fully Automatic guns capable of piercing all armor would be either feasible nor safe.
Sotiris Krol a random pub fight is ok relative to WWI.
Sotiris Krol that's the strawiest strawman I've ever seen
Sotiris Krol, do you solve punch fights with fully automatic guns?
People wouldn’t steal in communism because whats the point? People steal because of material needs of you satisfy them than they won’t need to steal. And violence. If we help people get mental health parential help (making it easier for parents to brought up children that are good people) etc. people won’t just attack others. And another thing is you can use rehabilitive Justice. Like talking to poeple and helping them not just putting them in prison. Also police isn’t needed, you can use militia and personal arms. And neighbor watches to look out for others.
Oh boy! Pakman really doesn't comprehend what authoritarianism is. Disappointed but not suprised. Wait until he finds out how liberal democracy work
I have always preferred sam sedar and even kyle to him in their sphere of friends of tyt. David rubbed me the wrong way with some of his blm stances, definitely his misrepresentation and downplay of the israel/palestine situation (which I’m sorry I did take personal bc it felt dehumanizing with his take), and his misunderstanding of most foreign affairs. I do not hate him but have always felt his videos were more along the line of being the “cool lefty” that appeals to the “rationals” with putting out the most minuet details to be completely rational.
David has heard of Anarcho-syndicalism and knows of its history in Revolutionary Catalonia, he talks about it in his video "Debunked: Socialism has never worked". I think David is receptive to the ideas of Anarchism based on his rhetoric and stances on certain issues. I do however believe it serves him best to remain a social democrat for the time being (for his career) and is being pragmatic.
Loved the video btw, I hope David sees this at some point
And private ownership isn't "authoritarian"? Lmfao! Liberal logic101.
Oh my god, YES! A socialist responding to a social democrat? I think this is now my new favourite video on UA-cam!
Der Volksverräter yeeeee booiiiii
The only Good Commie is a Dead Commie
It’s about time we learned, that the only time our people are going to taste Freedom
Is when the Last Red Flag is Burning.
Pakman is a corporatist.
Before he made his "Why I'm Not a Socialist" video, he made a more general video on socialism where he "explained" that there had been three waves of socialism. Utopian Socialism, Anarchism and Marxism, each replacing the other. He added that most people discussing socialism do not know this, and went on to explain how anarchism had (as it apparently stopped existing) had been anti-state, etc. expecting the viewers to be shocked ... I agree he seems well-meaning, but he is clearly completely ignorant on socialist ideologies.
Kraisedion Ignorant, in the context that he is:
• From Argentina (the 1970’s had a BRUTAL DICTATOR.)
• Been subjected to propaganda for DECADES by those with special interests.
• Is NOT like CNN where he simply states “Both sides do it” and then simply ends the debate.
• Not Tucker Carlson or PJW... which... uhhhh...
• He did state that if there is a way he can proven wrong, then he’s willing to change his mind.
In other words, you have to FURTHER debate, as well as *Modernize Marx.*
Explain not how “Utopian Socialism” works, but how Socialism (and to that extent, Communism) works.
“It’s not OKAY - WHEN WE DO IT... but we have to.” Should be the response to Capitalism’s “It’s ALWAYS okay when we do it... how else do you think you’re able to buy things at such low-low prices?”
@Kikasitsu
The issue is not that it is unreasonable that he should be ignorant, or that being ignorant about a subject is something to be ashamed of, my comment was to showcase just how little he knows about the topic before making these statements. While slightly frustrating that he clearly did research, and preceded to lecture on a topic he knew little about, he does, as I noted, seem to have good intentions, and yes, more discussion is just what is needed.
On that note:
I'm not sure why you are assuming I, or anyone here are Marxists, that's rather the main issue with his understanding of socialism, believing there were just three waves, two of which have ended, and that everyone are just Marxists now. There is no need to modernize Marx. Take him for what he's worth and assess his ideas, just like those of Owen, Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Morris, Russell, Cole, Bernstein, Rocker, Bookchin, etc.
As for my personal view it is quite simple, I want to have mixed economy socialism, with mutualist, co-operative and syndicalist economics replacing the capitalist half, and the "state socialist" half preferably becoming independent of the government (adding a 4th division of power, i.e. executive, legislative, judicial and industry - the latter of which can be subject to both public and worker democracy, and be centralized, decentralized, or both).
Being Norwegian we already have approximately 40% of the public working in the public sector, as long as we end the liberalization and put more effort where it matters this can easily go back to it's former glory. The capitalist half of the economy can be transitioned through incentivizing co-ops, adding legislation such as the German co-determination laws and increasing the power of the unions, as well as taking steps to abolish wage labor (such as implementing profit splits and accumulative ownership) and heavily taxing or preferably abolishing the inheritance of capital.
Kraisedion When I say to “Modernize Marx” I refer to the use of language.
The context to the Subjects A) Capitalism, B) Communism, and C) The Transition (Socialism) STILL apply.
Alienation, Labor Theory, Class Conscious, and various other means are STILL relevant today. But in Marx’s day, he didn’t have the right words to put such into today’s context.
Marx believed that Revolution would occur within the 1st World’s conditions.
(... Tick tock.)
Lenin said you need to take the Revolution to them, cause condition doesn’t wait for no man. (Lenin lived in a shithole 3rd world Russia when his revolution occurred.)
Mao said that Class Conflict continues UNDER Socialism, regardless.
*Where are they now?*
Being bastardized by propaganda machines that are far louder than the meager attempts of UA-cam audiences.
Yes, I do agree that David Pakman is “ignorant” as to how Socialism works. But being real with you here, SO WERE WE.
David Pakman is doing something important that most in the comment section are overlooking: He’s ASKING QUESTIONS.
“Is Socialism Authoritarian?”
It’s a perfectly sounding question to ask.
But for one to be ignorant, there has to be someone that explains to David how Socialism and Capitalism work (in context.)
Asking questions is KEY to initiating discussion. Cameron is doing what Pakman wants: he’s responding, and furthering discussion.
If you TRULY want to be insulted by ignorance, go watch Tucker Carlson “explain” how Socialism “works” (or heaven help you... STEVEN CROWDER... but hey, if you’re into Sado-Masochism, then I suggest you watch Michael Savage!)
He’s approaching this subject with an open mind. It’s about time that WE (those who are burdened with the proof) to show them HOW Socialism works.
How you explain Anarchist (NOT Anarcho-Capitalist...) thought or Communist thought is up to you.
If they ask questions, give thoughtful answers.
... Or do you want to be accused of being called a FASCIST by a bunch of brainwashed idiots that don’t know any better? (It’s a lot easier for to explain why Anarchists are THE “Real” fascists because Benito Mussolini believed in “National Syndicalism.”)
TL; DR
• Modernize Marx’s language. (The subject matter is still relevant.)
• Context.
• Ask Questions - Give thoughtful answers.
• For Sado-Masochistic explanations (If you can call it that) on how Socialism works, I suggest Steven Crowder, Tucker Carlson, or Michael Savage & Paul Joseph Watson.
