How can we maximise the degree of freedom available to us in any given situation? Leave your thoughts in the comments. To watch the full talk, head to iai.tv/video/inside-anarchy-sophie-scott-brown?UA-cam&
Have to admit that there are several entrepreneurs locally that the Paris commune may not have approved of, but they can be kind in a patronising kind of way. Lapdog.
@@Micheal313 Cannot blame you. Talk about statistical analysis and the fascist apologists immediately want to discuss racism and scewed data in relation to it. Racists probably invented the phrase 'any publicity is good publicity'.
I would love to watch the full talk but unfortunately your site is broken and despite becoming a member just now, it seems like a worthless subscription to have if I am unable to watch any of these full talks. I have seen others comment similar things about technical issues with this platform. Please fix it or upload the full talks on UA-cam.
@@stepharcnciel yea, this channel didn't seem to go far. Maybe you should contribute some of your thoughts on it to liven things up a bit. Degrees of freedom seems to be a mathematical concept that gets used loosely in sociological circumstances.
It's so refreshing to have another person talking about those ideas. I'm talking about it almost word by word, starting a decade ago. Refreshing, I'm felling less lonely ob this path. Thank you, Sophie.
@@Shan7y77 I'm pretty sure you're not the only one. Anarchist philosophy has been talked about by various important figures in the past as well, and it's very likely they share your thoughts. So don't feel alone.
"John Burroughs has stated that experimental study of animals in captivity is absolutely useless. Their character, their habits, their appetites undergo a complete transformation when torn from their soil in field and forest. With human nature caged in a narrow space, whipped daily into submission, how can we speak of its potentialities?" ~ Emma Goldman
Yeah that's correct. What might best be called natural anarchism -- humans living under natural law -- is the only true anarchism because agricultural civilization itself is structurally hierarchical, rendering as fiat/idealistic/oxymoronic all other theories of 'anarchism.' The key to a mature anarchism, which, like any mature understanding is a systems theory, is a foundation in the classical cultural anthropology that peaked as a field in the 1970s that then, for obvious political reasons, was subsumed by fiat 'anthropology.' True (natural) anarchism is ever-increasingly relevant because we are now five years post- Peak Total Global Oil Liquids production which means the multidecadal(?) terminal collapse of industrial civilization is well underway. What normies wave away as the "new normal."
@@bendyhere Do you have evidence of what is an 'agricultural civilization' and how its structurally hierarchical? That doesn't make much sense. Almost ALL civilizations have developed agriculture. First nations on the east coast of canada of course used agriculture but were not structurally hierarchical. Of course hierarchy can mean anything, what ELSE is there? I'm sure most societies you find adults raising children. Thats of course a hierarchy, but the word is meaningless when it can mean to innu people they never even yell at children and western traditions where they were working at cleaning chimneys at 3.
@mikearchibald744 I belive the suggestion implied that for us to have accurate data of the proposed potentialities we would be forced to _start_ with those indigenous peoples to acquire more accurate data.
perfectly explained! no permanent government and no delegation of powers, always participating in the social construction from the root of the problems to their solution. Great speech from Sophie
Welcome to the idea of true democracy! Anarcho-syndicalism and contractualism is the answer for an egalitarian society, simply because there is no one answer. The only problem is educating and empowering citizens to believe they truly can achieve a better life through responsible participation in governance ☺️
There's room for anarcho-communism and democratic confederalism too. Anarchist society is about having a plurality of solutions. It makes it more robust when something fails, but mostly tolerance is good for its own sake.
Oof democracy isn't a part of anarchism. If you want others voting on how you live your life that is no different than having a government I personally would rather have the best doctor, the best airline pilot, and the best electrician than be egalitarian. Further forcing the "equality" is by its nature tyrannical
Like your style of anarchism. Much more acceptable to me than a nihilistic version and I'm glad I heard you can function with such views and it gives me hope of sensible speech when confronted by those taught I am their enemy pig.
Anarchism is never nihilistic. People, individually, want to survive and thrive in life, it’s our nature. Statism has lead to some pretty nihilistic societies, think communism, socialism, nationalism, national socialism. We actually know what more government equals as far as nihilism is concerned.
@@octaviannkya9417 He uses the word statism in his own understanding of it. Actually it is probably a very poor term since it leads to questions of a diversity as complex as individuals concepts of the word 'love'. We could spend all night waffling on about definitions when how to cope with dominance and unfair control would be far more important to address.
@@richardchapman1592 statism is far more precise a term than love. Terrible comparison. Rather than casting aspersions about other people’s understanding of something, prove your own understanding. Fancy dismissing statism in a conversation about “unfair control” as you put it. That’s rather strange given the context of the two to each other.
I've lived this way for 30 years, think for myself and value humanity, nature and ingenuity. It is the root mind of a free spirit, to feel and be animal whilst being human is a freedom of immanence all should have. I eschew conformity, property, fetishizing possessions but value quality, excellence and engagement with meaning. In this way, one connects with what is magical in lifes potential....open to opening and openness. The blood and the heart of a rebel but the mind and soul of an artist.
Yea, it can make one despondant but sticking to the rules of Jesus whilst guided by authority to the apex of the roof of a church sect to be tempted may show you that true believing isn't to be messed with.
I look around me and think.. We need food, shelter, clothes, and each other. Each other is super deep. We literally come out of each other's bodies. Humans are like the tuned fruit of the Earth, adjusted and intended for something. Why do you be? Why do you persist? Why does anyone truly persist? I know why I do.
This very much just sounds like an idealized democracy. I would argue that no one truly wants anarchy, even the version most people think of still has its hierarchies and culture that each group would follow. The very concept is against human nature since humans are social and true anarchy is a very antisocial way of living and forming any kind of group means making a personal sacrifice on some level.
So you are trying to spread an idea about an ideal social order, but half of that idea is behind a paywall 👏 That's not gonna convince a lot of people i guess.
This sounds entirely compatible many forms of government, and incompatible with many of the decentralized activist groups I typically associate with anarchism.
Every organization starts with a small number of people. Also theorists and praxis tends to diverge quite a bit with almost any politic, but especially with anarchy, partly because of the nonhierarchical nature of it, partly because we are human and often fail to live and act with our beliefs, partly because if done right just like a magic trick there's going to be things shown or hidden, and partly, just like almost any other ideology, there's going to be those well educated and nuanced when it comes to it and those who've picked up just a few things and don't look too deep.
@@ethanstump jives with my sense that anarchism is among the more chimerical of prescriptions. Its primary drivers all seem to be in the realm of rejecting (not building up ) practices. Which makes it feel more coherent when there’s something specific to reject, and vacuous when there isn’t. What shes describing works basically that way--a tool to keep in your pocket , and use as needed to navigate various more proactive practices we are surrounded by.
@@iridescentsquids for me at least, it's easier to think of it as a negation, or a disinterest, rather than a prescription. not everything needs to be a solution, it's just as useful to know what problems you have, just as it is useful to know what way's you can solve that problem. an easier parallel i believe for the contemporary moment (at least for the younger generations) is actually atheism. atheism has been extremely useful to me as an exmormon, because it's helped me understand what i can safely discard, and if i keep things from my upbringing, on what terms i keep it, and if i learn new things, to discard it at my discretion, rather than others. it's also helped me sharpen my criteria, the concepts i use, and what i consider valid empiricism. don't get me wrong, what she is saying goes heavily into theory and is coherent, but the whole point of anarchy, an archia, is no officials. it's accepting radical uncertainty, it's accepting error and ignorance as fundamental conditions of the human experience. yes, there are many things we can use to mitigate, to break up, to change this uncertainty, and many things we can do to increase it, to consolidate it and to make it plain and apparent. both are certainly useful, but it is fundamentally impossible to negate uncertainty entirely, and even if it were, most people i think not only wouldn't be used to it, but wouldn't desire it anyway. half the fun in learning, is that you don't know what's next. accepting that, celebrating it, learning how to use it and to fight against it, is something i think most people can relate to.
