Real.Piece.Of.Work If you want to make arguments against Anarchism (I'm not even an Anarchist), then go ahead-- this is what the comments are for. But if you are just going to be attacking people for their age then stfu. Nobody wants to hear it.
That is a true shame that you can't work, but I do not see how this relates to Anarchism or for that matter, Socialism. I am not that interested in knowing you as a person, but your politics, given that you are intellectually honest, respectful and polite.
It's funny cause it is very natural for people to look for a leader or figure of authority. This has been practised since the dawn of man. Hell even other animals practice it.
Well done video! I think people are skeptical of the “free buffet” example because they can only envision the brutal capitalist world we live in. To work in a “you are free to take what you need system” the buffet must be free everyday i.e. exist in an Anarchist system. If the free buffet was offered one time just to test “human nature” in a capitalist society the results would be disastrous. Sure those who are daily taken advantage of in a capitalist system would respond by looting the buffet and I would not blame them at all. However, if they were convinced this free buffet were permanent, I.e. systemic rather than incremental change, they would have no reason to gorge.
anarchism IS capitalist. private property is a result of a free market. to have a free market you must have no rulers, which is the definition of anarchy. our world isn't brutal because of capitalism. blaming what socialism has caused (such as monopolies) on capitalism is ridiculous. the free market makes you ... FREE. every time you trade with a friend or give away something you made, you're doing the free market. much nicer than having your income stolen and given to israel.
@@ElectricUnicycleCrew Bullshits, not centralized goverment will not let you to use shared data, shares forces to attack against crime! U are just idiots, crime has tonnes of money and resources that get use ccollectively to create damage, same thing happens with wars, if u dont believe in a nation then u will leave and they will cocnquer u the people tha believe in a nation-state and ofc this will not end because stealing the other people in organised manner give u more resources. U will just lose, liberal system is more pragmatic, creeate a minimal state that dont absorbs resources like crazy and let the rest of people leave in 'anarchy' while removing pests
@@ElectricUnicycleCrew U dont have resources silly to buy multiple vehicles in minimum price (big production can decrease the cost in long term situations), ur ideology allows others to steal from u, ur ideology is only about persona interest and not about security, we tried anarchy even in ancient times but the result was the conquest of all neolithic civiliazations (we know only about conquerors semetic and white people in europe middle east and north africa, they were existing other civilizations 2 but they were conquered)
Another thing about unpleasant work that wasn’t really discussed is that we naturally do the unpleasant work if it results in a net increase of our happiness, survival, or just makes things easier. For example, I despise taking out the trash, but when it over fills to the point of being uncomfortable I take it out.
This remake of the (already illuminating, accessible, inspiring) video series has somehow managed to outdo its predecessors. You're a gift to us, Comrade.
Nice! I actually know most of these facts already. I just like the way you put them. It gives me ways to explain them to other people. It's a good gift dude! Although I do have to pause the videos every 5 minutes to be like "I know RIGHT?!" then ranting to myself.
I've yet to come across a good capitalist argument against any sort of leftist thought. Us leftists are better at critisizing or own ideologies than capitalists. At least we don't use regurgitated talking points.
That is an alternative, yes, but to present it as an equally valid one is a false equivalence. Capitalists don't have to deal with as much criticism because they can just drown it out by making their own voices 5000x louder. Addressing disagreeing positions implies such positions are worthy of debate, which poses a threat to the status quo, which capitalism has a firm hold of.
@@TwentySeventhLetter Perhaps Capitalism's firm grip on the status quo and Anarchism's unstable structure is the best possible argument in favor of Capitalism. Hierarchies can be corrupt but they're also fairly stable. Anarchism rejects most order as tyrannical and therefore it tends to be a poor long term solution.
@@aaronbrown8377 Considering that all the "instability" of historical attempts at anarchism were the result of capitalist interventionism and that in general, changes to the status quo are undermined by the power structure that would be, as I said, threatened by the mere existence of an alternative to itself, I don't think "might makes right" is a valid justification for the only system most people are socialized to believe is possible, no.
Jastin - you're right we are better at criticizing our own. But "At least we don't use regurgitated talking points." is funny because from what I see nothing has changed in at least 50 years, only the media and the buzzwords.
Hey dude, I remember you posted on reddit a few months ago, about wanting to make a video criticising social democracy (i.e. the type fashioned by Kyle Kulinski and others) are you still going to make that video? Because a few of Kyle's recent video merits criticism at least from an Libertarian Socialist point of view?
@LibertarianSocialistRants Goddamn. David Pakman is such a one note boring twat. Not to mention a Russiagater and shill for Apartheid Israel. Will be interesting seeing what your response will be. Keep up the great content Cam
Ok, let's write my opinion down here... So - I am still calling myself a communist (with anarchist sympathies). I would say, that I agree with probably everything you said (not only in this video, but also the earlier videos in this series). However, when I look at the world, I see a strong necessity to transform the economy as fast as possible into an ecological sustainable economy. I am not very well read in anarchist economics, but I definitely see the effectiveness of a centralized planned economy, especially nowadays in the digital age. If you could provide me with reading recommendations about anarchist economics, I would be thankful (in the best case with some ideas how to use modern technology...you probably know how Paul Cockshott and Allin Cottrell combined computer technology, direct democracy with a centralized planned economy - if you have anything that would be better than that, please tell me!). Until then, I have to remain on my position of a (limited...minarchist) state in order to transform the economy as fast as possible. anyway, Solidarity comrades!
That is the problem with anarchy. Just as communist are stuck in the 20th century so are anarchist and have no answers that face us in the 21st. The main problem is that the older generation left politics but politics rolled on without them leading to liberalism we have today. No only do we not have progress we are fighting for battles we won in the past a complete regression while the "corporate coup d'etat in slow motion" took power.
id 33 Yeah, we know that. Even the people who want a centralized planned economy are in favor of direct democratic control over it. And while the USSR did many things wrong, the pace with which it was able to start and fullfill large-scale projects is remarkeable. And the necessity for this is what makes me hold back on anarchism
Yes but they did this on the backs of workers. Unrealistic and brutal quotas were imposed on the workers, by the party hierarchy, to achieve that level of industrialization and production. The profit motive of capitalism was simply replaced by the production quotas in a Leninist system. Both systems oppressed the workers and benefited a ruling class. This is in fact the key problem of the experiments tried in the USSR and China and the advantage of Anarchic systems over what essentially boils down to State run capitalism.
We are our own gods, the love of life and liberty is our master and the message of love is our prophet... I guess. I mean, all we want is to live as humans and not as cogs of a infeastible machine. Everything else is just intellectualizing a simple idea. Not that I'm against that.
If the ruling class of a state always acts in their self interest and if that ruling class is the working class, how can you say a workers state can't exist? And why would such a state be bad, even if it is an institution with a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence? In the same way that a capitalist state protects and serves the interests of the capitalist class that controlls it, wouldn't changing the structure of the state change the way in which that state functions?
Just so you know, my comments aren't meant to be spammy or hostile. I really like your channel, and your videos have been influential to how I've developed my politics. I just feel like there are some holes in anarchism that Marxism Leninism covers effectively, and I always felt there was a level of idealism necessary in anarchism, and I couldn't get past that. My political disagreements aside I do think this series (and this video) were well made and you've always been very good in providing easy to grasp, yet still informative arguments and explanations. I may be ML, but anarchists and libertarian socialists who combat capitalism are comrades of mine.
I could quite easily defeat every each point you made and highly outline false or speculative assumptions, but let me just put it in one simple sentence, why it is destined to fail: Anarchism could only work if every human being on earth believes in equality, does not see worth in posession, does not strive for dominance, and does not seek to use violence. The moment someone willing enough to break this mentality for his own satisfication comes into existense (which wouldnt be the first time) your systeme would be destined to fail. Because, how could you react, without organising into a state and let him stand fair trial or breaking human rights by doing self justice? I could further expand this point, but i would just leave it there. The moment people organize, the moment they become a subject as a group, they become somewhat of a state. And what if it doesnt stay at one person not believing in your anarchist Ideology? What if they form a group, maybe a state? What if they form militant and orginazided groups for their own good? Humans are never satisfied and strive for more. Thats the reason even bilionaires still urge to make more money, although they shouldnt need to and could hapily live with just less than 1% of their wealth. Yet they dont do it. Because many humans are egocentric, no matter the social environment they grew up in. And one human with such a mindset and convincing social skills is more than enough to crumble your system and create a tyranny. Because if it werent, anarchism would have had prevailed since the beginning of mankind and capitalism and tyranny would have never had the chance to even exist. Yet they certainly do. Their existance, may it just be in the past, is a threat to anarchy. Because as history repeats itself, it most certainly would be possible again.
Have you considered revisiting your Red Bureaucracy video on AuthSoc V LibSoc? Not that I have any complaints in it's current form, and it was one of a very few things that really shaped my early anarchist days, but I'd love to see a 2018 update on it, with so much more AuthSoc activity of late. We've got like a billion leninists in my town. It's insane.
Eh, even as an anarchist I'm not sure that's true. We gotta remember our ideology may not be perfect, because if we assume the best, we won't know where to improve. I don't know, I just woke up, but there are arguments against anarchism, we just have to understand why they may be wrong and where they're coming from.