• Further discussion.
Correct me if I’m wrong by any means. (I am a fan of LSR’s studies, though I’ll admit - Leaning Communist, not Tankie.)
@Kikasitsu - Ah, didn't realize you were a Marxist, apologies. Personally I think socialism needs to boil down to actual co-operation rather than pushing a specific set of ideas. While I'm not a Marxist I do agree, plenty of socialist jargon is outdated. Even simple concepts like the state, property, capital, etc. doesn't have the same meaning today - and I certainly respect Marx as an economist, and to a somewhat lesser extent as a philosopher.
Quick note: Socialism is only the transition state in Leninism, and plenty of socialists do not want communism. When the rest of us use the term socialism we do not mean a transition phase. Most are more interested in transitioning to socialism through social democracy - but what socialism means varies greatly. If you have primarily read the Marxists I would really recommend reading Bertrand Russell, William Morris, GDH Cole and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (Kropotkin is also a lovely writer but I disagree with him to a similar extent as I disagree with Marx, though of course I disagree with all the writers on key ideas in one way or another, especially as all the ideas are from very different times and situations than our own. I would also greatly recommend Bakunin and Goldman).
Kraisedion Communism is a phase that says “Stateless, Classless, and Moneyless.” Communist supporters believe that the use of a State should work alongside the worker.
Noam Chomsky himself stated that “(Our) Government has a critical flaw... *it can be Democratized.*”
Why do you think Right-Wing Libertarians and Anarcho-Capitalists bitch and complain about The State?
(Trust me, I’ve dealt with this kind of logic long enough for me to how vast their contradictions work.)
But thank you for the suggestions and the exchange.
Pakman is actually more left-wing than most Americans. Most Americans won't discuss socialism We could actually change his mind. Jimmy Dore is actually much more open to socialism .Jimmy Dore even had people like Peter Joseph and Richard Wolff(socialist/Marxist economics professor) on his show.
Jimmy "Arm the Poor" Dore
Jimmy Dore and Lee Camp are and always will be on our side more then any other news pundits. I love those two so fucking much.
It's really fucked up that if you say to most (from my own experience) American "socialists" (democractic socialists who support Bernie and shit like that) that socialism is "the workers ownership of the means of production" they'll say some shit like "no that's not socialism that's communism, and communism is totally different to socialism"
Then when you push them further to try to make the distinctions it turns out they just want tax funded things like roads.
Just great
So
So great.
I've even had demsocs from America tell me that socialism isn't an ideology. Because it's an economic system.
Like wow almost as if them two things can be linked.
"A real socialist vanguard would be nice" - Chairman Dore
DolphinsWIthIgloos
in every single workplace the boss takes your labour and then gives you only some of the money that your labour was actually worth. this is how profit works. why should the man who owns some land get to steal my labour and sell it for more money than I will ever see myself?
Cameron, have you looked at Rojava and would you consider making a series of videos on Rojava?
It would be interesting to see if it would count as a more up to date example than Revolutionary Spain.
yep exactly. And Zapatistas is an up to date example as well.
People who actually do the work should do the ruling instead of owners of the bigger stick. Simple. Leave the sword, raise the sickle.
Because it makes total sense to put a factory worker in charge of the management of a large corporation. While we are at it, lets allow janitors perform heart surgery. Its not like different jobs have different skill and intelligence requirements.
Seriously, even the Marxists Leninists know that meritocracy is their for a reason(even if there means are faulty).
Have you ever worked in any sort of management job ever? I have, and I can tell you that your understanding of how it works is beyond lacking. If you put any of the construction workers for the company I worked with in a management or got them all to run it, you know what would happen? The business would be bankrupt. In management, you have to make sure that everyone is doing their jobs properly, that production is being met, you have to know how to deal with people and when things fail it is on you to fix it. None of that is in any way as simple as mopping a floor and entails far more responsibility, stress and intelligence and the bigger the company, the more of these things it takes.
Do you honestly have such a juvenile view on managers and executives as to think that they are just sitting in a chair with their feet on their desk all day thinking about how to exploit their workers? You know what they are really doing, trying to make sure their company doesn't go under and they as well as any one they are managing don't end up jobless. There is a reason there is such a thing as leadership.
You are assuming that Labor is the source of value and not the supply and demand intersection for which their is no reason to believe so. Capitalists and business owners are not the same as kings, a king didn't invent the personal computer and that invention has change the world for the better. Bill Gates got as rich as he did by providing real value though I am sure nothing I could say would ever change your mind.
"That the people who generate the profit also democratically decide what happens with it, that's by definition the only way to have a meritocracy." No it is not. Democracy has its place but it is not the same as meritocracy.
I find it hilarious that you accuse me of not backing my assertions when pretty much everything you have written so far has been nothing but.
First off their is more to "giving orders" than just that. You have to know what orders to give, how to give them and take into account countless other variables. Not to mention managers often have to do what you reffer to as real jobs on top of their duties to make sure things get done since the responsibility falls on them. Look at the workplace, say their is no one in charge of running the construction site, what happens if their is disagreement? Do they just vote and turn running a business into a popularity contest? Each time even socialism is tried in real life, you still end up with hierarchies because that the only way you get shit done. Feudalism failed because kings and nobles imposed treated peasants like second class citizens and there position were obtained by birth not merit. Its why rich kids usually lose their money once their parents have worked their arse off to get them it. In capitalism, if you don't produce, you don't get money. No way of appropriating grain without investing or forcing peasants to work without paying.
On your point of steve jobs stealing the fruits of others labor, they could have started their own venture and take the risk that in starting a business and selling an invention. Instead they choose to work for someone instead so they could receive a steady pay. Its not slavery if you choose to go back to the mill where you don't get paid as much as you like instead of starting your own.
Your assertion that management is inefficient fails even intuitively. Think about it for just a second? why would companies even bother have managers and executives when you could just get your employees to manage themselves? Its why even though we live in a liberal democracy, we still live a representative democracy though the popularity problem seeps in it is the maintaining of an open society and that respects civil liberties that matters.
No I don't see it as an injustice for the top 3 richest people in the world to have most of the money when the world as a whole is richer because of the wealth they have generated. Now their can be destabilization issues due to automation and the reduction in jobs as we approach eventually post scarcity but this is not the result of exploitation but a shift in the way the economy. Maybe read a book on economics that was written by marx for a change.
Oh and on your point about Bezos, without him, amazon wouldn't exist in the first place and the jobs and wealth created wouldn't either. The employees can quit their job at any time. If you come at me with the whole they will starve if they do, it is just the same under socialism(Unless you think a system that allows for parasitism is desirable, in which case there is really no need for me to go on further). You either work or you go hungry. Until we reach post scarcity, this is how things will be.
Democracy can also take peoples freedom away. Like taking a man business away after he spent years saving his money up so he can start it. Or forcing gays to lose their rights because a religous population desired it. Democracy does have it uses as I said but shit still has to get done.