Start small. Join or set up a cooperative. i.e., get practice cooperating with people without hierarchy. This will get a bit messy in larger groups, because human interaction is inherently complex. So make sure you take care of yourself as well and don't burn yourself out. Don't try to change the entire world on your own, just do what you can (and want). As you and everyone around you get more and more used to cooperating with people without hierarchy you will get better at it and you can expand and get more members in. Over time as you join or set up more and more different cooperatives (I advise against having a single huge coop to do everything) more and more of your needs will be met without hierarchy, and at some point you'll notice you've spent an entire year without interacting with any kind of hierarchy. At this point you'll realize you've already lived in an anarchist society for a year.
The "cynical uncle" asks normal sceptical questions that anyone might have, and after much ado the answer amounts to something like "Well, you only have those reservations because of the capitalistic system we're in. See, unlike my thinking, your thinking and assumtions is affected by the system we live under." and "I don't know the answers to these straight forward questions that contain to some degree reasonable assumptions about human nature, but we should still talk about anarchism". Yeah? Wasn't that exactly what your uncle was trying to do? The bit with social liberty is interesting. Humans live in cultures, it's a human universal. With cultures come restraining mores that are in the interest of the individual to respect for social inclusion and success. Yes, this is often problematic in terms of individual liberty. Yet it's necessary to some degree. But it's such a cock-eyed way to relate to this problem to not acknowledge the other values that are at stake other than maximum individual social liberty. I suppose its good anyway to see this framed as a social or cultural movement, rather than political. That's the one way these leftist ideologies may have a future, as social movements or subcultures, with an alternative set of mores and values to offer its adherents. As long as they stay out of politics and political activism, all is well and good. They won't though, but rather want to tear everything "hierarchical" or whatever, down, before even having an idea or caring about what to replace it with.
Love is unnatural, the whole point about egalitarianism is for human (individuals) to know themselves (warts & all) and then aim higher by being our better - stronger, loving, unnatural - selves: via TEMET NOSCE… …this is achieved through love: Loving what you love to do, for who you Love… …and just all the understanding that Love & human nature (being, feeling & knowing ourselves) is founded on. Nature produces diamonds, but it takes a ‘crafty’ hooman with artistic intelligence to cut & polish that ‘jewel’, ya dig?
Anarchism and Quantum Theory, I think its like the collapse of the wave function, when you focus on individuals they begin to act as a wave of people. it just works, but why it works is harder to quantify. Like newtonian physics, the older ways of thinking like the capitalist models of interactions still work at the micro scale, but when applied to the larger context breaks down as self interest interference patterns effect the outcome.
Also it’s important to learn about how technology is not value neutral and how multi-polar traps work. A lot of the objections to what human nature is , all human nature studies are human nature studies within civilization made up up many multipolar traps. We didn’t study things before civilization. In fact the dark ages themselves where still occuring in civilization😊
It's not fair to answer with - 'I don't know' on the most important question about anarchy. How to keep control without of permanent police authority? Or we should all be police officers on odd/even days. Even though we all have different definitions on what one can, or cannot do.
By the time the police are involved, it's too late, the deed is done... but the essential factor is simply that control is not only an illusion but unnecessary. Control is the problem as it is one person, or a group, saying; this is the only way. That is ignorance of the actuality of life. It denies freedom of learning, or exploring, of developing.
All of those questions have been answer, very thoroughly, by anarchist scholars who have been writing on the subject for the past 250 years. She's merely presenting the "I don't know" answer as the appropriate reaction to those questions because they're kind of unimportant to what modern anarchists want to accomplish, which is push the world to a more equitable, free place.
@@LyricalTampon ANARCHY: Anarchy is a state in which there are no rulers; a rejection of hierarchy. The earliest recorded use of the word, from the early sixteenth century, simply meant “absence of government”, albeit with the implication of civil disorder. A similar but ameliorated meaning began to be employed in the nineteenth century, Christian era, in reference to a Utopian (that is, an idealistic) society that had NO GOVERNMENT. The English term was borrowed from the Medieval Latin word, “anarchia”, borrowed from the Greek word, “anarkhía” (“lack of a leader, lawlessness”), from “ánarchos” (“without a head or chief, leaderless”), from “an-” + “-archos”, derivative of “archós” (“leader, chief”) + “-ia”. It should be obvious that ANARCHY can never ever succeed, because even the smallest possible social unit (the nuclear family) requires a dominator. Any family will fall-apart without a strict male household head. Factually-speaking, without the husband/father, there is no family, by definition. The English noun “husband” comes from the Old Norse word “hûsbôndi”, meaning “master of the house”. A family is deficient without its head, just as a body without its head is incomplete. The same paradigm applies to the extended family, which depends on a strong patriarchal figure (customarily, the eldest or most senior male). Likewise, with clans, tribes, villages, towns, cities, and nations or countries. Unfortunately, there are many otherwise-intelligent persons who honestly believe that an ENTIRE country can smoothly function without a leader in place. Any sane person can easily understand that even a nuclear family is unable to function properly without a head of the house, what to speak of a populous nation. The reason for anarchists’ distrust of any kind of government is due to the corrupt nature of democratic governments, and the adulteration of the monarchy in recent centuries. However, if anarchists were to understand that most all so-called “kings/queens” in recent centuries were not even close to being true monarchs, they may change their stance on that inane “system”. Those abject fools who advocate for some kind of ANARCHISTIC society should be required to adhere to their own asinine ideology within their private domains. So, for example, a man who desires the absence of any form of national leadership, really ought to consent to that very same template upon his own family. He should not presume to be the head of his household, but rather, permit his wife and children to become his equals. Likewise, a housewife ought not rule over her children, an employer must not direct the actions of his employees, and so on, and so forth. Thereafter, it will become blatantly obvious that any form of anarchy cannot endure, assuming, of course, that in the case of a father, his household is not already fractured, which seems to be the case in most families, due to lax leadership as a consequence of poor government, crooked education, and feminism (which has as its not-so-tacit goal of destroying all forms of patriarchal structures, starting from the nuclear family). How unfortunate it is that anarchists usually can see the need for a hierarchical structure within their own domains, such as those mentioned above, yet quite impervious to the necessity of a strong regime on the national level. The hypocrisy is astounding! And for those idiots who would contend, “It is okay for me to be the head of my family but there should not be a government ruling over me”, that is not a logical argument, but merely an unjustified, emotive assertion, motivated by the fact that we humans have not been governed by a legitimate regime for at least a couple of centuries. Of course, this is not to imply that every monarch in ancient history was a holy and righteous king (or even an actual king, by definition), but the fact that we humans have survived this long, suggests that they were not the kind of demonic, evil, murderous, thieving scumbags who have ruled-over every single country and nation on the planet during the past few hundred years or so.