After everything I have learned about anarchism and communism over the last few years and what has happened under these forms in the past and how many today are desperately looking for a substitute religion that will free them from self-imposed slavery, one thing has struck me bitterly. Whether it was the Soviets and their Gulags or their Cheka, or the anarchists under Makhno, or Durruti and Ravachol. Everywhere innocents were killed and people murdered to pave their way. Whether they were clergy, landowners and their families, or critics and members of the middle class. When these groups gained power, they killed everyone out of prejudice and intolerance towards them and to get revenge on someone for their hard life. In the end they drank the best wine and resided in the large villas. The Soviets have more or less perfected the ability to take everything from others and redistribute it among themselves. I have come to the conclusion that as long as it is necessary to view people as class enemies or to look for an enemy, there can be no change. Because when you have declared yourself victorious over your imaginary enemy, you behave no differently than they do. Anarchism and Communism are radical ideologies emanating from early socialism and should be treated as such. Everything radical has led to numerous deaths and those who think it has to be sacrificed should, in my opinion, never see the light of day on this planet again and be lonely and alone in a cell with their idealism. Just like the fascists, they murdered innocent people on an ideal pretext to justify their ideology. Together with the fascists they are the greatest evil in this world. Just your idea that you have to win over the masses in order to free them from their prison is idiotic. A drug addict has to admit that he is suffering from an addiction. If the masses can't develop enthusiasm for it, it's because they have no interest in it. Of course it is frustrating to work for others. But better than killing them and smearing yourself in blood and sacrificing your loved ones to the terror of war. What all these do-gooders have done. They threw away their families and their lives for constructs that have only produced one thing to date... Good stuff for creepy movie dramas and swashbuckling despots with gunpowder-scented coats and ugly biographies with broken families. They and their ideas are consumed precisely by such people. From those who see and want to see themselves as outsiders and saviors. But if you don't want to be saved, you shouldn't be forced to. But these ideologues do and still do today. Behind every civil servant, be it a policeman, judge, doctor or lawyer or teacher, there is a person with a history and a family whose life is no less valuable than anyone else's. The same with the religious An ideology that rejects religion, telling people what to do and who to hate, is not liberation but a scourge of humanity. the joke is. They criticize society but enjoying its fruits on a daily basis and delight in the safety and products around them. In the end, it's all about who owns everything. They have no eyes for what they can currently enjoy. They only see that when their family members are lying in the street in their own blood and the sound of the children changes with the sound of the guns. I think a lot of people are not able to understand what they really have in life until its gone. Most of us running from Job to Job or from Idealism to Idealism. I was first a Punk, until I understand that taking drugs and alcohol and critizism the majority for thier way of life don't lead to change and development, becasue nobody likes an drunken parasitic asshole. Then I changed and joined the metal and goth community until I realized that their livestyle is more a jacket or a suite as the punk ever was, then I tried communism until I read about the thousands of crimes they have committed and last but not least I ended up beeing an anarchist until I figured out what they have done. After all of this journeys I can say I'm not a friend of anything extreme anymore.
Religion is opium for those who don’t want change. Religion is idealism. I can partake in society and criticize it. For example, I can play a video game have fun and then criticize it. It just sounds like you have political burn out if anything.
“we want a society run by means of horizontal democratically controlled federations; within that institutions framework, people could COLLECTIVELY determine codes of conduct in an anarchist manner”
@@bebopbe7698 what is the difference between this and a democratic state? what is the result of a code of conduct and how is that different from law and law enforcement? how is the consequence for violating a code of conduct different from a judicial system? would one have to stand trial for violating a code of conduct, and how would this be different from a less bureaucratic criminal justice system? how is a local militia different from a military? renaming these things makes them no different, and the only difference is that they are significantly more democratic. how is this different from state institutions under ML, which are inherently democratic where power is given to the proletariat? local militias are still people being given the authority to use violence in defence of their community. you would also need specialist strategists in your local militias who can see the big picture in order to not self-destruct as a society, which is also a form of state authority. you would also need specialists capable of organizing the local militias in the case of a large attack, again a form of authority. putting trust in individuals with no specialism in strategy, organization or logistics is suicide. no matter how you redefine this it is hierarchical. it would be like putting trust in medical students who have not learned a specific concept to teach the class about it. i am not trying to attack or anything i would just like to understand how this is different from a democratic state, or dictatorship of the proletariat. i would also like to understand how the voice of unspecialised individuals on specialised topics would be more beneficial than a group of specialists consulting one another, which to extend my analogy would be like asking the majority of non-medical students to provide an opinion on a medical topic, while the minority of medical students also put forward their unspecialised opinion, while the even smaller minority of successful medical graduates also put forward their specialised opinion. it would be dangerous to come to a conclusion from an unspecialised majority on specialist topics. maybe im misinterpreting or misunderstanding but if you could elaborate that would be great
For everyone I'd recommend reading _Anarchy works_ by Peter Gelderloos, it's an excellent reading that can act as a sort of FAQ for anarchism, and you can find it on the Anarchist Library.
Plenty talk about it and others do something about it. In France and Spain a cooperative has formed that takes on Deliveroo and Uber by building there own app cutting out the corporate middleman working with staff and the companies to provide better pay and conditions for staff and negotiating terms directly with the companies they supply. Because if shareholders are not having to be paid they can get a better deal for their customers. Have a look here ua-cam.com/video/I0Z5PBgwu60/v-deo.html
Fantastic video series. This last video cleared up a lot of details about anarchism for me! I am wondering, though: How would one avoid competent authority inadvertently giving rise to hierarchical authority in the case of my relationship with my supervisor for my Master's thesis? He is obviously a competent authority in this context, being a professor specializing in the field. However, whether or not I may proceed with a continuation of my thesis work in the shape of a PhD, depends on his impression of me. In principle, his impression should only be based on my relevant achievements, but, well, because of human nature and all that, his impression will of course be skewed depending on his impression of my character, including our social interactions, my articulation, my looks etc., which makes me very much vary of my own behavior in relation to him, and forces me to be more tolerant of his behavior. Hasn't the competent authority thus given rise to a hierarchical authority? What mechanism in an anarchist society would counter this?
None same as how the delegates could easily become heirarchical forces in an anarchist society. Hierarchy is natural as all successful states have had some hierarchical elements, hell the families we naturally form are hierarchical. Because Hierarchies allow us to shift our responsibilities from ourselves to others.
Without a system in place to enforce his authority over _you specifically,_ there would be nothing preventing you from seeking out a more neutral mentor to guide you through the process. Your thesis itself would effectively be judged by consensus. ✊🤓🏴
As an anti-Leninist Orthodox Marxist I just don't understand the need for anarchism on top of Marxism. Marxism seems enough unless I guess you're not some kind of impossiblist or a Marxist who thinks the working class can and will emancipate themselves. We probably agree on most things, anyway, though.
Great Video, but as someone more in the Auth-Left camp, I have a question: You say horizontal worker's militias and federations are better alternatives than the Leninist Vanguard Party and State. While I agree that that would be best and optimal AFTER Capitalism is fully destroyed, how would those horizontal power structures coordinate action and resources to fight a global war against International Capital? These horizontal structures I feel would not be equipped to quickly and efficiently allocate manpower and resources within a territory in such a way that could fight those reactionary elements inside and outside the Anarchist territory. Not to mention, who's to say that those various horizontal workers' councils won't have diverging economic and political interests? Why would region X help region Y if region X has all the resources it needs for itself, while region Y needs assistance from region X? This applies to modern states today. Wouldn't the answer be a somewhat centralized, federal body? Cause if these horizontal power structures operate independently on one another, I feel like they'll naturally come into conflict.
Maybe that's because the "anarchy" he's talking about doesn't fit your definition of anarchy? I think to LSR, anarchy means "No authority unless proven necessary", and your anarchy means "no authority whatsoever".
Can you PLEASE make a video on Markets? Just markets. Without capitalism, I've heard people defending market socialism, I want to know your opinion. Thanks.
about the "hierarchies are natural"... let's suppose they are, so having someone in power and people obeying that person is natural and people naturally do... if they are naturally obeying the person, so it seems like it's voluntary, so the person is just a leader, not a ruler, so anarchists aren't against it, and if you define hierarchies as begin coercive (therefore not voluntary), hierarchies are unnatural by nature
The buffet example was really good, I was thinking about something like that in respect to the idea of common stores. At Food Not Bombs (the branch I'm familiar with) they give food out to everybody and not once has one person come up and been like "Oh it's free and for everyone? Well eat shit chumps I'll take all your lentil curry!"
What's funny is that capitalism is the only system that enables excess consumption, 70 pairs of shoes, 2 big macs for lunch, 4 televisions, 1 new car every year, 1 new smartphone every year, mansions, gold, silver, and more recently : gold wrapped chicken wings. It seems to me, that the fear of people taking more than they need is only possible under capitalism, but of course only for the filthy rich, while the poor have less then they need.
I think I'm dumb but is there somewhere i could learn more in depth about how an anarchist system of federations would actually work? these videos have been super interesting to me, but if honest, a lot of it goes over my head.