Funny enough, I am actually not opposed to changing my mind on the matter. In fact, under the right conditions I could even be a democratic libertarian Socialist, something akin to Noam chamsky, thing is I need hard empirical evidence to change to such a position. For example a socialist state that produces great material wealth(like the ussr) that doesn't commit grand atrocities would be compelling evidence of it working practically.
The only thing that is not negotiable is the open society. As in free speech and democracy are paramount(Enlightenment liberal values, not right wing, something socialists love to conflate). One party political system is not democracy.
Thing is do you even have criteria for which your mind could be changed? If not then who is the one really afraid of change here?
You know what this is pointless. Go into a company and see what happens when management does nothing and you leave people to organize themselves vs when they do there jobs. Organizing people does not just happen. Humans are not just ants that can work together in perfect harmony. They have individual wants, needs and emotions which cause conflict and it takes someone with the skill to get people to see the bigger picture and get shit done.
Owning land is not the same thing. You actually have to provide value to the market to get the land in the first place unless you are part of an aristocracy. If you don't like the rate the land lord charges you then you can go find one who provides a better price.
I will admit 1 thing. it was unfair for me to suggest you have not read much economic literature.
Most of your points are assuming LTV is correct which again I have no reason to accept considering its lack of economic predictability, which is arguably the most important aspect in testing the validity of any theory.
You where being disingenuous when you said I was arguing against democracy as a whole. Just because I seedemocracy fails in one area does not mean it must therefore fail in all areas.
Maintaining wealth is so easy huh? Is that why 70% of inherited fortune is lost by the third generation? There is really nothing else to other than you are empirically wrong here.
The Spanish revolution hardly lasted a significant period time for anarchist principles to be tested so you will have to do better than that.
If the majority votes to have gays sent to labor camps then it does not matter if gays lose their right to democracy or not. Hence why democracy can be 2 wolves and 1 sheep deciding whats for dinner. This should be obvious and you were being incredibly intellectually dishonest here.
You are aware the countries you cite as being the most peaceful have a freer market than the us right? You are kinda of shooting yourself in the foot here.
Your point on showing where democracy fails in an area of society, you need to word this better because I can think of two areas off the top of my head.
-The military, the ussr and china tried to abolish ranks get the soldiers to lead themselves with devastating and hilarious consequences.
-Science, because getting the majority to vote that global warming is hoax will not make it true. Hence we leave it to the experts to determine.
This is even me pretending that management is unnecessary. You are going to have to elaborate here or change ideology.
Dropping the civilities I see. Well I am game
My god you are really bent on trying to misconstrue everything I say to suite your narrative.
1- There is far more to management than just giving orders.Actually try working as a manager and maybe you'll see because there is clearly no way to reason with you on how that is the case. Orders will exist whether you like them or not. whether it be given by the workers or the manager it is something you have to deal with. Thing is, all men are not equal in skill and capacity, they have equal right and moral consideration, but in the end shit needs to get done and that involves doing what someone else tells you. Even what you say is true. that one person deciding the best course of action would just be in it for themselves, in which case your view on human nature is as fucked as the right, you still forget that even then, it is often better to help others as it often helps yourself. This is still assuming every single person in management is a psychopath.
2-All the land land in the world is not owned by 1 person you dense fuckwit and we have laws to prevent such a concentration of power.
3- you have to work to eat. Doesn't matter so it doesn't matter whether a company is privately or collectively owned. The only difference is under private ownership you get to decide your own rate were as in collective ownership, everyone else decides it for you.
4- Assuming LTV again which as I said makes half our statements meaningless since their is no empirical reason to accept it.
5- 4 years? that's your MD? Not even a decade. Also whether or not it was destroyed by outside forces is irrelevant to the fact that it was still not nearly long enough to properly test the system out.
6-Do you really not no the difference between constitutional rights and democracy? No I'm sure you do, you are just conflating the two in order to avoid admitting the glaring flaw in pure democracy. Intellectual fucking dishonesty at its core.
7- Okay what do you think I am exactly, because I believe in social democracy. Seriously the fuck you on about? When ever I argue with marxist or anarchists they assert that those countries are just state capitalism. What are you trying to say with those countries you mentioned?
Thanks for this. Pakman's blind liberalism is irritating
TakTheBandit ... And your HUBRIS *ISN’T?*
Geez, it’s called a DISCUSSION for a reason. Be thankful that David is WILLING to have discussion rather than pull a Tucker Carlson spin.
@@Kikasitsu oh he does, just not in this instance.
I really wanna see a debate between YT social-democrats and YT anti-capitalists. Possible speakers for social democracy could be Kyle Kulinski, David Pakman, Ana Kasparian or Cenk Uygur. For the anti-capitalists, I would say that BadMouse Productions, DemocraticSocialist01 or Cameron himself.
Der Volksverräter That'll be a short, but entertaining debate. Liberals are all dogma and no theory.
Watching the liberals perform mental gymnastics trying to keep their ideas coherent would be quite entertaining.
Jimmy Dore would be on our side. Theres a reason why whenever he debates the rest of TYT (and why its so rare) he always has the upperhand. He might not openly have our title, nut he is a libertarian socialist.
I'd be up for Joining that Debate Also!
I actually thought of good arguments that, although seem justifying for left authoritarianism are actually more context providers so that people can become more open to new ideas.
For instance, when people say communism killed 100 million, i point out that a lot of those figures are from known propagandists, refuse to acknowledge things like sanctions, embargo's, war, drought, white army stealing food, Kulags doing scorched earth tactics by burning their crops and hoarding all the food for themselves, foreign interference etc.
and refuse to acknowledge the fact that in all honesty, they probably don't give a shit about those ''100 million people'' anyway, like really? Would any of these people regurgitating this propaganda care much about those Chinese warlords? Warlords that may i remind you... Would slaughter entire peasant villages because they refused to marry their underage daughters to said shitbag warlords even though they had already married to hundreds of women?
And there's so much i can go into, like how the black book of communism is historically inaccurate (saying that U.S backed dictator Batista was fiercely opposed to the U.S OR how Austro-Hungarian army occupied Poland in 1915, when it was the German army OR claiming that Bolsheviks had only 2000 members when it had 200.000) Along with 5 million of the figures being pulled out of thin air... Those 5 million coincidentally being the same number of axis soldiers who died on the eastern front, I.E the black book of communism is literally Nazi propaganda since those figures were not victims of communism but simply victims of justice.
Its not a justification, its simply providing context and allowing people to come to their own conclusion and understand that even prior to the wars, China was being fucked globally by nearly EVERY imperialist powers including Japan, Britain, France, etc.
Hell i haven't even gotten into the Shanghai massacres and all the other atrocities committed by the Nationalist forces in China backed by the U.S OH and reminder that the same Nationalist forces still exist and are in Taiwan to this day.
Don’t forget Mexie and anarchopac! Although I don’t know if they would want to participate in debates or not. They make good videos though.
Good video man. David Pakman is a social democrat and has shown sympathy towards revolutionary Catalonia, so he might be easier to change his mind. Also thoughts on the Zapatista movement.
Craig Morrison I am thinking the same thing
Craig Morrison But you shouldn’t.