British police are the best form of protection racket there has ever been because so far it is democratically overseen. The criminal protection rackets are usually depicted as more ruthless. However, my experience is that the psychiatric police can, even in Britain, be ruthless through self interest and disinterest of it's operators.
@@TheWorldTeacher You are speaking about stuff that an anarchist doesn't need to believe in - it's YOUR idea of what ALL of anarchists believe. Do all people who adhere to a political party or ideology, left or right or center - do they all believe the same things even down to details? Of course not - do you not hear her say repeatedly "my type of anarchism" or "there are varieties of anarchism"? You can grab the etymology of the word but that doesn't mean you have any idea about what you are talking about. In a nutshell Anarchism is against hierarchies and against "rulers." There is also no claim that anarchism can "solve" all problems and especially not * immediately* - particularly since they haven't been solved by all the other systems to be tried. (And just a note to whomever: "Libertarian" and "Anarchy" are used differently in Europe and the North America - and American "Libertarians" are not what they were in the past even though they might think they are. Tech boys have a rather limited understanding of the world and history).
I think folks tend to overcomplicate what is pretty basic: You don't want to be murdered, so you don't murder. same goes for theft, assault and slander .. what is the penalty? whatever your would be victim, his or her friends, family, neighbors, and the odd guy who happened to see that was walking by decide .. could be you have to make an apology .. could be you get fed to a wood chipper feet first. I would recommend avoiding the error to begin with, and swiftly seeking amends when one has offended .. learned that from a cool cat named Jesus - have you heard of him? 💜
Hi Green. You are advocating mob justice to enforce mob decided ‘laws’. You also appear to be implicitly advocating that the strongest and perhaps the most violent person or group gets their way when delivering ‘justice’. This combination is often referred to as mob rule. There are many historical examples of how disastrous this is. Lynching isn’t a very reasonable long term legal strategy. [I once witnessed mob ‘justice’, delivered at a traffic accident of all things, in Bangladesh: not a pretty sight. Interestingly, the crowd then picked out a couple of random bystanders to attack.] Oddly, you then invoke Jesus? [I have to admire your flexibility.]
@@SystemsMedicine The Kings of the Earth use their overwhelming force to justify their 'law' -did you find it to be Just? Of course not - but then again, have we as men been taught the proper way of being? Hmm, I see that I am the problem here! This is Why I recommend the Good Teacher, Sir!
@@Green.Country.Agroforestry Wow Green… your reply is pithy and convincing. [I have more than merely changed my mind; I’ve changed my outlook.] I’m smiling as I write: if I ever meet you in my local cool dive pub, drinks and hors d’oeuvres on me. Cheers, and thanks for your response.
After six long boring minutes this lady finally comes up with a wobbly vague first definition of the term. She sure aint no philosophy major. This must be her first speech ever. I didnt know that anarchy also implies logic and word salad anarchy.
The point wasn't a short and snappy definition. It was to explain the aspects that are misunderstood or needing explanation about the anarchism she advocates for.
Kropotkin never liked Britain and now i see why even the anarchists aren’t anarchists. No but seriously this was a very nice vague form of anarchism at one point she said money would be fine. Congratulations! Your anarchist dream is already here would you like to be a pilot or a doctor? Oh maybe President!
Anarchy is a nice feeling without any pragmatic possibility. Any theory of “community” like this must be agreed upon and participated in, in totality by its participants. That cannot, has not, and never will happen. Any governmental system or “anarchy” must account for this fact to survive. Anarchy by definition cannot accomplish this.
You’re right to be skeptical, achieving any form of participatory democracy is difficult, and a process. However, I would recommend that you read a bit about the Catalan experience before the Civil War, where collective ownership of land and factories doubled production in a few short years after the introduction of anarcho-syndicalism. It functioned so well, it had to be destroyed by Stalin from the inside, and the fascists from the outside. Also, the Paris Commune is another example… It is hard to imagine it on a very large scale, but one can dream of mature society with a high quality of life for everyone 🙏🏻
@@zenanarchi6889it is somewhat possible, certainly short term in a small society. But, everything you wrote after that supports reality. Someone disagreed, destroyed it, and all you’re left with is your dreams.
This grade of lazy bohemian parlor debate always stops short before the part about how to implement the new order, and of course what to do about those who want the old one back. Which is why for every Lenin , there is always a Dzerzhinsky. Every time.
Leisure is valuable ron, which is why people pay so much for event tickets. And of course we aren't going to go into gory detail at a public venue, that's after-party stuff. We do have these conversations, we talk about self defense initiatives, about learning to spot threats, about pooling resources. Also your mixing up communism and anarchy here, which is as different from each other as socialism is from liberalism and liberalism from conservatism. As for the inevitable crash into violence and repression, that's inevitable for every system. Every system has its detractors and enemies, but for anarchy, since every state is founded on violence, we have a unique incentive to not act violently that other ideologies just don't have. I'm not going to sit here and act like we are saints, that's for evangelicals to do. But just because we don't want to harm others, doesn't mean we can't curb stomp someone who is swinging at us.
This is a bit abstract. I've explored several aspects of practical anarchy in my books. I draw inspiration from Lysander Spooner, Murray Rothbard, Marc Stevens, etc..
Way to go. Real anarchists! This lady is more influenced by Kropotkin and is more of a democratic socialist with a bit of sympathy to some voluntarism she’s not really actual anarchist.
@@bramvanduijn8086 I haven't heard the whole talk. I hope she's not advocating that we must abide by votes of strangers. I'm glad there's any kind of discussion here at all. Cheers!
@@maxbarker356 I don't think she is a democratic socialist if she advocates for direct democracy. Anarchist history as a movement is tied to the left section of the workers' movement, hence if an anarchist advocates some form of democratic governance does not mean that they are not advocating for anarchism, that's just a skewed view of an intellectual school of thought.
Why not just skip the anarchy descriptor. Since anarchy literally means no structure (and will never mean anything else) you can't have an anarchic structured society.
@@richardchapman1592 No offense meant but, could you please rephrase that? Unless you were simply making a convoluted attempt at being obtuse or sarcastic.
Was only a philosophical pisstake. Considerations of reality require the structures of thought we are endowed with. Not very practical but pissed off the fuel consuming traffic today by dragging a deconstructed bed to the tip to demonstrate local recycling. That was satisfying in terms of green energy but a confrontation to fuel abusers in an unintended spinoff that frustration induced me to. Apologies for getting autobiographical.
She’s sort of describing the United States of America 😂. Absence of permanent authority. We impeach, we vote and our leaders have limits on how long they can stay in office. Supreme Court justices are unfortunately the exception to this
@@snowballeffect7812 you just made a statement with no explanation. I’ve never heard someone make a claim and not back it up with data or some semblance of proof. That’s not an argument brotha
@@Provocateur991 i didn't realize something obvious needed supporting evidence. I thought the old white men and capitalists who write all our laws was evidence enough.
I like your cartoon man picture! Just FYI, she's not advocating for anarchy. She's advocating for anarchism. The fact that you don't know the difference is very funny given the level of confidence in your comment, though.
European civilization was initially based in the Catholic Church and Monarchy's which gave way to secular forms of government. More importantly the extended family was the basis for personal governance and social stability well into the Twentieth Century.