Its really just like the resource based economic model. the differnce here is that it also describes via history and democratic means how it could also work without focusing directly on technology to achieve that. Its good because every tactic has value because it means that it can be implemented right now. TVP on the other hand could learn so much from anarchism on these regards. id like to see them including the diversity of tactics more. Nonetheless they are important in what they propose and anarchists can learn so much from their focus of the scientiffic method approach and the technology they present in order to get the most and best out of it for everyone on the planet in accordance with nature.
+maelwynn Just ignore them. They obviously didn't watch the video and are spamming their boring strawmans under almost every comment. A simple troll, nothing more.
Real.Piece.Of.Work That's not what he said. Are you, right now, corrupt and lust for power? Do you, right now, want to control other people? Don't pull the "if I live in a Communist society" crap, because it was you who said that "people are people", along with a few "human nature" arguments, which means you've indicated that humans are inherently corrupt, regardless of scenarios. So, I ask again: are you, right now, corrupt and lust for power, and do you, right now, want to control others?
Let it be a lesson that free Ukraine’s biggest mistake was thinking that it could trust the soviets. Never trust a authoritarian regime, no matter what they say or do.
@@osio7528 Are you okay with emailing me? I want to talk about something privately, but if you’re uncomfortable with emailing, I have one NON-email option you can consider.
Every statement ends the same. "I don't have a blueprint for how this would work..." Even Chomsky doesn't have many fundamental answers to how things would actually work in this kind of society and nearly every thought experiment along the lines of national infrastructure quickly derails into absurdity.
@@ElectricUnicycleCrew During the THREE YEARS that this occurred, private property was expropriated and collectivised. I'm sure against some of the wishes of the previous owners. Wages were paid based on the basis family size, and NOT through individual contribution, effectively a form of tax and wealth redistribution.
@@ElectricUnicycleCrew I thought the point was the abolition of coercion and the organisation of society on a voluntary basis. Did all those property owners volunteer away their property?
@@alexshaykevich509 "Abolition of coercion and the organisation of society on a voluntary basis." That's where you were mistaken. Anarchism is centered around abolition of domination ahd the organization of society on a relatively egalitarian basis.
I feel like politics is just a way to practice debating, when will Anarchy ever be put into practice on a large scale? Everything's stagnant right now, I don't see any single political extreme being put into practice within my lifetime.
13:30 Militias? Hahaha, you actually don't see the problem with this? I'm glad you replied to the commies because it really shines a light on how this revolution will go down.
Horizontal militias aren't armies and horizontal delagates aren't representative government. Source: trust me. I will say that you did make me think about the benefits of direct democracy.
I think an interesting example of quasi communist societies in the past are the Catal Huyuk culture and the Cucuteni Trypillia culture in the neolithic which developed large scale settlements without any evidence of segnificant wealth inequality or class structure.
I slightly disagree on specialization. I think our capacity for knowledge and expertise is immense enough to give us tools to specialize in more than one field in our lifespans, thereby rendering specialization somewhat irrelevant moving forward. I do admit that I have no data to back this up, but the current trend towards interdisciplinary research in academia gives me hope in this regard. Otherwise, fantastic video as always, my Lawful Good comrade. :D
I'm talking less jack-of-all-trades and more acquainting yourself with methodologies of particular fields/professions, etc., because I really do think people want to be good in at least more than one thing. As for the time-constraints, I don't think a "Matrix-style direct-to-brain learning machine" is required. We can develop techs/lifestyles for people who want to go that route, thereby easing those constraints somewhat. This again, of course, feeds into technology serving humans rather than the other way around. I think Bastani talks about this somewhere in his Fully Automated Luxury Communism.
Where did I say that learning in future will involve none of those things? I said acquainting people with the methodologies of any field will definitely take time, but I think further tech progress can reduce the unit of time than it takes today. There's no reason to believe that "widespread technologies of learning" will suddenly stop dead in their tracks and no more tech will be seen in this arena.
"Yeah but there's a genetically determined limit to how much information a human can process, called IQ, and it's not gonna change" What? IQ changes all the time, depending on your circumstances, age, etc. Also, which IQ? There is a large taxonomy of IQ. There is no one type of IQ that remains static. And even if it did, I see no reason to believe that our IQ specifically limits us to just one field/profession. "unless we find a way to reliably alter human genome (which will be expensive and lead to extreme inequality between those who can, an those who cannot afford raising their IQ). Or feed information directly into memory." This is a very limited view of what learning processes can look like in the future/what technology can do. It's almost reactionary in a way. I'm sure there are limitations, which is good. That's what breeds creativity. But the either/or scenario you're creating seems to look at one particular way of looking at how to improve brains (biotech) while ignoring what people can do in a social context autonomy in both time and availability of knowledge is given to them in an anarchist society. Deci and Ryan already blew the lid off that in self-determination theory. " I believe that the current learning opportunities provided by new technology already far exceed the ability of an average human to harness them' I disagree completely. This is a very "Black Mirror" kind of argument to be making, and also a reactionary one born out of a primarily capitalist perspective, where humanity serves technology instead of the other way around. I think we are just beginning to see how much tech we can harness. Again, Bastani has written extensively on this. "It is certainly a case for myself, and I'm not dumb (somewhere in the middle of the IQ spectrum). The amount of stuff I would like, and could easily find resources to learn, if only I had enough time for it, is enormous.' People's prioritization of what they will choose to learn/consider themselves capable of learning is a non sequitur to the conversation of how we can reduce time units at a person's disposal if they do decide to prioritize at least more than one field that they want to learn about.
then you still have a gender hierarchy , meaning you're a pretty bad anarchist if you still believe in some forms of oppression. pretty stupid take tbh.
@@linkydubs You can get rid of "gender hierarchies" without cutting away your own humanity. Anarchy is about liberation from coercive hierarchies not turning yourself into an androgynous monster.
@@ahola3208 Are you okay with emailing me? I want to talk about something privately, but if you're uncomfortable with emailing, I have one NON-email option you can consider.
So What of Meritocracy (where the government and earnings are based on the merit of each individual rather than wealth or support by the people) Can meritocracy and Anarchy co-exist I think not as anarchy advocates against the natural hierarchy that exists (people are different and some are better than others) Note I do not support capitalism I am a socialist but I believe in a socialist meritocracy where the best workers get to the top and help us decide what the masses usually cannot. such as an organized army and law enforcement that is against popular belief (people in mass are still superstitious-at least in america-) and rule by the people will not solve everything you need to understand we need authoritative leaders that can make quick decisions in disasters and crisis but that does not mean these people need to be rich capitalists or authoritarian by any means. Meritocracy also has a theory of positive discrimination meaning the incapable will not end up on the top so hopefully less error will be made and better ideas will be put forth. I hope this wasn't too long a read and I apologize for any potential misrepresentation but I wished to raise a few new counter-arguments against anarchy.
This require change. In what procedure or process to make this happen? Is it forceful or an act of proper conduct? Human nature is questionable but I will leave that aside for now. Take statistics as an example, since crime are reduced dramatically, lets say a 1% of 7 billion is 7 million. What proper discipline would this to make it happen? The fact that there is a crime, there is a rule, but conceived by the voice of a mass. By since its a mass, then the voters of the winners are majority, then what would be the oppostion opinion regarding about it? And also does this change require war? As a revolutionary and taking the anarchist stand, would mean that you're going against the current authority. What happens in a instance of change? Each phases? Does it really convince the people along the way? I found anarchist as intolerant most of my encounters. Since it only says to exclude anti-social does that mean it only requires people to believe in society and abide with it, but not the reason/nature which cause for his actions. What about human nature? Even disregarding such people with anti-personality, would still not exclude or elimnate their nature. (which means enforcing someone to go against their individuality for the sake of society) And also what is the likelihood for an anarchist that won't against his political beliefs along the change. Change requires power, i doubt people with weak heart would go for that.
Preferably ideal but radically invalid. I needed this though since i'm about to take pre-law as a course. I need a stack of knowledge. I have a lots of question and i have already researched most of its criticism. The only lacking is that opinion of others. Or for short a survey.
With regards to 'unpleasant' work, it is an area where anarchist societies need to absolutely embrace technology and its ability to liberate people. In the anarchist society technology could, should and almost certainly would, be primarily be focused on reducing the burden of 'unpleasant' work to give people more time to act as free members of a society.
Can someone clear this up for me: A federation is comprised of regional governments that overlap with a national government. Like the United States, which has a national government, but also regional state governments. So, in a federation regional governments have some power, but the national centralised government has the majority of power. Whereas, in a confederation, there is no centralised national government; only regional governments. So, wouldn't an anarchist state be a confederate state? Not a federation?
Well said, comrade. I find your analysis very on time point and an these posts help me gather some of my own thoughts while supplying useful rhetoric when debating these issues.
Our "Utopia" will come unless annihilation comes first, even a failed attempt is still better than a "working" capitalistic society and it has worked for enough people, that other people wanted to destroy them.
Mate, do your own research. He even talks about one in this very video you're commenting on. Like, what is this? If you're out for answers on why people believe in "utopias", there's plenty of people whomst've made you and everyone else amounts of entertaining and informing content on how we see and understand the world and you won't need to engage with people who just want to comment and possibly compliment on the interpret's work. If what you're trying to do is to fight, debate and argue for a cause and belief which you see as the right one, possibly even with the intent of changing a mind or two, you aren't doing a good job. Like, this is just a wasted effort. Now, if what you're trying to do is just insulting and trolling people, who you don't understand, which honestly sounds the most likely to me,... well congrats. You've really achieved something. Anyway, have a lovely day and I sincerely hope that you find the questions you're looking for, soon.