What you should do instead of break down the understanding between “Us” and “Them.”
Capitalism’s use of Violence is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT than Socialist/Anarchist/Communist use of Violence - Here’s how...
•
•
•
•
•
He is sympathetic to Catalonia’s history. But he is from Argentina. His country has experienced Dictatorship Brutality.
Think about it, “Dictatorship of the Proletariat?”
It sounds TERRIBLE because it has the word: “Dictatorship...”
“... Who the fuck is the Proletariat?”
“... What the hell’s ‘Bourgeois’ l?”
“Ohhhhh... WILL OF THE PEOPLE (Proletariat) and the Economic Elite (Bourgeois.)”
This sort of thinking has to be reshaped back into conversation. (Why do you think Fascists ALWAYS demonized Academia?)
@@Kikasitsu what? Sorry mate, I Don't get what you mean. And I do agree with what you say. But I am having difficulty relating it to my comment.
Craig Morrison You need to capitalize on WHY Catalonia (or places and times similar to Catalonia) were effective.
If you wish to dispel DECADES of propaganda, you’re going to need context.
David thinks that Socialism is authoritarian because of the use of force. (Violence.)
But a thought is a thought. It can be shaped, changed, molded.
I used to be a Liberal. Thanks to JADED-AS-ALL-HELL Social Studies teacher I had in the 7th Grade, I got to understand the following:
• America is NOT the greatest country on Earth, for it has far too many flaws that it’s almost parody.
• Words like Socialism, Anarchism, Fascism, etc. are just that... “words.” “Democracy” sounds amazing... until you find out how they instill said “democracy.”
• “7 Countries in 5 Years” FREEDOM/Democracy do not make.
• Oh... we went to Afghanistan to obtain 2 trillion dollar mines? Nearly 3,000 people died... so that we may obtain MINES?
And on and on, my thoughts shifted. At this point, I’m finding myself wanting to advocate for Socialism - but like so many others, we need to make certain that we dispel tiresome “P.R.A.T.T” arguments, and logical fallacies.
We need to modernize Marx, educate the masses, debate with HONEST people (like David Pakman), and infuse context, explaining how Capitalism truly works.
It’s easier to lose a debate with a fascist. (Yes, EASIER.)
Why? Because fascists will appropriate language, adhere to emotion, scapegoat, and lie via Gish Galloping.
I’d like to think that Liberals are people with Rose-Colored glasses that are fitting too tight. Just tell them to “take off those glasses, and put on prescription glasses.”
You want a dishonest actor at work? I suggest Tucker Carlson, Michael Savage, Paul Joseph Watson, (basically anything just short of Stefan Molyneux’s psychopathy!)
David (Pakman) is an honest actor (when it comes to discussion.)
Peter Coffin is someone that is doing what many Anarchists and supporters of Marx SHOULD do: Modernize Marx.
Then, do what Cameron (LSR) is doing, and further discussion.
And soon, you’ll be hearing a different perspective coming from David Pakman and those like him.
(Trust me, you don’t come from a country that has had a BRUTAL DICTATOR in the 70’s, only to be told that “it was Socialism they did this...” AND NOT have a sense of Deja Vu. David is from Argentina.)
@@Kikasitsu yeah man I agree with you. All I am saying is his views are slightly more left leaning than a lot of other American liberal radio host people. Cenk ugyer doesn't even understand socialisms basic principles for example.
I do agree that a revolution is violent & authoritarian. What I don't understand is that he sees common ownership as authoritarian when private ownership is incredibly authoritarian. Both the state & private interests hoard private property where as nobody else possesses it. If you break private property laws the owner can potentially harm you or the state punishes you. Pakman for some reason doesn't comprehend that this is much more violent than a system that wants democratic ownership.
"I want an egalitarian, free..." this isn't capitalism. Most people are chained to their socio-economic position. He doesn't recognize that Marx lived during the creation of capitalism in Germany. Marx felt that the liberal virtues of Liberty Equality or Fraternity were not achieved under capitalism. Witnessing both workers abuses in Europe as well as his theory of exploitation being played out under capitalism.
I really love the tacit implication that private property doesn't need an intense exercise of authority just to continue existing. Pakman are you going full ancap on us?
" It is authoritarian to force people to live in a democracy
*so let's return to monarchy* "
If you can see that the above is ridiculous, then perhaps compare it to Mr. Pakman's argument against socialism, which is worker control of the means of production, which is rule by the people in the workplace, which is workplace democracy.
Yes! Thank you! I was facepalming my way through that video and his opponent seemed unprepared for that debate. I hope you get the chance to appear on the Pakman show.
I actually watch Pakman's channel on a regular basis (despite the fact I am a libertarian socialist) just to keep up on news in Progressive circles. While I usually agree with in on a case by case basis and see him as a fairly logical person, his justification for why he's not a socialist seemed quite fallacious and uninformed to me.
I actually left a comment on Pakman's original video, with a critique similar to yours, but I think the wall of text scared away too many people for it to get enough attention. 😞
Glad you made this video, keep up the good work, love your Case for/against vids.
Christ Venezuela is not socialist.
Eric Milligan it's economy is like 2/3rds privately owned.
But to be fair the government (and a nice percentage of people) are socialists and do want genuine social transition.
Apparently there's even communes throughout the country.
I agree. Although, when they point to Venezuela, I like to point to Bolivia. Both are South American countries headed by a socialist inspired by the "Socialism of the 21st Century" ideology, so they are directly comparable. And Bolivia has had massive economic growth and a huge increase in living standards. When you ask them why Bolivia was successful and Venezuela failed, they don't know how to answer it... because they know nothing about Venezuela or Bolivia and just use Venezuela as a talking point and repeat it mindlessly.
The government of Venezuela may have socialist ideals but they are fighting the 2/3 Oligarchs which forces the socialist to turn authoritarian to make its reality real but of course it a battle between rich vs socialists. Its a waste of time between social democrats and socialist/liberal socialist trying to debate on the tiny fine lines of whats a good system when oligarchs still control the government. It makes more sense to me if both sides were to hammer out common grounds of tenants to draw the crowds and push for changes.
amihart I’ll have to start using this point
Jimmy moy is correct.
This is an excellent critique of Packman, thank you Cameron.
I do take issue with some of the people in the comments however that seem to dismiss him as a 'reactionary' or 'just a liberal'. If we want to expand the left and actually organise effectively we need to be talking to people like David, and we can only do that by actually engaging in political discourse with them _on their own terms_ otherwise we'll just be banging up against a brick wall. Especially given that we're living through a huge historical inflection point with the future at stake, we can't afford to not talk to liberals, because if we don't, the fascists certainly will.
The problem is that Pakman actually does know something about libertarian socialism. He simply chooses to ignore it so that he can construct this straw-man authoritarian socialism that no one save a few tankies want and then proceed to beat the crap out of it. Rather than taking the honorable position of someone like Orwell who, upon arriving in liberated Barcelona, said, "There was much in it that I did not understand, in some ways I did not even like it, but I recognized it immediately as a state of affairs worth fighting for"-instead of a skeptical support for libsoc, Pakman takes Leninist-Stalinist communism as an excuse to regress to a pathetic apologetics for capitalism, rehydrating stale euphemisms and pieties about the self-made man, liberty, individualism, and the virtue of property.