De centralisation literally down to local areas , one term government local councillors with a maximum of one term and removable at any time commerce but not capitalism gold , silver or local social credit, no money printing, jobs based on social worth healthcare for all no military accept home defense
@@maxbarker356 no this is utter BS and misinfo.. monarchy is one is the WORST - anarchism is about egalitarian participation and decision makin in every aspect that affects people and each other.
@@TimoDcTheLikelyLad speaking of bs, you’re saying egalitarianism underpins anarchism. No it doesn’t. Where people are free of rulers they are uneven/unequal. Egalitarianism underpins the various statisms. It takes a considerable amount of government to make people equal. And generally it involves more pulling down the competent contributors to society more than it does pulling up those with little to contribute. Judging by your photo you’re an Anarcho communist, so you don’t see how egalitarianism is antithetical to anarchism. Which is interesting because how do you judge what’s equal without some sort of judge/authority/ruler? Individual or corporate? And how do you enforce that equality without using authority/rule ultimately backed by force? Which is what a government is in essence. Anarcho communism is misinfo. It’s a contradiction in terms.
ANARCHY: Anarchy is a state in which there are no rulers; a rejection of hierarchy. The earliest recorded use of the word, from the early sixteenth century, simply meant “absence of government”, albeit with the implication of civil disorder. A similar but ameliorated meaning began to be employed in the nineteenth century, Christian era, in reference to a Utopian (that is, an idealistic) society that had NO GOVERNMENT. The English term was borrowed from the Medieval Latin word, “anarchia”, borrowed from the Greek word, “anarkhía” (“lack of a leader, lawlessness”), from “ánarchos” (“without a head or chief, leaderless”), from “an-” + “-archos”, derivative of “archós” (“leader, chief”) + “-ia”. It should be obvious that ANARCHY can never ever succeed, because even the smallest possible social unit (the nuclear family) requires a dominator. Any family will fall-apart without a strict male household head. Factually-speaking, without the husband/father, there is no family, by definition. The English noun “husband” comes from the Old Norse word “hûsbôndi”, meaning “master of the house”. A family is deficient without its head, just as a body without its head is incomplete. The same paradigm applies to the extended family, which depends on a strong patriarchal figure (customarily, the eldest or most senior male). Likewise, with clans, tribes, villages, towns, cities, and nations or countries. Unfortunately, there are many otherwise-intelligent persons who honestly believe that an ENTIRE country can smoothly function without a leader in place. Any sane person can easily understand that even a nuclear family is unable to function properly without a head of the house, what to speak of a populous nation. The reason for anarchists’ distrust of any kind of government is due to the corrupt nature of democratic governments, and the adulteration of the monarchy in recent centuries. However, if anarchists were to understand that most all so-called “kings/queens” in recent centuries were not even close to being true monarchs, they may change their stance on that inane “system”. Those abject fools who advocate for some kind of ANARCHISTIC society should be required to adhere to their own asinine ideology within their private domains. So, for example, a man who desires the absence of any form of national leadership, really ought to consent to that very same template upon his own family. He should not presume to be the head of his household, but rather, permit his wife and children to become his equals. Likewise, a housewife ought not rule over her children, an employer must not direct the actions of his employees, and so on, and so forth. Thereafter, it will become blatantly obvious that any form of anarchy cannot endure, assuming, of course, that in the case of a father, his household is not already fractured, which seems to be the case in most families, due to lax leadership as a consequence of poor government, crooked education, and feminism (which has as its not-so-tacit goal of destroying all forms of patriarchal structures, starting from the nuclear family). How unfortunate it is that anarchists usually can see the need for a hierarchical structure within their own domains, such as those mentioned above, yet quite impervious to the necessity of a strong regime on the national level. The hypocrisy is astounding! And for those idiots who would contend, “It is okay for me to be the head of my family but there should not be a government ruling over me”, that is not a logical argument, but merely an unjustified, emotive assertion, motivated by the fact that we humans have not been governed by a legitimate regime for at least a couple of centuries. Of course, this is not to imply that every monarch in ancient history was a holy and righteous king (or even an actual king, by definition), but the fact that we humans have survived this long, suggests that they were not the kind of demonic, evil, murderous, thieving scumbags who have ruled-over every single country and nation on the planet during the past few hundred years or so.
You're projecting a lot when you try to imagine how anarchists see their role in their household, business, or social club. Have you tried talking to actual anarchists in a somewhat respectful manner? You might get a more realistic view of how anarchists think.
How about audience of this show would reject mrs brown authority over her wallet and made collective democratic decision to go get pizza and then other lady appointed go get it made individual decision that authority of temporary democratic body made wrong decision about property and she decide to keep it for her self. Ms Brown speaks brilliant things but if you scratch that vision a little you can see beneficiants of this things would be gangs and corporations.
How can we maximise the degree of freedom available to us in any given situation? Leave your thoughts in the comments.
To watch the full talk, head to iai.tv/video/inside-anarchy-sophie-scott-brown?UA-cam&
Have to admit that there are several entrepreneurs locally that the Paris commune may not have approved of, but they can be kind in a patronising kind of way. Lapdog.
@@Micheal313 Cannot blame you. Talk about statistical analysis and the fascist apologists immediately want to discuss racism and scewed data in relation to it. Racists probably invented the phrase 'any publicity is good publicity'.
I would love to watch the full talk but unfortunately your site is broken and despite becoming a member just now, it seems like a worthless subscription to have if I am unable to watch any of these full talks.
I have seen others comment similar things about technical issues with this platform. Please fix it or upload the full talks on UA-cam.
@@stepharcnciel yea, this channel didn't seem to go far. Maybe you should contribute some of your thoughts on it to liven things up a bit. Degrees of freedom seems to be a mathematical concept that gets used loosely in sociological circumstances.
It's so refreshing to have another person talking about those ideas. I'm talking about it almost word by word, starting a decade ago.
Refreshing, I'm felling less lonely ob this path. Thank you, Sophie.
@@Shan7y77 I'm pretty sure you're not the only one. Anarchist philosophy has been talked about by various important figures in the past as well, and it's very likely they share your thoughts. So don't feel alone.
@@RAyLV17to safe to boring to middle class for me
"John Burroughs has stated that experimental study of animals in captivity is absolutely useless. Their character, their habits, their appetites undergo a complete transformation when torn from their soil in field and forest. With human nature caged in a narrow space, whipped daily into submission, how can we speak of its potentialities?" ~ Emma Goldman
Yeah that's correct. What might best be called natural anarchism -- humans living under natural law -- is the only true anarchism because agricultural civilization itself is structurally hierarchical, rendering as fiat/idealistic/oxymoronic all other theories of 'anarchism.'
The key to a mature anarchism, which, like any mature understanding is a systems theory, is a foundation in the classical cultural anthropology that peaked as a field in the 1970s that then, for obvious political reasons, was subsumed by fiat 'anthropology.'
True (natural) anarchism is ever-increasingly relevant because we are now five years post- Peak Total Global Oil Liquids production which means the multidecadal(?) terminal collapse of industrial civilization is well underway. What normies wave away as the "new normal."
@@bendyhere Do you have evidence of what is an 'agricultural civilization' and how its structurally hierarchical? That doesn't make much sense. Almost ALL civilizations have developed agriculture. First nations on the east coast of canada of course used agriculture but were not structurally hierarchical. Of course hierarchy can mean anything, what ELSE is there? I'm sure most societies you find adults raising children. Thats of course a hierarchy, but the word is meaningless when it can mean to innu people they never even yell at children and western traditions where they were working at cleaning chimneys at 3.