Real.Piece.Of.Work anarchists societies never went tyrannical, the opposite. They thrived in it until capitalist Institutions of any kind came along and destroyed them. Your references are not relevant for anarchism cuz those countries you mentioned were als capitalist systems. They are just different variations. Red caps never intented anarchism but the opposite. Human behaviour, values, action and thinking is shaped by the enviroment, the needs are innate and universal (thirst, hunger etc) unless there is medical condition which blocks that. We are not doomed on these regards. Its up to us emancipating and changing ourselves.
Thank you for this. These were the ideas and arguments that made me move from ML to Anarchism. Hopefully your videos (among others) will help move other MLs to Anarchism. I'm really sorry if I was a dickhead to you back when I was an ML - I was very wrong.
I love Anarchists’ anti-Capitalist energy but I still can’t say I am one. It would be much easier to have sweeping change within our own Democracy than to convince everyone that Anarchy is better - even if it is. As said in the video, Anarchy relies on people believing in Anarchy and people being good on their own merit. That would be well and good except for the harsh reality that most people (if we’re discussing America) is used to Capitalism and our minds have adapted to it. That’s not something that’s so easily changed, and so while some may do things out of the good of their heart if the country were to suddenly become an anarchy - many would still scramble to claim as much power and material as possible. And they’d likely be the people who have the military on their side - something not mentioned in the discussion. What would be much better and quicker in our current situation would be a revolution, and a change towards Democratic Socialism. It would at least be a start, and might even be a permanent solution. As things stand, Anarchy cannot work. How would one enforce it anyways? By gaining an unfair political advantage? That would go against anarchy’s fundamentals. By killing a bunch of people who disagree? Again, against fundamentals, and the rich have the military on their side. I don’t agree with Anarchy, but I see the points it’s trying to make. And even I did agree with it, I just can’t see it ever taking root in today’s society anyways. It’s something that would, at the very least, need multiple generations to slowly take over. It can’t be a sudden change.
I would love to know if you hold the same notion of capitalism as Marx... and what you disagree with. Because I think most Marxists want the same thing as you but they think that the current contradictions in capitalism will lead to lower communism first. The socialism that comes out of capitalism will be stamped with the ideas/values of capitalism. And the contradictions within that system will then lead to higher communism which I think is synonymous with anarchism, or even a step further.
In my experience many agree with marxisms analysis of capitalism Lower phase communism and higher phase are Only different in that higher have had a generation to forget and develop Beyond all capitalist shit They are still the same system and mode of production
so to libertarian socialists would there be: commodities for exchange in a market, money, (i'm pretty sure private ownership of the means of production would be gone, and more obliteration of bourgeois right then say in the USSR)… etc in lower phase communism. I'm just trying to get what down what needs to be abolished in a capitalism to make it a socialism in the libertarians mind and why. Is this something that flows from the values of capitalism. Would it be from each according to their ability to each according to their need (this seems to be more communist than socialist to a Marxist because such a value does not seem to flow from capitalism... if you look at the critique of the gotha programme for example) As a union socialist… i'd be interested in seeing what you think from your perspective too. How would De Leon critique the USSR and libertarian socialists in their ideas of socialism. I get hella confused about this stuff sometimes
What happened to Your first “Arguments against Anarchism” video? I know it was titled outdated but I was really hoping to watch both since both videos make good points.
How can you have democracy when there is no state? How can people make choises on how things affect their lives if there is nothing to create that change?
Hi Cameron, would you be so kind as to make a video providing perspectives (including yours of course) on Green Anarchism. I say this because even with libertarian socialism there will be factories, WORK, grunt work and pollution? And according to green anarchists we will still be subjected to alienation as we will still live through symbols and representation: not in direct relation with the 'natural wild world.' John Zerzan has written some excellent material on how it is civilisation that is the killing ideology and not capitalism particularly. Great series of 4 videos by the way, passionately delivered.
I think because we are part of the ecosystem with 7 billion people we have right to pollute as long as we give bacl what we taken. But i thin there wouldnt be need for much factories because everyone will take much as they need. No car or only limited amount of cars like one for family and a clean effective public transportation system will solve the gas problem for the exact public transportation vehicle i would say fast train but of course there could be a better choice For producing energy we could use solar plants for personal lives and thorium reactors for bigger projects like factories and science stations Also we wouldnt make lafge amounts of weapons.There would be only a little amounts of weapons that would be enough for a defensive and guerilla war. I hope i was able to help
Heterosexism would also be another term for queerphobia or even transphobia and homophobia as well. Also, no mention of speciesism and ageism? But then again, the only thing that, would be problematic for one's anarchism is if it's a Eurocentric model of anarchism, which masquerades as universality in diversity. Hence, white anarchism is a problem, especially if you have white middle-class and white working-class folk leading it.
@@yansideabacoa6257 So are you suggesting that we look at vegan anarchism from a Black vegan lens? Because in Aphro-ism, by sisters Syl and Aph Ko have covered this.
@@yansideabacoa6257 Do you mean that in a universal manner or pluralistic one? Because a decolonialist lens isn't one thing, and even using such a lens is limited, especially since it is a tool that needs to be decolonized as well. Plus the book rightfully points out that decolonialism is even more limited as it is in the practice of problem pointing. The Ko siblings suggest that Afrofuturism is a solution to the problem of white veganism as it is about problem-solving.
HE UPLOADED A G A I N
DAMN, Cameron’s on a roll
Cameron, just so you know, you get a lot of love here in Portland, Oregon. I hear people talking about your vids often.
Real.Piece.Of.Work
So becoming "fully mature" is just conformist resignation?
Real.Piece.Of.Work Ah yes, "people are people". I shall consider hundreds of years of study, ideology and implementation DISMANTLED.
MUH HUMAN NATURE CUCKERY
Real.Piece.Of.Work If you want to make arguments against Anarchism (I'm not even an Anarchist), then go ahead-- this is what the comments are for. But if you are just going to be attacking people for their age then stfu. Nobody wants to hear it.
That is a true shame that you can't work, but I do not see how this relates to Anarchism or for that matter, Socialism. I am not that interested in knowing you as a person, but your politics, given that you are intellectually honest, respectful and polite.
But muh hooman naytshur
Sotiris Krol Wich dos nawt appli tew rewlers!
"Oops, forgot about human nature" - Karltural Marx
It's funny cause it is very natural for people to look for a leader or figure of authority. This has been practised since the dawn of man. Hell even other animals practice it.
No it is human nature to dominate the smal and weak big eat small dumass-an idiot
Pack leaders in social animals are hated when they're coercive ghouls anyway!!
Well done video! I think people are skeptical of the “free buffet” example because they can only envision the brutal capitalist world we live in. To work in a “you are free to take what you need system” the buffet must be free everyday i.e. exist in an Anarchist system. If the free buffet was offered one time just to test “human nature” in a capitalist society the results would be disastrous. Sure those who are daily taken advantage of in a capitalist system would respond by looting the buffet and I would not blame them at all. However, if they were convinced this free buffet were permanent, I.e. systemic rather than incremental change, they would have no reason to gorge.
Oh definitely, the example is just meant to illustrate how people aren't necessarily driven to gorge themselves at the sight of free food.
anarchism IS capitalist. private property is a result of a free market. to have a free market you must have no rulers, which is the definition of anarchy. our world isn't brutal because of capitalism. blaming what socialism has caused (such as monopolies) on capitalism is ridiculous. the free market makes you ... FREE. every time you trade with a friend or give away something you made, you're doing the free market. much nicer than having your income stolen and given to israel.
just wait until you hear about fat people
@@ElectricUnicycleCrew Bullshits, not centralized goverment will not let you to use shared data, shares forces to attack against crime!
U are just idiots, crime has tonnes of money and resources that get use ccollectively to create damage, same thing happens with wars, if u dont believe in a nation then u will leave and they will cocnquer u the people tha believe in a nation-state and ofc this will not end because stealing the other people in organised manner give u more resources.
U will just lose, liberal system is more pragmatic, creeate a minimal state that dont absorbs resources like crazy and let the rest of people leave in 'anarchy' while removing pests
@@ElectricUnicycleCrew U dont have resources silly to buy multiple vehicles in minimum price (big production can decrease the cost in long term situations), ur ideology allows others to steal from u, ur ideology is only about persona interest and not about security, we tried anarchy even in ancient times but the result was the conquest of all neolithic civiliazations (we know only about conquerors semetic and white people in europe middle east and north africa, they were existing other civilizations 2 but they were conquered)
ok, you didn't turn me into an anarchist, but you definitely made me think about it.
Men du bor i Sverige och jag antar att nästan alla här tror på staten, systemet och hög skatt lol.
Its good
hur visste du att jag bor i Sverige?
Jag vet inte, men bara gissade. Jag bor i Boden
coolt.
Another thing about unpleasant work that wasn’t really discussed is that we naturally do the unpleasant work if it results in a net increase of our happiness, survival, or just makes things easier. For example, I despise taking out the trash, but when it over fills to the point of being uncomfortable I take it out.