So glad you've responded to him, he has a big audience, well done.
If workers self management is better/more productive than private ownership, then why don't we see any companies like that in the U.K? As far as I know, there are no laws stopping people from setting up co-operatives.
Have you published any assessment of Dr. Richard Wolff's videos in support of worker co-ops? Since he's a Marxist economist, it seems to me that he's flirting with libertarian socialism much more than many other UA-cam personalities.
He is just a Libertarian Marxist, it's another strain of Libertarian Socialism
Its incredibly disappointing that Peter Coffin didnt rebut with this basic response.
PC is so caught up in building bridges that I feel at this point he was hesitant to engage in critique of his ideological opponent.
is there any online leftist figurehead who isnt
Rachel The Cool I mean LibSoc rants seems to not be.
I certainly can see what issue you may have with that. But something you have to understand, it's not about building bridges. Pakman, I think, is well-intentioned. That said, what LSR has said here is extremely true. He has a lot to read.
I took a softer approach because I care more about getting people who are watching to ask questions than I care about winning a debate. I've had a lot (way more than I expected) of people approach me since this saying I did cause them to question what he was saying and starting to do their own research (in so many words).
As you know, you can't ungoogle "libertarian socialism." And having a response video like this up, going into more specifics as a third party observer, is helpful as well. Honestly, everything is a process and moving people left is better done without alienating them. I can't tell you if David Pakman himself will be a socialist, but I can tell you my inbox has been loaded with people who are now curious about libertarian socialism. I've been directing them to materials, and I'll probably direct them to this video now.
The point isn't building bridges, it's understanding that a lot of people think social democracy is the "logical" version of a lot of socialism's aims. They're mostly just people like you and me, raised in capitalism, likely of modest means, told their hard work should be rewarded and made to believe that it will be, but who don't yet understand you can actually change framework on a fundamental level. They see David as their avatar and they see me as possibly a shouty person come to say they're wrong.
I'm not saying you have to agree with my method, but at least please understand my motive.
I appreciate your comment here and I do think it's a thoughtful position to take.
I also should say I am not the best at being convincing although I can be "Right" af at people.
I don't normally do it because as you said "alienateing" them isnt desireable.
So to that end I recognize the gulf between us and also the pressure you're under to be convincing.
That said if there is in fact no way to, gently, simply, calmly, and effectively communicate this point without coming across as a Shapiro style "gotcha" response then we should be asking ourselves what is so unpackageable about our message.
I'm not claiming to have the answer to that either and so maybe I'm not as disappointed in you as I am frustrated with what seems like futile conversations at times.
It is good news that there is a wash of interest though.
And I also hope you understand that despite the frustration here I hecking adore your work.
Thank you again for responding.
Trust me, I didn't take it as an attack or anything like that so no worries. I appreciate mentioning my work and I wish it were possible to express how much I share the same frustration. Part of it, I think, is socialists do not typically get face time with "the public" (for obvious reasons) and therefore when we do actually get some, there's a feeling that we very much need to make every criticism and get all the information out in conversations that might be set up to discourage the audience from allowing questions. David's framework was very "this is the facts," and I think it's because he probably thinks those are the facts... But they're not. So my instinct was to try to open up questions or make it obvious that there are better ways of setting up things like common ownership, rather than invalidate what is probably the worldview of the audience. There's a ton of value in prompting people to think with contradiction rather than telling them they're wrong. Unfortunately, I'm fairly certain that is what much of today's iteration of everything is geared towards - validation as a means of coercion.
I’m a social democrat but I really like your channel. We should have more left wing people in American politics.
Libertarian Socialist Rants should debate Pakman. Pakman has a lot of subs and viewers, so it would be better if Pakman knew how libertarian socialism worked before he continues to discredit it to his massive, left-wing audience. Rants is smart, Pakman is open-minded, socialism will prevail
I literally commented a lot of these points on David Pakman’s video
On of David's biggest problems is that he actually seems to believe that Conservatives argue in good faith and believes that countries like the Soviet Union is the only way for countries for run as "socialist" countries
Oh shit, I didn't realize you were back to these delicious pieces of work. Nice!
Awesome video, I learned a lot! I hope also that David sees this video and acknowledge the questions, Thanks for this.
my soul is revitalized whenever i watch your videos
Apparently David believes that a single dictator with complete control over the means of production who can abuse, hurt, underpay, or fire any employees and anytime is more libertarian than the people possessing it. Sound logic david.
Have just re-watched this - great video!
The problem lies in the use of collective vs individual. This is a false dilemma that is presented. They collective is a collection of individuals in agreement. Because a few individuals don't like the outcome, they call it "tyranny of the majority", and it is that "tyranny" (which has its roots in Greek as "single ruler" - tyrant) that is implying when he equate it with authoritarian. In a democracy, individuality is inherent. You cannot vote your own mind if you aren't an individual capable of making arguments.
Social Democracy is Social Fascism
I'm pretty disappointed to see David pull the whole "look at Venezuela" argument up to argue against socialism.
Hi, I have some questions unrelated to the video: 1.) Is the "boss-worker" relationship still a hierarchical one, if the worker voluntarily agrees to work for the boss, and why? 2.) Once the revolution becomes real and there is a bunch of people voluntarily deciding that they want to live in a market system outside of ancom communes, what do we do with it?
I would really appreciate some answers to this questions they are quite existential to me, thanks.
@The Anticapitalist
1. Voluntarily agreeing to work for a boss wouldn't make sense in the same way as it is now - where the voluntary part is more of a smokescreen and the alternative is starvation and death. In systems of workplace democracy you vote for the boss, or in a more hierachal system vote for the board of directors, who then hire the boss. You can still have hierachal systems where the boss tells you what to do, but in the former the boss is closer to a co-ordinator, and the boss/worker dynamic is fundamentally changed as she or he worked for you as much as the other way around. In the latter yes, it is a more strictly hierachal system - allowing for the freedom to have hierchal relationships for those who choose to - and there may be organizations where this makes sense.
2. This question really depends on what type of socialist structure you actually implement. If you have ancom communes this would be a little hard, especially if fully decentralized, in this case the choice is to either leave them alone or intervene - and yes, I can see why this would seem existential to an anti-authoritarian.
Personally I would not want a communal system, though I would certainly support increased local autonomy. The future society I would like to see realized is a mixed economy with Mutualism and Co-operative economics replacing the capitalist half, and further decentralization, worker power and direct democracy attributes to the state socialism side. This would allow close to complete freedom of association and goals, and for each socialist ideology to peacefully work towards their goals based on mutual respect.
But even if we got a purely market based socialist economy, it would not be the same as capitalist markets.