@mikearchibald744 I belive the suggestion implied that for us to have accurate data of the proposed potentialities we would be forced to _start_ with those indigenous peoples to acquire more accurate data.
perfectly explained! no permanent government and no delegation of powers, always participating in the social construction from the root of the problems to their solution. Great speech from Sophie
Anarchism is simply a society of mature individuals who treat others as equals.
And that is exactly why it would not work. Most adults are not mature.
@@prolarka I agree, but this changing slowly.
Why not upload the whole video? :'(
The one on the website seems to be very laggy.
Welcome to the idea of true democracy! Anarcho-syndicalism and contractualism is the answer for an egalitarian society, simply because there is no one answer. The only problem is educating and empowering citizens to believe they truly can achieve a better life through responsible participation in governance ☺️
There's room for anarcho-communism and democratic confederalism too. Anarchist society is about having a plurality of solutions. It makes it more robust when something fails, but mostly tolerance is good for its own sake.
Oof democracy isn't a part of anarchism.
If you want others voting on how you live your life that is no different than having a government
I personally would rather have the best doctor, the best airline pilot, and the best electrician than be egalitarian.
Further forcing the "equality" is by its nature tyrannical
To safe to boring defently to middle class, working class no surrender to the snob
Like your style of anarchism. Much more acceptable to me than a nihilistic version and I'm glad I heard you can function with such views and it gives me hope of sensible speech when confronted by those taught I am their enemy pig.
Anarchism is never nihilistic. People, individually, want to survive and thrive in life, it’s our nature.
Statism has lead to some pretty nihilistic societies, think communism, socialism, nationalism, national socialism. We actually know what more government equals as far as nihilism is concerned.
The old ism's look less attractive with capitalism's consumerism ruining the planet.
@maxbarker356 what is statism?is it the same thing as communism and socialism?and how did it make nihilistic societies?
@@octaviannkya9417 He uses the word statism in his own understanding of it. Actually it is probably a very poor term since it leads to questions of a diversity as complex as individuals concepts of the word 'love'. We could spend all night waffling on about definitions when how to cope with dominance and unfair control would be far more important to address.
@@richardchapman1592 statism is far more precise a term than love. Terrible comparison. Rather than casting aspersions about other people’s understanding of something, prove your own understanding.
Fancy dismissing statism in a conversation about “unfair control” as you put it. That’s rather strange given the context of the two to each other.
I've lived this way for 30 years, think for myself and value humanity, nature and ingenuity. It is the root mind of a free spirit, to feel and be animal whilst being human is a freedom of immanence all should have. I eschew conformity, property, fetishizing possessions but value quality, excellence and engagement with meaning. In this way, one connects with what is magical in lifes potential....open to opening and openness. The blood and the heart of a rebel but the mind and soul of an artist.
If we work around the idea of this quote
“Surviving the Universe is a true goal”
Everything should fall into place to ensure that outcome.
I used a part of her book about Colin Ward for my PhD thesis...very well written.
upload full vids please your website is broken, cant watch videos as a member
Very insightful presentation. I always thought anarchism to be very difficult to implement, but your description of anarchism has lots of great ideas
Thank you for educating and busting the bad image of anarchy unfortunately most people still belief... anarchism or doom - im not makin the rules.
Yea, it can make one despondant but sticking to the rules of Jesus whilst guided by authority to the apex of the roof of a church sect to be tempted may show you that true believing isn't to be messed with.
The reason they believe that is because of the ancoms and anarco-syndicalist
Ursula Le Guin's The Dispossessed
The fair share and hoarding objections. We already have those issues in the system we have built.
That was really nice! Finished the video on the other site with no problems. Thank you for sharing your ideas!
I look around me and think..
We need food, shelter, clothes, and each other. Each other is super deep. We literally come out of each other's bodies.
Humans are like the tuned fruit of the Earth, adjusted and intended for something.
Why do you be? Why do you persist? Why does anyone truly persist? I know why I do.
This very much just sounds like an idealized democracy. I would argue that no one truly wants anarchy, even the version most people think of still has its hierarchies and culture that each group would follow. The very concept is against human nature since humans are social and true anarchy is a very antisocial way of living and forming any kind of group means making a personal sacrifice on some level.
Well, at about 6minutes you have your answer
Also learning to deal better with with uncertainty and ambiguity is a skill that needs to be deliberetly done
Anarchy is not the same as chaos. Depends on the definition/context. Pure democracy might considered anarchy? No hier-archy.
So you are trying to spread an idea about an ideal social order, but half of that idea is behind a paywall 👏 That's not gonna convince a lot of people i guess.
I fell for her
This sounds entirely compatible many forms of government, and incompatible with many of the decentralized activist groups I typically associate with anarchism.
Every organization starts with a small number of people. Also theorists and praxis tends to diverge quite a bit with almost any politic, but especially with anarchy, partly because of the nonhierarchical nature of it, partly because we are human and often fail to live and act with our beliefs, partly because if done right just like a magic trick there's going to be things shown or hidden, and partly, just like almost any other ideology, there's going to be those well educated and nuanced when it comes to it and those who've picked up just a few things and don't look too deep.
@@ethanstump jives with my sense that anarchism is among the more chimerical of prescriptions. Its primary drivers all seem to be in the realm of rejecting (not building up ) practices. Which makes it feel more coherent when there’s something specific to reject, and vacuous when there isn’t. What shes describing works basically that way--a tool to keep in your pocket , and use as needed to navigate various more proactive practices we are surrounded by.
@@iridescentsquids for me at least, it's easier to think of it as a negation, or a disinterest, rather than a prescription. not everything needs to be a solution, it's just as useful to know what problems you have, just as it is useful to know what way's you can solve that problem.
an easier parallel i believe for the contemporary moment (at least for the younger generations) is actually atheism. atheism has been extremely useful to me as an exmormon, because it's helped me understand what i can safely discard, and if i keep things from my upbringing, on what terms i keep it, and if i learn new things, to discard it at my discretion, rather than others. it's also helped me sharpen my criteria, the concepts i use, and what i consider valid empiricism.
don't get me wrong, what she is saying goes heavily into theory and is coherent, but the whole point of anarchy, an archia, is no officials.
it's accepting radical uncertainty, it's accepting error and ignorance as fundamental conditions of the human experience. yes, there are many things we can use to mitigate, to break up, to change this uncertainty, and many things we can do to increase it, to consolidate it and to make it plain and apparent.
both are certainly useful, but it is fundamentally impossible to negate uncertainty entirely, and even if it were, most people i think not only wouldn't be used to it, but wouldn't desire it anyway. half the fun in learning, is that you don't know what's next.
accepting that, celebrating it, learning how to use it and to fight against it, is something i think most people can relate to.
How should people live?
What should I do now?
Answer these questions and you will have a chance to do the right thing.
It's not a great idea to be snarky about reasonable questions. I'm an anarchist and have wrestled with these ideas for four decades.
So the label comes first? Before the intellectual work that enables clear and solid answers your sceptical uncles straight forward questions?
I like it. How do we get there?
Stop paying taxes
Start small. Join or set up a cooperative. i.e., get practice cooperating with people without hierarchy. This will get a bit messy in larger groups, because human interaction is inherently complex. So make sure you take care of yourself as well and don't burn yourself out. Don't try to change the entire world on your own, just do what you can (and want).