This remake of the (already illuminating, accessible, inspiring) video series has somehow managed to outdo its predecessors. You're a gift to us, Comrade.
Yes agreed these are good
🖤💜💙💚💙💜🖤
Much Love!!
A great re-upload! Thanks so much for continuing on this channel!
Looking forward to the next video already.
Nice! I actually know most of these facts already. I just like the way you put them. It gives me ways to explain them to other people. It's a good gift dude! Although I do have to pause the videos every 5 minutes to be like "I know RIGHT?!" then ranting to myself.
I've yet to come across a good capitalist argument against any sort of leftist thought. Us leftists are better at critisizing or own ideologies than capitalists. At least we don't use regurgitated talking points.
alternatively it's because you are so biased than you're subconciously unwilling to entertain perfectly valid arguments that you disagree with.
That is an alternative, yes, but to present it as an equally valid one is a false equivalence. Capitalists don't have to deal with as much criticism because they can just drown it out by making their own voices 5000x louder. Addressing disagreeing positions implies such positions are worthy of debate, which poses a threat to the status quo, which capitalism has a firm hold of.
@@TwentySeventhLetter Perhaps Capitalism's firm grip on the status quo and Anarchism's unstable structure is the best possible argument in favor of Capitalism. Hierarchies can be corrupt but they're also fairly stable. Anarchism rejects most order as tyrannical and therefore it tends to be a poor long term solution.
@@aaronbrown8377 Considering that all the "instability" of historical attempts at anarchism were the result of capitalist interventionism and that in general, changes to the status quo are undermined by the power structure that would be, as I said, threatened by the mere existence of an alternative to itself, I don't think "might makes right" is a valid justification for the only system most people are socialized to believe is possible, no.
Jastin - you're right we are better at criticizing our own. But "At least we don't use regurgitated talking points." is funny because from what I see nothing has changed in at least 50 years, only the media and the buzzwords.
Hey dude, I remember you posted on reddit a few months ago, about wanting to make a video criticising social democracy (i.e. the type fashioned by Kyle Kulinski and others) are you still going to make that video? Because a few of Kyle's recent video merits criticism at least from an Libertarian Socialist point of view?
I'm gonna respond to David Pakman instead
Libertarian Socialist Rants Would you consider going on his show if he would have you (pretty sure he would)?
Sure, though I'm not great at speaking off the cuff.
You've said as much before, but Pakman I think is chill enough to take that into account.
@LibertarianSocialistRants
Goddamn. David Pakman is such a one note boring twat. Not to mention a Russiagater and shill for Apartheid Israel. Will be interesting seeing what your response will be.
Keep up the great content Cam
great improvement to the series, good stuff!
this is incredible work to put this together! read all parts on theanarchistlibrary
Holy shit, you're actually back!! :D
Thank you for your videos. Damn, I have to start donating.
What a great video! I feel a sense of hope now ever since I've felt more disillusioned about liberalism. Thank you.
You've done really well, great video!
Ok, let's write my opinion down here...
So - I am still calling myself a communist (with anarchist sympathies). I would say, that I agree with probably everything you said (not only in this video, but also the earlier videos in this series).
However, when I look at the world, I see a strong necessity to transform the economy as fast as possible into an ecological sustainable economy. I am not very well read in anarchist economics, but I definitely see the effectiveness of a centralized planned economy, especially nowadays in the digital age.
If you could provide me with reading recommendations about anarchist economics, I would be thankful (in the best case with some ideas how to use modern technology...you probably know how Paul Cockshott and Allin Cottrell combined computer technology, direct democracy with a centralized planned economy - if you have anything that would be better than that, please tell me!).
Until then, I have to remain on my position of a (limited...minarchist) state in order to transform the economy as fast as possible.
anyway, Solidarity comrades!
That is the problem with anarchy. Just as communist are stuck in the 20th century so are anarchist and have no answers that face us in the 21st. The main problem is that the older generation left politics but politics rolled on without them leading to liberalism we have today. No only do we not have progress we are fighting for battles we won in the past a complete regression while the "corporate coup d'etat in slow motion" took power.
id 33
Yeah, we know that. Even the people who want a centralized planned economy are in favor of direct democratic control over it.
And while the USSR did many things wrong, the pace with which it was able to start and fullfill large-scale projects is remarkeable. And the necessity for this is what makes me hold back on anarchism
^ Boy, convincing you will be a Real Piece Of Work, won´t it?
Libertarian Leninist Rants libertarian Leninism is an oxymoron.
Yes but they did this on the backs of workers. Unrealistic and brutal quotas were imposed on the workers, by the party hierarchy, to achieve that level of industrialization and production. The profit motive of capitalism was simply replaced by the production quotas in a Leninist system. Both systems oppressed the workers and benefited a ruling class. This is in fact the key problem of the experiments tried in the USSR and China and the advantage of Anarchic systems over what essentially boils down to State run capitalism.
Love this channel!!❤️❤️❤️🏴
You’re vídeos are so damn great, keep up the great work comrade!
The Messiah has returned
We are our own gods, the love of life and liberty is our master and the message of love is our prophet... I guess. I mean, all we want is to live as humans and not as cogs of a infeastible machine. Everything else is just intellectualizing a simple idea. Not that I'm against that.
If the ruling class of a state always acts in their self interest and if that ruling class is the working class, how can you say a workers state can't exist? And why would such a state be bad, even if it is an institution with a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence? In the same way that a capitalist state protects and serves the interests of the capitalist class that controlls it, wouldn't changing the structure of the state change the way in which that state functions?
Just so you know, my comments aren't meant to be spammy or hostile. I really like your channel, and your videos have been influential to how I've developed my politics. I just feel like there are some holes in anarchism that Marxism Leninism covers effectively, and I always felt there was a level of idealism necessary in anarchism, and I couldn't get past that. My political disagreements aside I do think this series (and this video) were well made and you've always been very good in providing easy to grasp, yet still informative arguments and explanations. I may be ML, but anarchists and libertarian socialists who combat capitalism are comrades of mine.
Thanks, really well reasoned. Always here for your content! If only more youtubers made decent arguments.
So put it on! Big L(ibertarian socialist rants) put it on!
I could quite easily defeat every each point you made and highly outline false or speculative assumptions, but let me just put it in one simple sentence, why it is destined to fail:
Anarchism could only work if every human being on earth believes in equality, does not see worth in posession, does not strive for dominance, and does not seek to use violence. The moment someone willing enough to break this mentality for his own satisfication comes into existense (which wouldnt be the first time) your systeme would be destined to fail. Because, how could you react, without organising into a state and let him stand fair trial or breaking human rights by doing self justice? I could further expand this point, but i would just leave it there. The moment people organize, the moment they become a subject as a group, they become somewhat of a state. And what if it doesnt stay at one person not believing in your anarchist Ideology? What if they form a group, maybe a state? What if they form militant and orginazided groups for their own good? Humans are never satisfied and strive for more. Thats the reason even bilionaires still urge to make more money, although they shouldnt need to and could hapily live with just less than 1% of their wealth. Yet they dont do it. Because many humans are egocentric, no matter the social environment they grew up in. And one human with such a mindset and convincing social skills is more than enough to crumble your system and create a tyranny.
Because if it werent, anarchism would have had prevailed since the beginning of mankind and capitalism and tyranny would have never had the chance to even exist. Yet they certainly do.
Their existance, may it just be in the past, is a threat to anarchy. Because as history repeats itself, it most certainly would be possible again.
So glad the king is back.
Oh shit I'm so early to this video. Hello fellow liberty lovers!
Down with kings!
BadSportsLobby Tv hello all🙂😁🏴
FW Cameron ty for using an intersectional perspective!!!!
Solidarity
Great video, thank you!
Have you considered revisiting your Red Bureaucracy video on AuthSoc V LibSoc? Not that I have any complaints in it's current form, and it was one of a very few things that really shaped my early anarchist days, but I'd love to see a 2018 update on it, with so much more AuthSoc activity of late. We've got like a billion leninists in my town. It's insane.
There are no arguments against anarchy.
Pacojjjss Df....... details
There are. There are arguments against everything. The question is, do they withstand scrutiny.
Eh, even as an anarchist I'm not sure that's true. We gotta remember our ideology may not be perfect, because if we assume the best, we won't know where to improve. I don't know, I just woke up, but there are arguments against anarchism, we just have to understand why they may be wrong and where they're coming from.
After everything I have learned about anarchism and communism over the last few years and what has happened under these forms in the past and how many today are desperately looking for a substitute religion that will free them from self-imposed slavery, one thing has struck me bitterly. Whether it was the Soviets and their Gulags or their Cheka, or the anarchists under Makhno, or Durruti and Ravachol. Everywhere innocents were killed and people murdered to pave their way. Whether they were clergy, landowners and their families, or critics and members of the middle class. When these groups gained power, they killed everyone out of prejudice and intolerance towards them and to get revenge on someone for their hard life. In the end they drank the best wine and resided in the large villas. The Soviets have more or less perfected the ability to take everything from others and redistribute it among themselves.
I have come to the conclusion that as long as it is necessary to view people as class enemies or to look for an enemy, there can be no change. Because when you have declared yourself victorious over your imaginary enemy, you behave no differently than they do.