Yes, markets would still exist, but they would be fundamentally different, as it would not be possible to hire someone without them accumulating part ownership, with property rights changed in such a way, the ability to exploit the workers would disappear as the workers are the owners. It would not be legal to form capitalist relations "voluntarily" in the same way that it is not legal to set up a "voluntary" slave trade today
@@Kraisedion thanks for your reply
1) This is like asking "Is murder still murder if the victim voluntarily agreed that they have no right to live?".
2) You convince them by example.
I am so glad you talked about this.
I had been taken aback when I realized david p. was a little ignorant of the whole understanding of libertarian and democratic socialism as compared to.. well state capitalism.
So glad you did this in a respectable way - as you always do.
Cheers mate.
2 videos in 2 days. I have been spoiled
FDR also helped in crushing the Anarchist Revolution
What are your views on Mutualism and other Free Market Anti-Capitalist schools of thought?
Pakman should invite you on his show
I haven’t seen the vid yet, but I assume it’s taking about the discussion between Pakman and Coffin. I was a bit peeved that Pakman assumed that common ownership would necessarily entail violent oppression for non-participants, as if his model of capitalist reform would entail anything other than what we have now, i.e., violent repression by the forces of the state and capital. Why we want us simply real democracy. It’s something that should be a duh for someone like Pakman, but I’m thinking he’s got a bit of the centrist belief in the superiority of towing a “moderate” line.
Funny because anarchists didn't invent nukes, world wars or global warming
The only thing we can blame 19th century anarchists such as Kropotkin, Bakunin, Goldman, and 19th communists such as Engels and Marx for, is for spawning New Atheism and the rampant scientism among physcists.
CosmoShidan lol, Compte is more father to all of them.
True that Comte did formulate posiivism, which was a proto-scientism, and that science would engulf all knowledge, yet the three I listed did hold this worldview when it comes to their atheism. Not to mention that Christopher Hitchens, a Trotskite, would have adopted their world view. In fact Paul Feyerabend critiqued them on this: anarcosurrealisti.noblogs.org/files/2010/10/Feyerabend-Paul-How-to-defend-society-against-science.pdf
I like this comment section. Same people who are nuanced enough to understand the issues with capitalism apparently also understand the issues with scientism. Now if only you guys could stop siding with authoritarian leftists on issues like free speech, affirmative action, fetus rights, etc. I'd feel right at home.
THIS is a good video... I had a problem with David's argument... You've articulated it perfectly...
That's a great point about Jimmy Dore. I've been a fan for years because of his questioning of war and politicians, but I've gone much further to the left and anti-authoritarian in recent years, and I hope he does the same, especially since he's such a fan of Noam Chompsky.
Yeh! I was missing those videos!
Even the basic organization of society has some elements that some people would call "authoritarian". If the collective decided they wanted laws against rape, murder and other violent crimes, somebody would come along and say, "That is authoritarianism".
A better question to ask is- How do you prevent military rule once all other heirarchies are gone?
I think my buddy once took 'egalitarian Capitalism', she said it was a seriously bad trip, saw all kinds of bullshit and still has flashbacks.
Thank you so much for your work.
Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. There is a reason TJ left out Property.
Look at the notable lack of dislikes. The right loves it when we squabble.
No authority above the individual, cam. If you're an anarchist, you're an individualist.
Yes. I agree. All anarchists should unite. I'm adamant about that. I'm so adamant about that that I believe in cooperation between ancoms and ancaps. But when it comes to individualism vs collectivism, only individualism can be libertarian, and to be fair, all forms of anarchism are individualist in their basic structure. Can we agree that Anarchism is a society where all interactions are voluntary, and no larger collective force inhibits the individual from doing what they want as long as they don't inhibit the right of other members to do the same?
Glad you made this resposeto David Pakman's remarks. Thought I was going to have to become a real UA-camr and do it myself. Thank god it didn't come to that, phewwww!
Obligatory recommended reading: Elinor Ostrom's work on the commons. Private property is not the only option.
Really glad you replied to this. A shame Peter didn't push back hard on Pakman on that, though I know it's tough when you're answering in real-time.
THANK YOU
this is exactly what i was thinking when i heard him say that
private property is the authoritarian stance here
I really hope David watches this, he may be a generic socdem (at best), but IF he were to investigate this objectivey, I could see him becoming a lot more radical.
Great video. I also had problems with David Packman's videos. In fact, I was asked on Facebook by a friend for my thoughts.
Workers trying to take over MY business that I started, funded and worked my ass of trying to get off the ground is authoritarian. There is no way to can argue against it, it's fact
I usually like David Pakman's show, but that video with Coffin as well as a couple of others preceding that showed his lack of understanding regarding socialism (If we're being fair though, Peter Coffin did a rather poor job responding to David's critiques and challenging David's points about the topic). Which isn't just disappointing, but also odd and confusing since not too long ago he did a video debunking the idea that socialism has never worked where he goes into detail explaining the various strands of socialism including libertarian and anarchist methods, inluding anarcho-communism and anarcho-syndicalism. I'm not sure if he just genuinely forgot about the stuff he said previously, or he only included those methods to provide a full picture of socialism and just isn't convinced that they would work.
if the means of production are taken from their holders by force, isn't it an authoritarian action? If somebody dictates your behaviour and takes over your means of action and power, isn't it authority negating freedom, regardless of the structure of this authority (horizontal or hirarchical)?
You could say that this act of authority is justified and necessary, but how can you say it's not authoritarian?
Thanks for the video!
"Being a Socialist does not mean being a Bolshevik". Quite true but the shadow of Lenin and Stalin is cast over the entire discussion of how to achieve a more equitable and free society. People have been taught it is either impossible or authoritarian to even attempt it.
My problem with social democracy is that as long as capitalism exists it has the power and wealth to undermine and demolish any socialist gains over time.
Abolishing private property is detrimental to a society which aims for its own flourishing and prosperity. The sort of ownership which you advocate for has a tendency to fall prey to the tragedy of the commons.
The only authoritarianism I like is in the bedroom if you know what I mean
Safe, sane and consensual BDSM isn't authoritarian
Sotiris Krol Uh.
Prefigurative kink.
For the algorithm
Thanks for holding David Pakman to a higher intellectual standard! He's a social democrat but I see the potential for him to become a socialist.
I wouldn't say it's authoritarian in the sense of being hierarchical or tending to produce hierarchies (if it is at the beginning established and then maintained by non-hierarchical institutions), but it certainly is restrictive. Whether one wants to call such restrictiveness authoritarian doesn't really matter, but eg Malatesta had very hash words for such a system. He says "Imposed communism would be the most detestable tyranny that the human mind could conceive. And free and voluntary communism is ironical if one has not the right and the possibility to live in a different regime, collectivist, mutualist, individualist -- as one wishes." And if society is based on common property, then people do not have the freedom of such economic dissent, to function non-communistically, being that tMoP do not belong to them who use them, but to the society at large.
Bar some rhetorical points by Kropotkin and Berkman, classical anarchist authors didnt talk about common property. Classical anarchism is based on wanting to abolish property and replace it with (proudhonian) possession. Possession is also called occupancy-and-use, or something the phrase use rights instead of property rights is used. This includes both personal and common property, not just capitalistic private property and state property. Common property, like state property, precludes the freedom of economic dissent that not just Malatesta, but all other classical anarchist authors talked about as free association, the freedom to associate but also not to associate.