As you and everyone around you get more and more used to cooperating with people without hierarchy you will get better at it and you can expand and get more members in. Over time as you join or set up more and more different cooperatives (I advise against having a single huge coop to do everything) more and more of your needs will be met without hierarchy, and at some point you'll notice you've spent an entire year without interacting with any kind of hierarchy. At this point you'll realize you've already lived in an anarchist society for a year.
work with what you can
@@Ndo01 if you look around for someone to get it started, and find no one. It’s because the person you’re looking for is yourself
Theocracies are also hierarchical.
Good evening. Sure, we can talk about it. Anarchism, if I may, has to do with power invested to be used in the less amount possible.
I’m all for anarchism but I draw the line at the title intersecting with the outline on the first slide of her presentation.
The "cynical uncle" asks normal sceptical questions that anyone might have, and after much ado the answer amounts to something like "Well, you only have those reservations because of the capitalistic system we're in. See, unlike my thinking, your thinking and assumtions is affected by the system we live under." and "I don't know the answers to these straight forward questions that contain to some degree reasonable assumptions about human nature, but we should still talk about anarchism". Yeah? Wasn't that exactly what your uncle was trying to do?
The bit with social liberty is interesting. Humans live in cultures, it's a human universal. With cultures come restraining mores that are in the interest of the individual to respect for social inclusion and success. Yes, this is often problematic in terms of individual liberty. Yet it's necessary to some degree. But it's such a cock-eyed way to relate to this problem to not acknowledge the other values that are at stake other than maximum individual social liberty.
I suppose its good anyway to see this framed as a social or cultural movement, rather than political. That's the one way these leftist ideologies may have a future, as social movements or subcultures, with an alternative set of mores and values to offer its adherents. As long as they stay out of politics and political activism, all is well and good. They won't though, but rather want to tear everything "hierarchical" or whatever, down, before even having an idea or caring about what to replace it with.
Love is unnatural, the whole point about egalitarianism is for human (individuals) to know themselves (warts & all) and then aim higher by being our better - stronger, loving, unnatural - selves: via TEMET NOSCE…
…this is achieved through love: Loving what you love to do, for who you Love…
…and just all the understanding that Love & human nature (being, feeling & knowing ourselves) is founded on.
Nature produces diamonds, but it takes a ‘crafty’ hooman with artistic intelligence to cut & polish that ‘jewel’, ya dig?
I think..I’m in love.
That's the problem with thought.
You know it. 😂
Anarchism and Quantum Theory, I think its like the collapse of the wave function, when you focus on individuals they begin to act as a wave of people. it just works, but why it works is harder to quantify. Like newtonian physics, the older ways of thinking like the capitalist models of interactions still work at the micro scale, but when applied to the larger context breaks down as self interest interference patterns effect the outcome.
Also it’s important to learn about how technology is not value neutral and how multi-polar traps work. A lot of the objections to what human nature is , all human nature studies are human nature studies within civilization made up up many multipolar traps. We didn’t study things before civilization. In fact the dark ages themselves where still occuring in civilization😊
Read Errico Maletesta!
It's not fair to answer with - 'I don't know' on the most important question about anarchy. How to keep control without of permanent police authority? Or we should all be police officers on odd/even days. Even though we all have different definitions on what one can, or cannot do.
By the time the police are involved, it's too late, the deed is done... but the essential factor is simply that control is not only an illusion but unnecessary. Control is the problem as it is one person, or a group, saying; this is the only way. That is ignorance of the actuality of life. It denies freedom of learning, or exploring, of developing.
All of those questions have been answer, very thoroughly, by anarchist scholars who have been writing on the subject for the past 250 years. She's merely presenting the "I don't know" answer as the appropriate reaction to those questions because they're kind of unimportant to what modern anarchists want to accomplish, which is push the world to a more equitable, free place.
@@LyricalTampon
ANARCHY:
Anarchy is a state in which there are no rulers; a rejection of hierarchy. The earliest recorded use of the word, from the early sixteenth century, simply meant “absence of government”, albeit with the implication of civil disorder. A similar but ameliorated meaning began to be employed in the nineteenth century, Christian era, in reference to a Utopian (that is, an idealistic) society that had NO GOVERNMENT.
The English term was borrowed from the Medieval Latin word, “anarchia”, borrowed from the Greek word, “anarkhía” (“lack of a leader, lawlessness”), from “ánarchos” (“without a head or chief, leaderless”), from “an-” + “-archos”, derivative of “archós” (“leader, chief”) + “-ia”.
It should be obvious that ANARCHY can never ever succeed, because even the smallest possible social unit (the nuclear family) requires a dominator. Any family will fall-apart without a strict male household head. Factually-speaking, without the husband/father, there is no family, by definition. The English noun “husband” comes from the Old Norse word “hûsbôndi”, meaning “master of the house”. A family is deficient without its head, just as a body without its head is incomplete. The same paradigm applies to the extended family, which depends on a strong patriarchal figure (customarily, the eldest or most senior male). Likewise, with clans, tribes, villages, towns, cities, and nations or countries.
Unfortunately, there are many otherwise-intelligent persons who honestly believe that an ENTIRE country can smoothly function without a leader in place. Any sane person can easily understand that even a nuclear family is unable to function properly without a head of the house, what to speak of a populous nation. The reason for anarchists’ distrust of any kind of government is due to the corrupt nature of democratic governments, and the adulteration of the monarchy in recent centuries. However, if anarchists were to understand that most all so-called “kings/queens” in recent centuries were not even close to being true monarchs, they may change their stance on that inane “system”.
Those abject fools who advocate for some kind of ANARCHISTIC society should be required to adhere to their own asinine ideology within their private domains. So, for example, a man who desires the absence of any form of national leadership, really ought to consent to that very same template upon his own family. He should not presume to be the head of his household, but rather, permit his wife and children to become his equals. Likewise, a housewife ought not rule over her children, an employer must not direct the actions of his employees, and so on, and so forth. Thereafter, it will become blatantly obvious that any form of anarchy cannot endure, assuming, of course, that in the case of a father, his household is not already fractured, which seems to be the case in most families, due to lax leadership as a consequence of poor government, crooked education, and feminism (which has as its not-so-tacit goal of destroying all forms of patriarchal structures, starting from the nuclear family). How unfortunate it is that anarchists usually can see the need for a hierarchical structure within their own domains, such as those mentioned above, yet quite impervious to the necessity of a strong regime on the national level. The hypocrisy is astounding! And for those idiots who would contend, “It is okay for me to be the head of my family but there should not be a government ruling over me”, that is not a logical argument, but merely an unjustified, emotive assertion, motivated by the fact that we humans have not been governed by a legitimate regime for at least a couple of centuries. Of course, this is not to imply that every monarch in ancient history was a holy and righteous king (or even an actual king, by definition), but the fact that we humans have survived this long, suggests that they were not the kind of demonic, evil, murderous, thieving scumbags who have ruled-over every single country and nation on the planet during the past few hundred years or so.
British police are the best form of protection racket there has ever been because so far it is democratically overseen. The criminal protection rackets are usually depicted as more ruthless. However, my experience is that the psychiatric police can, even in Britain, be ruthless through self interest and disinterest of it's operators.