Anarchism and Communism are radical ideologies emanating from early socialism and should be treated as such. Everything radical has led to numerous deaths and those who think it has to be sacrificed should, in my opinion, never see the light of day on this planet again and be lonely and alone in a cell with their idealism.
Just like the fascists, they murdered innocent people on an ideal pretext to justify their ideology. Together with the fascists they are the greatest evil in this world.
Just your idea that you have to win over the masses in order to free them from their prison is idiotic. A drug addict has to admit that he is suffering from an addiction. If the masses can't develop enthusiasm for it, it's because they have no interest in it.
Of course it is frustrating to work for others. But better than killing them and smearing yourself in blood and sacrificing your loved ones to the terror of war. What all these do-gooders have done. They threw away their families and their lives for constructs that have only produced one thing to date... Good stuff for creepy movie dramas and swashbuckling despots with gunpowder-scented coats and ugly biographies with broken families. They and their ideas are consumed precisely by such people. From those who see and want to see themselves as outsiders and saviors. But if you don't want to be saved, you shouldn't be forced to. But these ideologues do and still do today.
Behind every civil servant, be it a policeman, judge, doctor or lawyer or teacher, there is a person with a history and a family whose life is no less valuable than anyone else's. The same with the religious
An ideology that rejects religion, telling people what to do and who to hate, is not liberation but a scourge of humanity.
the joke is. They criticize society but enjoying its fruits on a daily basis and delight in the safety and products around them.
In the end, it's all about who owns everything. They have no eyes for what they can currently enjoy. They only see that when their family members are lying in the street in their own blood and the sound of the children changes with the sound of the guns. I think a lot of people are not able to understand what they really have in life until its gone. Most of us running from Job to Job or from Idealism to Idealism. I was first a Punk, until I understand that taking drugs and alcohol and critizism the majority for thier way of life don't lead to change and development, becasue nobody likes an drunken parasitic asshole. Then I changed and joined the metal and goth community until I realized that their livestyle is more a jacket or a suite as the punk ever was, then I tried communism until I read about the thousands of crimes they have committed and last but not least I ended up beeing an anarchist until I figured out what they have done. After all of this journeys I can say I'm not a friend of anything extreme anymore.
Religion is opium for those who don’t want change. Religion is idealism. I can partake in society and criticize it. For example, I can play a video game have fun and then criticize it. It just sounds like you have political burn out if anything.
Look at the 99% of of human history that we lived without a state. Not these utopian ideas.
sooooo....
not anarchy then?
if people collectively determine codes of conduct, how are those people not the government?
“we want a society run by means of horizontal democratically controlled federations; within that institutions framework, people could COLLECTIVELY determine codes of conduct in an anarchist manner”
@@bebopbe7698 what is the difference between this and a democratic state? what is the result of a code of conduct and how is that different from law and law enforcement? how is the consequence for violating a code of conduct different from a judicial system? would one have to stand trial for violating a code of conduct, and how would this be different from a less bureaucratic criminal justice system? how is a local militia different from a military? renaming these things makes them no different, and the only difference is that they are significantly more democratic. how is this different from state institutions under ML, which are inherently democratic where power is given to the proletariat?
local militias are still people being given the authority to use violence in defence of their community. you would also need specialist strategists in your local militias who can see the big picture in order to not self-destruct as a society, which is also a form of state authority. you would also need specialists capable of organizing the local militias in the case of a large attack, again a form of authority. putting trust in individuals with no specialism in strategy, organization or logistics is suicide. no matter how you redefine this it is hierarchical. it would be like putting trust in medical students who have not learned a specific concept to teach the class about it.
i am not trying to attack or anything i would just like to understand how this is different from a democratic state, or dictatorship of the proletariat.
i would also like to understand how the voice of unspecialised individuals on specialised topics would be more beneficial than a group of specialists consulting one another, which to extend my analogy would be like asking the majority of non-medical students to provide an opinion on a medical topic, while the minority of medical students also put forward their unspecialised opinion, while the even smaller minority of successful medical graduates also put forward their specialised opinion. it would be dangerous to come to a conclusion from an unspecialised majority on specialist topics. maybe im misinterpreting or misunderstanding but if you could elaborate that would be great
For everyone I'd recommend reading _Anarchy works_ by Peter Gelderloos, it's an excellent reading that can act as a sort of FAQ for anarchism, and you can find it on the Anarchist Library.
Anarchist always dream of the end system but never how to get there.
Yes they do. They talk about how all the time.
Plenty talk about it and others do something about it. In France and Spain a cooperative has formed that takes on Deliveroo and Uber by building there own app cutting out the corporate middleman working with staff and the companies to provide better pay and conditions for staff and negotiating terms directly with the companies they supply. Because if shareholders are not having to be paid they can get a better deal for their customers. Have a look here ua-cam.com/video/I0Z5PBgwu60/v-deo.html
I feel like anarchy wouldn't work, because there will always be someone who wants control.
That persont wouldn't be able to
What up my Anarchist Federation (AFED) comrades!
Doesn't having a code of conduct limit freedom? And wouldn't any punishment limit freedom?
YES, as soon as the notification popped up, I was ready for TRUTH
Fantastic video series. This last video cleared up a lot of details about anarchism for me!
I am wondering, though: How would one avoid competent authority inadvertently giving rise to hierarchical authority in the case of my relationship with my supervisor for my Master's thesis? He is obviously a competent authority in this context, being a professor specializing in the field. However, whether or not I may proceed with a continuation of my thesis work in the shape of a PhD, depends on his impression of me. In principle, his impression should only be based on my relevant achievements, but, well, because of human nature and all that, his impression will of course be skewed depending on his impression of my character, including our social interactions, my articulation, my looks etc., which makes me very much vary of my own behavior in relation to him, and forces me to be more tolerant of his behavior. Hasn't the competent authority thus given rise to a hierarchical authority? What mechanism in an anarchist society would counter this?
None same as how the delegates could easily become heirarchical forces in an anarchist society. Hierarchy is natural as all successful states have had some hierarchical elements, hell the families we naturally form are hierarchical. Because Hierarchies allow us to shift our responsibilities from ourselves to others.
Without a system in place to enforce his authority over _you specifically,_ there would be nothing preventing you from seeking out a more neutral mentor to guide you through the process. Your thesis itself would effectively be judged by consensus. ✊🤓🏴
As an anti-Leninist Orthodox Marxist I just don't understand the need for anarchism on top of Marxism. Marxism seems enough unless I guess you're not some kind of impossiblist or a Marxist who thinks the working class can and will emancipate themselves. We probably agree on most things, anyway, though.
Great Video, but as someone more in the Auth-Left camp, I have a question: You say horizontal worker's militias and federations are better alternatives than the Leninist Vanguard Party and State. While I agree that that would be best and optimal AFTER Capitalism is fully destroyed, how would those horizontal power structures coordinate action and resources to fight a global war against International Capital? These horizontal structures I feel would not be equipped to quickly and efficiently allocate manpower and resources within a territory in such a way that could fight those reactionary elements inside and outside the Anarchist territory. Not to mention, who's to say that those various horizontal workers' councils won't have diverging economic and political interests? Why would region X help region Y if region X has all the resources it needs for itself, while region Y needs assistance from region X? This applies to modern states today. Wouldn't the answer be a somewhat centralized, federal body? Cause if these horizontal power structures operate independently on one another, I feel like they'll naturally come into conflict.
That’s covered under solidarity.
Every argument for anarchy is a contradiction. This video has proven nothing
This comment on the other hand, proves everything
Maybe that's because the "anarchy" he's talking about doesn't fit your definition of anarchy?
I think to LSR, anarchy means "No authority unless proven necessary", and your anarchy means "no authority whatsoever".
Thanks! Great vid.
Can you PLEASE make a video on Markets? Just markets. Without capitalism, I've heard people defending market socialism, I want to know your opinion. Thanks.
Thanks from CT. Very coherently communicated
Brilliant. Would you consider addressing the challenges an anarchist society has to face as well? It would be really interesting.
I love you
about the "hierarchies are natural"... let's suppose they are, so having someone in power and people obeying that person is natural and people naturally do... if they are naturally obeying the person, so it seems like it's voluntary, so the person is just a leader, not a ruler, so anarchists aren't against it, and if you define hierarchies as begin coercive (therefore not voluntary), hierarchies are unnatural by nature
Your comment is confusing. Are you pro-government or anti-government?
To accomplish your goals you need authority
@@Will_JC pro government
The buffet example was really good, I was thinking about something like that in respect to the idea of common stores. At Food Not Bombs (the branch I'm familiar with) they give food out to everybody and not once has one person come up and been like "Oh it's free and for everyone? Well eat shit chumps I'll take all your lentil curry!"
What's funny is that capitalism is the only system that enables excess consumption, 70 pairs of shoes, 2 big macs for lunch, 4 televisions, 1 new car every year, 1 new smartphone every year, mansions, gold, silver, and more recently : gold wrapped chicken wings. It seems to me, that the fear of people taking more than they need is only possible under capitalism, but of course only for the filthy rich, while the poor have less then they need.
About the delegate section of the video, the Iroquis had a similar system. Just thought that was interesting.
I think I'm dumb but is there somewhere i could learn more in depth about how an anarchist system of federations would actually work? these videos have been super interesting to me, but if honest, a lot of it goes over my head.