Personally, i am closer to accepting that common property should be an end goal, but this then a reason why i have a problem with identifying as an anarchist, it doesn't seem intellectually honest being that i don't accept the core views of classical anarchism - possession and free association, but only accept the opposition to hierarchy. I think calling myself a libertarian (communist) is more fitting, being that it was coined by a person who disagreed with Proudhon on the classical workerist-socialist point that people have a right to the products of their labor (on which Proudhon built his notion of possession), instead saying that people have a right to the satisfaction of their needs (a position which necessitates having a society based on common property, at least partially, to ensure people's needs are met).
Society at large would be those who use the means of production. It would be restrictive only to those who would restrict other people, by employing them. There would be choice between working alone or working with others, tho latter would be common for practical reasons.
Or working with others in barter or in communal work. Both imply communal property at least in industry and agriculture. Only artisanal workers would own their mOp in any meaningful way, and this doesn't matter much since artisanship is usually not collective work, those who use the means would have complete freedom over them. And artisanship is a dying art anyways, it can be mended into industrial work with workers' autonomy very easily.
"Society at large would be those who use the means of production."
- This is rhetorical games. Only people (individuals) use things. A workplace is used by the workers who work there.
"It would be restrictive only to those who would restrict other people, by employing them. "
- This is not true. Invidualistic, mutualistic, and collectivistic economies are non-communist but are also non-capitalist, they don't include wage-labor or property income.
zeleni sok
Society at large is sum of individuals. Every work place is run by individuals who happen to be there. No one exists to rule on the behalf of a non existant majority.
Individualistic economies don't exist. Economy by definition is a relationship between people. Communism is individualistic in the sense of being giving most freedom to all individuals. Mutualist economy, as i said, is largely based on or not in contradiction to common property.
zeleni sok Also, libertarian means wholly anarchist, not something other than anarchist. And Mutualism, Individualist anarchists (other than egoists who don't have an economic theory so most of them communists these days), Market Anarchists regarded Communists as authoritarian but what Malatesta talks about is different. Forced communization is not what they were arguing against, communization period was. Forced communization is anti-libertarian mostly because someone has the force to decide what other will do. There being sole workers who use their mean of production however they like is not in contradiction with AnarchoCommunism and common property. And the term Economic dissent is wholly empty, dissent is done politically. Anarchists wants to eliminate political authority. A dissent to absence of authority wants some political power. A dissent to community is someone alone, communal property is not a political regime.
It is also possible to kick the CEO out.
Explanation in this video is incomplete - anarchism has form of private property. Under capitalism are facilities privately owned but under anarchism are not owned fully collectively, but at some level which spontaneously emerge from the will of workers.
- Capitalistic private property means "I own factory, you work here, so I profit from your work, beacause I give you smaller wage than you earned". This kind of private property should be fully abolished and single factories should be collectively owned by their workers. But THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT WHOLE SOCIETY COLLECTIVELY OWN THIS FACTORY.
- For example, imagine two factories lead democratically by local workers. Each has other interests and they do not want to unite. Or there is one factory with two disagreeing group of its workers so this factory splits into two, so groups will privately lead them. Or I do not want to join any society, so I lead myself. Anarchism mean this. Not collectivism in meaning "you must unite" - it is in conflict with federalism.
- Anarchism is not fully collective ownership, so it is contrast with communism at the concrete time, but it leads to communism, because united factories are more effective than separated, so society under anarchism is by the natural selection evolving to communism. Remember, this is happening only when private junkies are free to eliminate themselves in private separated groups smaller than is effective. Communism does not mean "be communist now!" - it is not the way to free will communism, but to autoritarian, which needs form of hierarchy, which is the very opposite of communism.
So basically the people regulate the economy? Correct me if I’m wrong. That in itself is government, am I wrong? How do we keep the power balanced in a society like this?
Democracy
Ahh that Maurice Brinton essay on The Bolsheviks and Worker's Control is a favorite, right alongside My Disillusionment In Russia. Good pull. Anybody who is into Brinton should check out Paul Mattick. I think he was an absolutely brilliant writer and theorist. He also has a lot of work critiquing Bolshevism and Leninism from a libertarian Marxist perspective, a lot of work about communism and worker's councils, a lot of very effective historical analysis as well as very straightforward, penetrable theory and criticism.
Great video!
David Pakman usually has some decent content on US politics for a liberal, his analysis is clearly lacking nuance here though and his arguments are pretty ignorant really. Thank you for calling him out on this!
You couldn't enact communism at national scale, national scale is defined by nation-state. Communism would left a state shaped hole in nation, would be federal.
So you propose that neighborhood assemblies on a municipal scale would suffice? And if so, would you base it on both a rational and intuitive ideologue?
CosmoShidan Yeah, those will suffice for almost anything. For decisions that will effect a vast group of people, a type of democracy can be implemented But everyone governing themselves is mostly enough with good communication. Ideologue? Masses have their own ideas. Someone can be more right and that person can prove his ideas to masses by demonstration or by example. Masses giving away their volition is never a good idea.
To clarify, I meant that a social municipality be not around the modernist notion of reason alone. It's something that I feel is a poor notion of an open, free society, because it invites discrimination against religious people who are progressive. Apologies for the vagues in my question!
CosmoShidan I don't mind alternative justifications for decisions as long as it stays within the limits of freely made decisions. God compelled me to do X will always be problematic because it is a surrender of volition, but as long as someone consciously makes a decision out of their free will, or any equivalent concept - desire for example - intuition or any secondary pillars to this decision is ok for me. There are decisions that should be done with reason and those with intuition but idk which is which, people should decide it themselves.
fishlove69 That's what i said, stateless communism is a global federation. Nation scale is defined by a singular authority's power's limits. By "State shaped hole" i did not imply necessity for a state, rather reason for a nation state to exist.
Weren't the Bolsheviks essentially Social Democratic in policy?
The expropriation of the means of production by the working class would necessarily be authoritarian. A horizontally organized working class doesn't change that. But that in no way means that the society that results from that expropriation would be authoritarian. Organization of the working class ("prefiguration") is important for how it reflects and influences the post-revolution society, but it doesn't change the authoritarian nature of expropriation. Jumping through hoops to deny the authoritarian nature of revolution only obscures things, IMO.
Libertarian socialism sounds like the way to go for a good society.
There is a worry I have about democracy, one that has been expressed elsewhere many times, of the many controlling the few. Let's say 49% of workers want one thing, while 51% of workers want another. Does that mean 49% of workers must do what the other 51% desire? There is another worry that I don't hear talked about as much. What balance is there to this democratic power?
I admit I am not very well read in these subjects, but my interest is piqued. I would love to hear solutions people have proposed for these worries.
Depends on how you define authoritarian I guess
I get the point he makes, and i don't think that he confuses anything. A revolution would be an authoritarian act against a certain minority group, the capitalists and politicians. But the point is, as you stated, the defensive character of violence that would actually be a counter revolution to the counter revolution which would follow a general strike.