@@TheWorldTeacher You are speaking about stuff that an anarchist doesn't need to believe in - it's YOUR idea of what ALL of anarchists believe. Do all people who adhere to a political party or ideology, left or right or center - do they all believe the same things even down to details? Of course not - do you not hear her say repeatedly "my type of anarchism" or "there are varieties of anarchism"? You can grab the etymology of the word but that doesn't mean you have any idea about what you are talking about. In a nutshell Anarchism is against hierarchies and against "rulers." There is also no claim that anarchism can "solve" all problems and especially not * immediately* - particularly since they haven't been solved by all the other systems to be tried. (And just a note to whomever: "Libertarian" and "Anarchy" are used differently in Europe and the North America - and American "Libertarians" are not what they were in the past even though they might think they are. Tech boys have a rather limited understanding of the world and history).
I think folks tend to overcomplicate what is pretty basic: You don't want to be murdered, so you don't murder. same goes for theft, assault and slander .. what is the penalty? whatever your would be victim, his or her friends, family, neighbors, and the odd guy who happened to see that was walking by decide .. could be you have to make an apology .. could be you get fed to a wood chipper feet first. I would recommend avoiding the error to begin with, and swiftly seeking amends when one has offended .. learned that from a cool cat named Jesus - have you heard of him? 💜
Hi Green. You are advocating mob justice to enforce mob decided ‘laws’. You also appear to be implicitly advocating that the strongest and perhaps the most violent person or group gets their way when delivering ‘justice’. This combination is often referred to as mob rule. There are many historical examples of how disastrous this is. Lynching isn’t a very reasonable long term legal strategy. [I once witnessed mob ‘justice’, delivered at a traffic accident of all things, in Bangladesh: not a pretty sight. Interestingly, the crowd then picked out a couple of random bystanders to attack.]
Oddly, you then invoke Jesus? [I have to admire your flexibility.]
@@SystemsMedicine The Kings of the Earth use their overwhelming force to justify their 'law' -did you find it to be Just? Of course not - but then again, have we as men been taught the proper way of being? Hmm, I see that I am the problem here! This is Why I recommend the Good Teacher, Sir!
@@Green.Country.Agroforestry Wow Green… your reply is pithy and convincing. [I have more than merely changed my mind; I’ve changed my outlook.] I’m smiling as I write: if I ever meet you in my local cool dive pub, drinks and hors d’oeuvres on me. Cheers, and thanks for your response.
Nah, the animists treat true Christians as playthings. Got plenty on that but get attacked for mentioning it.
Please let us know at what point can we laugh 😊? I am just being polite here
You're absolutely welcome to lay out your criticisms of anarchism. Go ahead, since it's so laughable it should be really easy.
Sounds nice. I wonder what's preventing it from occurring?
accumulated wealth and power. i'm sure people asked the same thing during strong monarchic rule, too, though.
After six long boring minutes this lady finally comes up with a wobbly vague first definition of the term. She sure aint no philosophy major. This must be her first speech ever. I didnt know that anarchy also implies logic and word salad anarchy.
The point wasn't a short and snappy definition. It was to explain the aspects that are misunderstood or needing explanation about the anarchism she advocates for.
Kropotkin never liked Britain and now i see why even the anarchists aren’t anarchists. No but seriously this was a very nice vague form of anarchism at one point she said money would be fine. Congratulations! Your anarchist dream is already here would you like to be a pilot or a doctor? Oh maybe President!
The end of times are near.
I have melancholy. I feel like I'm in an extermination camp. Nothing I do works. I think ugly people are jealous of me.
Anarchy is a nice feeling without any pragmatic possibility. Any theory of “community” like this must be agreed upon and participated in, in totality by its participants. That cannot, has not, and never will happen. Any governmental system or “anarchy” must account for this fact to survive. Anarchy by definition cannot accomplish this.
You’re right to be skeptical, achieving any form of participatory democracy is difficult, and a process. However, I would recommend that you read a bit about the Catalan experience before the Civil War, where collective ownership of land and factories doubled production in a few short years after the introduction of anarcho-syndicalism. It functioned so well, it had to be destroyed by Stalin from the inside, and the fascists from the outside. Also, the Paris Commune is another example… It is hard to imagine it on a very large scale, but one can dream of mature society with a high quality of life for everyone 🙏🏻
@@zenanarchi6889it is somewhat possible, certainly short term in a small society. But, everything you wrote after that supports reality. Someone disagreed, destroyed it, and all you’re left with is your dreams.
Every form of government we have imagined will work in an ideal society. That’s my point, ideal societies don’t exist
No. Actually anarchism doesn't stop individuals from freely associating with whom they wish - anarchism is relationship based
Oof both of those fell apart
This grade of lazy bohemian parlor debate always stops short before the part about how to implement the new order, and of course what to do about those who want the old one back. Which is why for every Lenin , there is always a Dzerzhinsky. Every time.
Leisure is valuable ron, which is why people pay so much for event tickets. And of course we aren't going to go into gory detail at a public venue, that's after-party stuff. We do have these conversations, we talk about self defense initiatives, about learning to spot threats, about pooling resources. Also your mixing up communism and anarchy here, which is as different from each other as socialism is from liberalism and liberalism from conservatism. As for the inevitable crash into violence and repression, that's inevitable for every system. Every system has its detractors and enemies, but for anarchy, since every state is founded on violence, we have a unique incentive to not act violently that other ideologies just don't have. I'm not going to sit here and act like we are saints, that's for evangelicals to do.
But just because we don't want to harm others, doesn't mean we can't curb stomp someone who is swinging at us.
It’s all fun and games until you become a slave in the harem.
Long live Leonidas memory.
we don't deserve her!
Direct democracy! 😶🌫️
Direct democracy is antithetical to anarchy. Democracy is mob rule.
like we have in Swiss
@@matteoenricocattaneo is it true direct democracy without authoritative representatives?
🤮 screw mob rule
boring
its like watching baby's first anarchy lol
Quite vague as to how it would work in our large modern countries. Could have worked easier in tribal societies, but even they usually had a chief.
🎉🎉🎉🎉
I don't think she knows herself
This is a bit abstract. I've explored several aspects of practical anarchy in my books. I draw inspiration from Lysander Spooner, Murray Rothbard, Marc Stevens, etc..
Way to go. Real anarchists! This lady is more influenced by Kropotkin and is more of a democratic socialist with a bit of sympathy to some voluntarism she’s not really actual anarchist.
@@maxbarker356 Agreed. She speaks too much about democracy which is no respecter of individuals.
@@classic_sci_fi She does talk about the right to not take part, which shows her definition of democracy is closer to consensus than yours.
@@bramvanduijn8086 I haven't heard the whole talk. I hope she's not advocating that we must abide by votes of strangers. I'm glad there's any kind of discussion here at all. Cheers!
@@maxbarker356 I don't think she is a democratic socialist if she advocates for direct democracy. Anarchist history as a movement is tied to the left section of the workers' movement, hence if an anarchist advocates some form of democratic governance does not mean that they are not advocating for anarchism, that's just a skewed view of an intellectual school of thought.
I don't like all the Post-Modernist language games trying to redefine reality.
What does that have to do with anything at all in this video?
Why not just skip the anarchy descriptor. Since anarchy literally means no structure (and will never mean anything else) you can't have an anarchic structured society.
Yea but consideration of reality proves we use the structures that exist previously.
@@richardchapman1592 No offense meant but, could you please rephrase that?
Unless you were simply making a convoluted attempt at being obtuse or sarcastic.