Check out the Anarchist FAQ online
And the book _The Accumulation of Freedom: Writings on Anarchist Economics_
ua-cam.com/play/PLCcemL_x8RtdtFuib1Wl6VwyuYOEDb5Wv.html
Its really just like the resource based economic model. the differnce here is that it also describes via history and democratic means how it could also work without focusing directly on technology to achieve that. Its good because every tactic has value because it means that it can be implemented right now. TVP on the other hand could learn so much from anarchism on these regards. id like to see them including the diversity of tactics more. Nonetheless they are important in what they propose and anarchists can learn so much from their focus of the scientiffic method approach and the technology they present in order to get the most and best out of it for everyone on the planet in accordance with nature.
Both are compatible enough, yeah.
Real.Piece.Of.Work , Are you "corrupt" and lust for power?
+maelwynn
Just ignore them. They obviously didn't watch the video and are spamming their boring strawmans under almost every comment. A simple troll, nothing more.
Real.Piece.Of.Work
Fuck your authoritarian propaganda. Shit you sayin are lies based in conservative ideology but not on facts.
Real.Piece.Of.Work That's not what he said. Are you, right now, corrupt and lust for power? Do you, right now, want to control other people? Don't pull the "if I live in a Communist society" crap, because it was you who said that "people are people", along with a few "human nature" arguments, which means you've indicated that humans are inherently corrupt, regardless of scenarios. So, I ask again: are you, right now, corrupt and lust for power, and do you, right now, want to control others?
Let it be a lesson that free Ukraine’s biggest mistake was thinking that it could trust the soviets. Never trust a authoritarian regime, no matter what they say or do.
My problem with something like a rotational system is that I am being forced to work.
@@Will_JC I don't feel strongly one way or the other. Why?
@@osio7528 Are you okay with emailing me? I want to talk about something privately, but if you’re uncomfortable with emailing, I have one NON-email option you can consider.
@@Will_JC uhhhhh I'm okay with email, but what's the non email option?
@@osio7528
*WillJhouseofC*
*GMail*
let me know it’s you when you message me
@@osio7528 Why haven’t you messaged me in over a year since you said you were okay with emailing me?
Every statement ends the same. "I don't have a blueprint for how this would work..." Even Chomsky doesn't have many fundamental answers to how things would actually work in this kind of society and nearly every thought experiment along the lines of national infrastructure quickly derails into absurdity.
See Frank Mintz - Anarchism and Workers' Self-Management in Revolutionary Spain. Nothing absurd about it
@@ElectricUnicycleCrew During the THREE YEARS that this occurred, private property was expropriated and collectivised. I'm sure against some of the wishes of the previous owners. Wages were paid based on the basis family size, and NOT through individual contribution, effectively a form of tax and wealth redistribution.
'private property was expropriated and collectivised'
That was the point.
@@ElectricUnicycleCrew I thought the point was the abolition of coercion and the organisation of society on a voluntary basis. Did all those property owners volunteer away their property?
@@alexshaykevich509 "Abolition of coercion and the organisation of society on a voluntary basis." That's where you were mistaken. Anarchism is centered around abolition of domination ahd the organization of society on a relatively egalitarian basis.
I feel like politics is just a way to practice debating, when will Anarchy ever be put into practice on a large scale? Everything's stagnant right now, I don't see any single political extreme being put into practice within my lifetime.
Well thats mainly because those in power have actively tried to denounce anarchism as a political philosophy.
It won't even happen, cope
7:36 No way I'm letting "society" decide democratically what work I should do. My time is my own.
13:30 Militias? Hahaha, you actually don't see the problem with this? I'm glad you replied to the commies because it really shines a light on how this revolution will go down.
Superb video!
Horizontal militias aren't armies and horizontal delagates aren't representative government. Source: trust me. I will say that you did make me think about the benefits of direct democracy.
Awwww yeeeeeeah! New video
I think an interesting example of quasi communist societies in the past are the Catal Huyuk culture and the Cucuteni Trypillia culture in the neolithic which developed large scale settlements without any evidence of segnificant wealth inequality or class structure.
I slightly disagree on specialization. I think our capacity for knowledge and expertise is immense enough to give us tools to specialize in more than one field in our lifespans, thereby rendering specialization somewhat irrelevant moving forward. I do admit that I have no data to back this up, but the current trend towards interdisciplinary research in academia gives me hope in this regard. Otherwise, fantastic video as always, my Lawful Good comrade. :D
I'm talking less jack-of-all-trades and more acquainting yourself with methodologies of particular fields/professions, etc., because I really do think people want to be good in at least more than one thing. As for the time-constraints, I don't think a "Matrix-style direct-to-brain learning machine" is required. We can develop techs/lifestyles for people who want to go that route, thereby easing those constraints somewhat. This again, of course, feeds into technology serving humans rather than the other way around. I think Bastani talks about this somewhere in his Fully Automated Luxury Communism.
Where did I say that learning in future will involve none of those things? I said acquainting people with the methodologies of any field will definitely take time, but I think further tech progress can reduce the unit of time than it takes today. There's no reason to believe that "widespread technologies of learning" will suddenly stop dead in their tracks and no more tech will be seen in this arena.
"Yeah but there's a genetically determined limit to how much information a human can process, called IQ, and it's not gonna change"
What? IQ changes all the time, depending on your circumstances, age, etc. Also, which IQ? There is a large taxonomy of IQ. There is no one type of IQ that remains static. And even if it did, I see no reason to believe that our IQ specifically limits us to just one field/profession.
"unless we find a way to reliably alter human genome (which will be expensive and lead to extreme inequality between those who can, an those who cannot afford raising their IQ). Or feed information directly into memory."
This is a very limited view of what learning processes can look like in the future/what technology can do. It's almost reactionary in a way. I'm sure there are limitations, which is good. That's what breeds creativity. But the either/or scenario you're creating seems to look at one particular way of looking at how to improve brains (biotech) while ignoring what people can do in a social context autonomy in both time and availability of knowledge is given to them in an anarchist society. Deci and Ryan already blew the lid off that in self-determination theory.
" I believe that the current learning opportunities provided by new technology already far exceed the ability of an average human to harness them'
I disagree completely. This is a very "Black Mirror" kind of argument to be making, and also a reactionary one born out of a primarily capitalist perspective, where humanity serves technology instead of the other way around. I think we are just beginning to see how much tech we can harness. Again, Bastani has written extensively on this.
"It is certainly a case for myself, and I'm not dumb (somewhere in the middle of the IQ spectrum). The amount of stuff I would like, and could easily find resources to learn, if only I had enough time for it, is enormous.'
People's prioritization of what they will choose to learn/consider themselves capable of learning is a non sequitur to the conversation of how we can reduce time units at a person's disposal if they do decide to prioritize at least more than one field that they want to learn about.
As an anarchist myself, there's only one thing disagree with: I am not for getting rid of genders. I'm not really a fan of the lgbt "movement".
then you still have a gender hierarchy , meaning you're a pretty bad anarchist if you still believe in some forms of oppression. pretty stupid take tbh.
@@linkydubs You can get rid of "gender hierarchies" without cutting away your own humanity. Anarchy is about liberation from coercive hierarchies not turning yourself into an androgynous monster.
Honestly I'm glad my ideal country is a conservative autoritarian monarchy
Authoritarianism is evil. How is authoritarianism good?
@@taxslave5906 it isn't, I changed my views
@@burebistta1923, okay. Good.
Thanks for a Great video!
Great vid
Stop asking yourself easy question that makes you sound like a genius
okay then you ask the hard question then?
these are common questions, not hard questions. do you have any questions that can be used to tweak the system and better the anarchist cause
@@Will_JC yes
@@ahola3208 Are you okay with emailing me? I want to talk about something privately, but if you're uncomfortable with emailing, I have one NON-email option you can consider.
@@Will_JC do you perhaps use discord? If that is okay with you
So What of Meritocracy
(where the government and earnings are based on the merit of each individual rather than wealth or support by the people)
Can meritocracy and Anarchy co-exist
I think not as anarchy advocates against the natural hierarchy that exists (people are different and some are better than others)
Note
I do not support capitalism I am a socialist but I believe in a socialist meritocracy where the best workers get to the top and help us decide what the masses usually cannot.
such as an organized army and law enforcement that is against popular belief (people in mass are still superstitious-at least in america-) and rule by the people will not solve everything you need to understand we need authoritative leaders that can make quick decisions in disasters and crisis but that does not mean these people need to be rich capitalists or authoritarian by any means.
Meritocracy also has a theory of positive discrimination meaning the incapable will not end up on the top so hopefully less error will be made and better ideas will be put forth.
I hope this wasn't too long a read and I apologize for any potential misrepresentation but I wished to raise a few new counter-arguments against anarchy.
This require change. In what procedure or process to make this happen? Is it forceful or an act of proper conduct?
Human nature is questionable but I will leave that aside for now.
Take statistics as an example, since crime are reduced dramatically, lets say a 1% of 7 billion is 7 million. What proper discipline would this to make it happen? The fact that there is a crime, there is a rule, but conceived by the voice of a mass.
By since its a mass, then the voters of the winners are majority, then what would be the oppostion opinion regarding about it?