Thought experiment: If we could have a general strike without violent repression following (which is my dream as a pacifist, but veeery unlikely), no violence would have to be used to defend it and therefore, since capitalists would silently accept or at least not speak out against the new order, the revolution would not contain any authoritarian measures and the old elites could in some way be reintegrated into the new society (This sounds oddly like gulags, now that i have written it, but it is not what i had in mind.....). As i said: thought experiment...... not going to happen.....
Sir Donnerbold Duck A minority group of citizens is a republican view point. They are opressors of people for Anarchists, they are not people. They are above the society not a part of it.
I suppose you mean they are not THE people. I mean it would be pretty radical to deny their biological human character. And i think they should become a part of society. After the revolution, their class would cease to exist, because of the significant lack of means of production to own. Integration although difficult, would be way less cruel than just killing them all.... I don't like killing people outside of self defense. For anarchists, this is just fighting capitalism on its own moral level, that level we are criticizing and trying to abolish.
Sir Donnerbold Duck Of course, when they come down to society's level they regain their humanity But as they are rulers, they are authority, using force over them is not like using authority over people. We don't need to kill em all, but their assasination would be self defense if done right.
Great insight! 4:58-5:11
If we want to build an egalitarian society, we have to create horizontal social relations in the existing world, as it is. That's the whole point of the condition of pre-figuration."
This is a great insight as to the difficulty of design and implementation of parallel geopolitical economic systems. Structurally perverse incentives that encourage participation in corruption of vertical command economies is difficult to resist. Highly leveraged debt-financed extractive economies that mechanize monetary policy to exploit the characteristics of artificially scarce markets are manipulated to create asset-value inflationary bubbles (otherwise seen in the symptoms of the "business cycle"). This type of economic austerity methodology of wealth extraction in a post-production consumerism economy accelerates the stratification of wealth as a covert strategy of subverting and privatizing nation-state control of currencies, commons, and labor valuation.
This is an interesting (solvable) problem whose solution is contingent upon the legitimacy with which multiple variations of a socially responsible exchange economies could disintermediate and localize markets in ways that devalue commodification of shallow resource pools.
A regulatory approach will lock the economic ship into "irons" by disabling the progressive income and wealth distribution affects as seen in expanding frontier-growth economies. The differences in nation labor-regulations favor simultaneous devaluation of commodity prices and labor costs through the subsidization of labor arbitrage tactics. Neoliberal globalization is a race to the bottom: civilization collapse.
How the fuck does one believe that a capitalist society is self-determining.
Anyway it's great to see someone on the left take on Pakman's center liberal BS.
He essentially whipped out a tankie argument. "Revolution is an inherently authoritarian act" is, while technically true, the mark of an arch concern troll. Technically, it is necessary to "oppress" the capitalist class, but who is being oppressed was a moment ago a class of dictators and its eager to return to dictatorship. Socialism is about being liberated from totalitarianism into a democratic economy, libertarian socialism is about a skepticism of bureaucracy, states, centralised administration, the imposition of strict social laws, and mass incarceration for the sake of "reeducation" as means to administrate the process. That is, it is a socialism of liberty, liberating people and peoples to decide their own destiny without a daddy-knows-best state breathing down their neck. Having to use a little bit of mass authority to get the job done has nothing to do with it. Movement towards liberty is not tainted and suddenly destroyed by the mere presence of authority, it's not even possible to abolish authority entirely.
I think he probably didn't know about the direct democracy bit that decides policy
Cam knocks it out of the park again!!!
There's also the issue that David seems not to recognize that capitalism is and has to be authoritarian, but he doesn't seem to have anything against that. He only opposes authoritarianism if it comes from socialists. so weird.
I've missed these response videos
The strange thing is, David is actually very aware of revolutionary Spain and much of the things mentioned in this video. He just doesn't seem to acknowledge them when discussing socialism in those videos. Watch his Debunking Socialism Has Never Worked video. I'm a little confused as to why he doesn't acknowledge left-libertarian socialism in these subsequent videos, or the non-authoritarian ideals of socialism generally, or why he ignored the general socialist argument that the status quo is inherently authoritarian and violent.
Then again, he's been very much focused on the whole Russiagate thing instead of the substantial issues he used to lately. I wonder what's going on there. I'm fearing the worst.
How can society ever be equal when skills and talents aren't equally distributed? E.g. Not everyone can become doctors, lawyers, engineers, accountants or managers. Some are just capable of being nurses, law clerks, technicians, bookkeepers and assistants. The former would just argue that they deserve more - bigger houses, first class seats, etc. - as without them, the communist star-trek utopia would just fall apart
We need to sort some event out that gets the left youtube channels together in the U.K, I think it could really do some good.
if you force people to do so it is. Common ownership in it self is not.
I think Pakman only uses the term authoritarian to describe workers ownership out of a) simple ignorance of the libertarian socialist alternative, or b) the idea that expropiation from bosses is a violent act against their freedom to control us, which is of course ridiculous, because (as mentioned in the video) it ignores the self-defense nature of this action. Plus, the freedom of the few powerful at the expense of the working majority is not freedom at all.
This is completely unrelated but how would an anarchist society handle public services like healthcare
Democratic control by free federations of workers. See Peter Gelderloos, Anarchy Works, or Gaston Leval's writings on the socialisation of medicine in 'Collectives in the Spanish Revolution'
Libertarian Socialist Rants ok thanks im currently reading anarchism and workers self managment in revulutionionary spain
That is a good read
To be fair most people probably never heard of libertarian socialism. Edit: Ok, Packman dose know about it.
I'm not sure when these videos were posted, but I recently did a video response to a video made by Packman trying to introduce people to the ideas of socialism. In it he acknowledges the existence of Anarchism and Anarcho-syndicalism as approaches to socialism and goes on about the success of the Anarchist social revolution in Spain 1936. In that video however, he seems to advocate social democracies in Western Europe as the best kind of "socialism". He also tries to argue that state planning in slave empires was socialist.
David Pakman to me never seemed like he had his ideas in order. It's dishonest to mention Barcelona (1936-1939) and still think that Social Democracy is better. Pakman among other liberals would argue that they lasted longer. By that logic the USSR lasting for 70 years showed that authoritarian socialism was a better alternative than Barcelona's 3 year existence. Another thing to bear in mind is that places like Denmark and Sweden still receive a lot of support from the United States and it's resources are from either poor developing exploited countries and Middle Eastern dictatorships. If you asked me I think some of the arguments that liberals use why the Scandinavian model is better has some roots in racism (as in many think the reason is because of white homogeneous nations get it done)
Let's also not forget that in this year's election in Sweden a party with fascist roots (Sweden Democrats) is currently in first and if they get more power than the claims of Social Democracy have to be escrutinized.
My point is this. Liberal "pure good, kind and white" Social Democracies elect fascists, Anarchist societies send them to the grave. Send that message to a liberal you know.
He does know venuzuala is a social democracy right?