@@bawinshah1914 yeah well there’s a transition to everything I identify myself as a vegan. And for the longest time I played games / dude things in games that symbolized the harm or death of an animal. Simply just not thinking about it. Corporate America and capitalism has deep psychological effects on our social structure take that away and some people who use these as routes for energy to flow they may break on a mental level. Yeah sports are fairly shitty but not all require the risk of life some actual promote health benefits and often most sports don’t have to involve capital gain. There’s actually an native Americans tribe that had developed a sport where it’s a large basin and there are hoops and you have to toss this clay ball through the hoops. Sports can be simple fun and non contact or if all give consent then contact can be allowed. People also forget anarchism isn’t just saying fuck all to any structure what’s so ever it says it abolishes all government structure or states. Which means people can still vote. A vote can represent someone’s ideas or opinions and can be measured up against each view point and a grand decision can be made. Even if the votes went to a small committee that sat there to count the votes as long as the individuals consent to count, are constantly rotated by random selection with the choice to deny, as well as term caps where they essentially can’t be picked anymore after serving 5 times or whatever. And as long as all of these details were fully agreed on by the community by direct population vote. As long as there’s potentially a place or another community for someone to goto they can simply follow social structure by the population or simply relocate at their own whim and will. All of this will be anarchism. It still is anarchism to deem that you can temporarily create a state for something deemed absolutely necessary as long as when that task is don’t the state is disembodied immediately. Like a captain and his crew. See pirates are text book anarchists. But they have a strong figure called a captain but the captain is voted in by the crew( more so agreed on). If the captain dosent take care of the crew by safely getting the ship to where it needs to go they will make the captain jump ship or lock him up to create a new captain because the crew themselves know it takes a special skill of something like manning a ship and all they wanna do is be told where something is wrong so they can fix it. But they don’t wanna sit there doing garbage work that dosent actually show any benefits. Anarchism doesn’t say sports are bad it says capitalism is but at that point are you sitting there off grid? Did you build your own computer?? Supply your own electric? Feed supply your own water and make your own clothes? Shoes? Do you hunt or farm animals because that’s not very anarchists by your logic you are taking your own decisions and will to unrightfully claim another beings experience and right to live for absolutely no health benefits at all. So yeah trust me social norms will take some time to be fixed and for us to get there because even if right now you barter with someone if it’s not hand made you still ultimately support that capitalist company to keep doing it and I don’t believe there’s a hand built computer that has its own self written Operating system , that can access the internet freely using your free access electricity to power the router and device to give you some level of connection and then after all that I have no idea why UA-cam who would get no money of your “IP” would ever grant you access to their proprietary information and code enough for you to make the comment “still follows sports”
Great video. I'd add, though, that while Anarchists do believe in workers controlling the means of production, they do NOT believe this control should happen via the use of a State, as most Socialists believe. For Anarchists, the State apparatus is inherently oppressive, even when controlled by workers. Also, it's worth distinguishing between private property, which Anarchists oppose, and personal possession of goods, which Anarchists do NOT oppose. Private property relies on an inherently unequal relationship, enforced (violently, if need be) via State institutions. On the other hand, personal possession of goods relies on truly free, equal and mutual agreement between parties. For instance, if I knit (or make a trade for) a shirt, which in my eyes as well as those of my community I justifiably wear for protection from the elements, I have legitimate possession of that shirt. No authority can legitimately take that shirt away from me.
Small remark: you are talking about anarcho-communism, because other anarchist currents of thought defend property as a symbol of total freedom. The maximum exponent of this can be the anarcho-individualism, the theory for a perfect egoism.
And calling Anarchy as violence is the propaganda that movements such as the cult of personality known as Trumpism and the misbegotten QAnon phenomenon call Anarchism is used to undermine the power of the people.
I believe that Anarchist do not seek the destruction of the state as such. Rather I propose that the State doesn’t actually exist. It is a theoretical construct based on an authority that doesn’t exist. Therefore the establishment of an anarchist society should be a result of an understanding that no form of government is legitimate and the subsequent ignoring of state authority.
That's complete gibberish and has no basis in reality. Anarchism is an anti hirearchy movement that cleans the gears of hirearchy. Left is a movement not a destination.
The core problem of violence is that anyone who is ready to commit violence has a monopoly on it. learning to live outside the society of the violent while still interacting with it *is* the only realistic anarchist model. Everything else is religion that ignores the fact that humans are the murder monkeys. And defining anarchism in terms of the state is like trying to define atheism in terms of god: it just doesn't work, the categories are far too different
Problem is modern people are brainwashed and modern men are weak. Even if the authority doesnt exist, many weakminded people BELIEVE it exists. And they WILL do the "authorities" bidding in fear of being the target themselves.