And also does this change require war? As a revolutionary and taking the anarchist stand, would mean that you're going against the current authority.
What happens in a instance of change? Each phases? Does it really convince the people along the way? I found anarchist as intolerant most of my encounters.
Since it only says to exclude anti-social does that mean it only requires people to believe in society and abide with it, but not the reason/nature which cause for his actions.
What about human nature? Even disregarding such people with anti-personality, would still not exclude or elimnate their nature.
(which means enforcing someone to go against their individuality for the sake of society)
And also what is the likelihood for an anarchist that won't against his political beliefs along the change.
Change requires power, i doubt people with weak heart would go for that.
Preferably ideal but radically invalid.
I needed this though since i'm about to take pre-law as a course.
I need a stack of knowledge.
I have a lots of question and i have already researched most of its criticism. The only lacking is that opinion of others. Or for short a survey.
I hear very quiet music, what is with this?
With regards to 'unpleasant' work, it is an area where anarchist societies need to absolutely embrace technology and its ability to liberate people. In the anarchist society technology could, should and almost certainly would, be primarily be focused on reducing the burden of 'unpleasant' work to give people more time to act as free members of a society.
bump for the algorythms. just here to learn :)
When I read the title I thought “Rly? What the heck happened to you LSR?” XD
Anyway I'll be leaving a like before I go. 👍👍👍
Possibly.
To maintain a social order a society requires at least a certain amount of activists, to prevent violent or abusive behavior.
lol, many of the points you raised arent exclusive to anarchism.
Can someone clear this up for me:
A federation is comprised of regional governments that overlap with a national government. Like the United States, which has a national government, but also regional state governments. So, in a federation regional governments have some power, but the national centralised government has the majority of power. Whereas, in a confederation, there is no centralised national government; only regional governments. So, wouldn't an anarchist state be a confederate state? Not a federation?
what about the comrades in manchuria
Well said, comrade. I find your analysis very on time point and an these posts help me gather some of my own thoughts while supplying useful rhetoric when debating these issues.
Like I get your point, but you still want a state, so don't call yourself anarchist.
Someone who gets a kick out of hurting others would just be kicked out of the community or punished I dunno
Would you think that anarchist didn't already think up of these problems and already fix them?
The video is titled "Arguments against Anarchism", not "Problems of Anarchism".
Will my trust fund have to be redistributed to the workers?
I always share your vids!!!! We will do it.
Our "Utopia" will come unless annihilation comes first, even a failed attempt is still better than a "working" capitalistic society and it has worked for enough people, that other people wanted to destroy them.
Mate, do your own research. He even talks about one in this very video you're commenting on. Like, what is this? If you're out for answers on why people believe in "utopias", there's plenty of people whomst've made you and everyone else amounts of entertaining and informing content on how we see and understand the world and you won't need to engage with people who just want to comment and possibly compliment on the interpret's work. If what you're trying to do is to fight, debate and argue for a cause and belief which you see as the right one, possibly even with the intent of changing a mind or two, you aren't doing a good job. Like, this is just a wasted effort. Now, if what you're trying to do is just insulting and trolling people, who you don't understand, which honestly sounds the most likely to me,... well congrats. You've really achieved something. Anyway, have a lovely day and I sincerely hope that you find the questions you're looking for, soon.
Real.Piece.Of.Work anarchists societies never went tyrannical, the opposite. They thrived in it until capitalist Institutions of any kind came along and destroyed them. Your references are not relevant for anarchism cuz those countries you mentioned were als capitalist systems. They are just different variations. Red caps never intented anarchism but the opposite.
Human behaviour, values, action and thinking is shaped by the enviroment, the needs are innate and universal (thirst, hunger etc) unless there is medical condition which blocks that. We are not doomed on these regards. Its up to us emancipating and changing ourselves.
15:00 ooh that's a good one
Thank you for this. These were the ideas and arguments that made me move from ML to Anarchism. Hopefully your videos (among others) will help move other MLs to Anarchism. I'm really sorry if I was a dickhead to you back when I was an ML - I was very wrong.
I love Anarchists’ anti-Capitalist energy but I still can’t say I am one. It would be much easier to have sweeping change within our own Democracy than to convince everyone that Anarchy is better - even if it is.
As said in the video, Anarchy relies on people believing in Anarchy and people being good on their own merit. That would be well and good except for the harsh reality that most people (if we’re discussing America) is used to Capitalism and our minds have adapted to it. That’s not something that’s so easily changed, and so while some may do things out of the good of their heart if the country were to suddenly become an anarchy - many would still scramble to claim as much power and material as possible. And they’d likely be the people who have the military on their side - something not mentioned in the discussion.
What would be much better and quicker in our current situation would be a revolution, and a change towards Democratic Socialism. It would at least be a start, and might even be a permanent solution. As things stand, Anarchy cannot work.
How would one enforce it anyways? By gaining an unfair political advantage? That would go against anarchy’s fundamentals. By killing a bunch of people who disagree? Again, against fundamentals, and the rich have the military on their side.
I don’t agree with Anarchy, but I see the points it’s trying to make. And even I did agree with it, I just can’t see it ever taking root in today’s society anyways. It’s something that would, at the very least, need multiple generations to slowly take over. It can’t be a sudden change.
I would love to know if you hold the same notion of capitalism as Marx... and what you disagree with. Because I think most Marxists want the same thing as you but they think that the current contradictions in capitalism will lead to lower communism first. The socialism that comes out of capitalism will be stamped with the ideas/values of capitalism. And the contradictions within that system will then lead to higher communism which I think is synonymous with anarchism, or even a step further.
In my experience many agree with marxisms analysis of capitalism
Lower phase communism and higher phase are Only different in that higher have had a generation to forget and develop Beyond all capitalist shit
They are still the same system and mode of production
so to libertarian socialists would there be: commodities for exchange in a market, money, (i'm pretty sure private ownership of the means of production would be gone, and more obliteration of bourgeois right then say in the USSR)… etc in lower phase communism. I'm just trying to get what down what needs to be abolished in a capitalism to make it a socialism in the libertarians mind and why. Is this something that flows from the values of capitalism.
Would it be from each according to their ability to each according to their need (this seems to be more communist than socialist to a Marxist because such a value does not seem to flow from capitalism... if you look at the critique of the gotha programme for example)
As a union socialist… i'd be interested in seeing what you think from your perspective too. How would De Leon critique the USSR and libertarian socialists in their ideas of socialism.
I get hella confused about this stuff sometimes
What happened to Your first “Arguments against Anarchism” video? I know it was titled outdated but I was really hoping to watch both since both videos make good points.
Whoever calls themself "Comrade Dr Frasier Crane" omg I'm dead
How can you have democracy when there is no state? How can people make choises on how things affect their lives if there is nothing to create that change?
Free-association collectivism is the ultimate “demos” and is the antithesis of the State, which is coercion.
Demo*cracy* is not anarchism, no matter how decentralised.
Not hierarchical. In society you need rules. That's the real world.
Hi Cameron, would you be so kind as to make a video providing perspectives (including yours of course) on Green Anarchism. I say this because even with libertarian socialism there will be factories, WORK, grunt work and pollution? And according to green anarchists we will still be subjected to alienation as we will still live through symbols and representation: not in direct relation with the 'natural wild world.' John Zerzan has written some excellent material on how it is civilisation that is the killing ideology and not capitalism particularly. Great series of 4 videos by the way, passionately delivered.
I think because we are part of the ecosystem with 7 billion people we have right to pollute as long as we give bacl what we taken.
But i thin there wouldnt be need for much factories because everyone will take much as they need.
No car or only limited amount of cars like one for family and a clean effective public transportation system will solve the gas problem for the exact public transportation vehicle i would say fast train but of course there could be a better choice
For producing energy we could use solar plants for personal lives and thorium reactors for bigger projects like factories and science stations
Also we wouldnt make lafge amounts of weapons.There would be only a little amounts of weapons that would be enough for a defensive and guerilla war.
I hope i was able to help
Points were made
democracy isn’t anarchist
Heterosexism would also be another term for queerphobia or even transphobia and homophobia as well. Also, no mention of speciesism and ageism? But then again, the only thing that, would be problematic for one's anarchism is if it's a Eurocentric model of anarchism, which masquerades as universality in diversity. Hence, white anarchism is a problem, especially if you have white middle-class and white working-class folk leading it.
@@spectralisation That would mean to take a more pluralistic model! Which is why we have postcolonial anarchism.
The entire “speciesist” notion is racist and colonialist
@@yansideabacoa6257 So are you suggesting that we look at vegan anarchism from a Black vegan lens? Because in Aphro-ism, by sisters Syl and Aph Ko have covered this.
@@CosmoShidan yes in part, but overall just a decolonial lens in general
@@yansideabacoa6257 Do you mean that in a universal manner or pluralistic one? Because a decolonialist lens isn't one thing, and even using such a lens is limited, especially since it is a tool that needs to be decolonized as well. Plus the book rightfully points out that decolonialism is even more limited as it is in the practice of problem pointing. The Ko siblings suggest that Afrofuturism is a solution to the problem of white veganism as it is about problem-solving.
Good lord, I made a new account and forgot to sub!
Read the Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes
the part about delegates being chosen, is that not just like the house of commons/ MPs etc?