@@johngatewood4638 sarcasm is related to cynicism. These are natural for me and many of the disaffected due to insult of our intellects.
Was only a philosophical pisstake. Considerations of reality require the structures of thought we are endowed with. Not very practical but pissed off the fuel consuming traffic today by dragging a deconstructed bed to the tip to demonstrate local recycling. That was satisfying in terms of green energy but a confrontation to fuel abusers in an unintended spinoff that frustration induced me to. Apologies for getting autobiographical.
@@richardchapman1592 being a sarcasm based lifeform I should have picked up on that. Because that was some sarcasm of the highest order.
She’s sort of describing the United States of America 😂. Absence of permanent authority. We impeach, we vote and our leaders have limits on how long they can stay in office. Supreme Court justices are unfortunately the exception to this
we have a permanent ruling class.
@@snowballeffect7812 well that’s not really much of a rebuttal
@@Provocateur991 how is that not a rebuttal? lol. the claim was that we have no permanent leadership when we clearly do.
@@snowballeffect7812 you just made a statement with no explanation. I’ve never heard someone make a claim and not back it up with data or some semblance of proof. That’s not an argument brotha
@@Provocateur991 i didn't realize something obvious needed supporting evidence. I thought the old white men and capitalists who write all our laws was evidence enough.
1.) Never trust a woman with a chest tattoo.
2.) She wouldn’t survive one day in Anarchy.
I was going to give you an answer but then I saw your profile picture and username...
I like your cartoon man picture!
Just FYI, she's not advocating for anarchy. She's advocating for anarchism. The fact that you don't know the difference is very funny given the level of confidence in your comment, though.
@@LyricalTampon Ignorant and confident; the best combo.
3.) she’s advocates for democratic socialism but with a sprinkling of voluntarism because its seems less assertive
4.) lists are great
@@maxbarker356 No she's not. But then you watched the video with your own ideological filter goggles on.
European civilization was initially based in the Catholic Church and Monarchy's which gave way to secular forms of government. More importantly the extended family was the basis for personal governance and social stability well into the Twentieth Century.
A lot of anarchist thinkers have said that monarchy is the best ‘archy’ if an archy must be had.
@@maxbarker356 could you cite a few?
De centralisation literally down to local areas , one term government local councillors with a maximum of one term and removable at any time commerce but not capitalism gold , silver or local social credit, no money printing, jobs based on social worth healthcare for all no military accept home defense
@@maxbarker356 no this is utter BS and misinfo.. monarchy is one is the WORST - anarchism is about egalitarian participation and decision makin in every aspect that affects people and each other.
@@TimoDcTheLikelyLad speaking of bs, you’re saying egalitarianism underpins anarchism. No it doesn’t. Where people are free of rulers they are uneven/unequal.
Egalitarianism underpins the various statisms. It takes a considerable amount of government to make people equal. And generally it involves more pulling down the competent contributors to society more than it does pulling up those with little to contribute.
Judging by your photo you’re an Anarcho communist, so you don’t see how egalitarianism is antithetical to anarchism.
Which is interesting because how do you judge what’s equal without some sort of judge/authority/ruler? Individual or corporate? And how do you enforce that equality without using authority/rule ultimately backed by force? Which is what a government is in essence.
Anarcho communism is misinfo. It’s a contradiction in terms.
ANARCHY:
Anarchy is a state in which there are no rulers; a rejection of hierarchy. The earliest recorded use of the word, from the early sixteenth century, simply meant “absence of government”, albeit with the implication of civil disorder. A similar but ameliorated meaning began to be employed in the nineteenth century, Christian era, in reference to a Utopian (that is, an idealistic) society that had NO GOVERNMENT.
The English term was borrowed from the Medieval Latin word, “anarchia”, borrowed from the Greek word, “anarkhía” (“lack of a leader, lawlessness”), from “ánarchos” (“without a head or chief, leaderless”), from “an-” + “-archos”, derivative of “archós” (“leader, chief”) + “-ia”.
It should be obvious that ANARCHY can never ever succeed, because even the smallest possible social unit (the nuclear family) requires a dominator. Any family will fall-apart without a strict male household head. Factually-speaking, without the husband/father, there is no family, by definition. The English noun “husband” comes from the Old Norse word “hûsbôndi”, meaning “master of the house”. A family is deficient without its head, just as a body without its head is incomplete. The same paradigm applies to the extended family, which depends on a strong patriarchal figure (customarily, the eldest or most senior male). Likewise, with clans, tribes, villages, towns, cities, and nations or countries.
Unfortunately, there are many otherwise-intelligent persons who honestly believe that an ENTIRE country can smoothly function without a leader in place. Any sane person can easily understand that even a nuclear family is unable to function properly without a head of the house, what to speak of a populous nation. The reason for anarchists’ distrust of any kind of government is due to the corrupt nature of democratic governments, and the adulteration of the monarchy in recent centuries. However, if anarchists were to understand that most all so-called “kings/queens” in recent centuries were not even close to being true monarchs, they may change their stance on that inane “system”.
Those abject fools who advocate for some kind of ANARCHISTIC society should be required to adhere to their own asinine ideology within their private domains. So, for example, a man who desires the absence of any form of national leadership, really ought to consent to that very same template upon his own family. He should not presume to be the head of his household, but rather, permit his wife and children to become his equals. Likewise, a housewife ought not rule over her children, an employer must not direct the actions of his employees, and so on, and so forth. Thereafter, it will become blatantly obvious that any form of anarchy cannot endure, assuming, of course, that in the case of a father, his household is not already fractured, which seems to be the case in most families, due to lax leadership as a consequence of poor government, crooked education, and feminism (which has as its not-so-tacit goal of destroying all forms of patriarchal structures, starting from the nuclear family). How unfortunate it is that anarchists usually can see the need for a hierarchical structure within their own domains, such as those mentioned above, yet quite impervious to the necessity of a strong regime on the national level. The hypocrisy is astounding! And for those idiots who would contend, “It is okay for me to be the head of my family but there should not be a government ruling over me”, that is not a logical argument, but merely an unjustified, emotive assertion, motivated by the fact that we humans have not been governed by a legitimate regime for at least a couple of centuries. Of course, this is not to imply that every monarch in ancient history was a holy and righteous king (or even an actual king, by definition), but the fact that we humans have survived this long, suggests that they were not the kind of demonic, evil, murderous, thieving scumbags who have ruled-over every single country and nation on the planet during the past few hundred years or so.
You're projecting a lot when you try to imagine how anarchists see their role in their household, business, or social club. Have you tried talking to actual anarchists in a somewhat respectful manner? You might get a more realistic view of how anarchists think.
I only click because she’s pretty and than left.
PowerPoint anarchism!! Come and get some.
Explaining anarchy! Not sure about that? But then, dumb people need to have a bridle.
Analrchy. That's ehat she said.
Well that was a whole lot of nice-sounding words about nothing.
Oof this video....
How about audience of this show would reject mrs brown authority over her wallet and made collective democratic decision to go get pizza and then other lady appointed go get it made individual decision that authority of temporary democratic body made wrong decision about property and she decide to keep it for her self. Ms Brown speaks brilliant things but if you scratch that vision a little you can see beneficiants of this things would be gangs and corporations.
it's almost like the other people would vote "no" lol. there's no point in watching if you're not going to listen.
What a load of horseshit.
brilliantly-supported rebuttal.