“Anarchism stands for the liberation of the human mind from the dominion of religion and liberation of the human body from the coercion of property; liberation from the shackles and restraint of government. It stands for a social order based on the free grouping of individuals…” ― Emma Goldman,
Awhile ago I repented to God then begged for help, "I was until then an Atheist." I then had a dream of Jesus coming before God and he spoke of the Tabernacle in perfect context, "A word I didn't know existed.", and what I felt from Jesus when I held him was unlike anything I've ever felt before - A lifetime of Love every second - It brought me to sobbing and it changed my life, forever. I've had other experiences since, "Several witnessed", one was seeing a bright orb of light pass across my face in the dark, hours before a major surgery the second I gave up in my heart. Know that God and Jesus ARE real and that they Love us deeply. Let go of your hatred and Imagine yourself holding the people who've hurt you. Tell them you Love them. Always have hope, I believe that prayer, following God's laws & Love is the answer, and through that, becoming humble, merciful, welcoming, giving, and forgiving, To All.
@@riverside321 Well, yes, but without this delusion about being against property or for socializm. Imagine being so delusional that you think anarchy and socialism goes together. 🤦🏼♂️🤦🏼♂️🤦🏼♂️
I'm seeing more and more discussion of Anarchism as a viable/legitimate system of social order. This was obviously catalysized by the complete failure of large, top heavy, corrupt governments poor response to covid. The Basque people are a good example of a functional Anarchist system. They have a higher standard of living and less crime than all the other industrialized systems.
@@HumanTypewriter not as all, I hosted Basque students. They are far more well educated than those in the US public school system. As per the “no CRT” propaganda.
@@nacholibreri What are you talking about? Who brought up education? Also, if you're measuring intelligence against the US then the every other developed nation is filled with Einstein's.
I’d go further and say Anarchism will never work because of human nature. Actually, not even human nature, but the nature of life itself. Every organism will want more, thats how we become to being scientifically. Humanity will never truly get along and form an anarchy because of the nature of life. Anarchism is trying to deny human nature and will (in my opinion), never work. Although, I’d say the idea isn’t so far fetched.
Anarchism wont work in cities with thousands of people. There are way to many selfish, immoral people. Anarchism would work in small communities where everyone knows each other and depend on each other for survival. It takes people with a high degree of trustworthiness, honor and ethics for it to work. Many people dont fit that bill. I guess that is human nature for you
@@AntonioGarmsci-cy5vt Unless you'd like to be another drop in the bucket without a logical explanation as to how you reached your conclusion, then I can only say that you're entitled to your opinion.
@@AntonioGarmsci-cy5vt i just watched it and it's not bad. it's a fairly ancappy, but still not a bad introduction. this basically nails it: "People are not perfect, and some are downright malicious and dangerous. And some people mistakenly view anarchism as a Utopian idea that would only work if everyone were generous and compassionate. But if people are too stupid, greedy and malicious to be free, aren't they also too stupid, greedy and malicious to be trusted with power? If you don't trust some stranger to have control over his own life, why would you ever trust him to have control over yours?" ancoms also frequently conflate their preferences of economic arrangements with their anarchism. but anarchists should understand better than anyone that it's valuable to have different approches of how to organize society and to not force your preferences on others…
Thank you so much for making content on these topics. As an anarcho-communist, it's always bothered me that there's such an enormous amount of gatekeeping in the very few online communities I've been a part of. Someone wanting to know more about this stuff often asks a question (whether they're an "outsider" or not, even), and it's usually met with "This group wasn't made to educate you. Go look elsewhere for an answer to that." when there's very few resources available or accessible to do so, especially if you don't know what you can't know in terms of what to search, anyway... But here, I've noticed you've taken the time to respond directly to so many comments and questions - and with impressive insight, knowledge, and resources you provide, at that - and I can't begin to express how awesome and appreciated that is. I'm so glad I came across this channel. We need less gatekeeping and more people like you to help raise awareness of these different perspectives, theories, social problems, alternatives, and so on if we really want to create a better society.
Love this comment, especially since I've been more or less politically "homeless" since Feb of last year. Not that my ideology or political goals changed, just that long story short most of the leftist channels/communities I was in saw Russia invading Ukraine as just an opportunity to bash the US and therefore decided that meant Putin = good which...idk it's just disappointing, especially when there isn't much openness to talking to any Eastern European and Ukrainian leftists/anarchists/Marxists/etc. Coincidentally, it led me to finally reading more about anarchist and I've finally found some anarchists online to follow. It makes sense now that I think about it - most of the Marxist and communist circles seem to be too caught up in the idea of Russia having been the USSR while anarchists are more like, "jfc it's been over 100 yrs of trying to force a square through a circle, fk that state and that one but fk the ones doing land grabbing even more" lol Anyway, I didn't mean to go on a mini vent/dumping some feels. My intent was more to say that I have noticed these rigid attitudes and, as you say, the gatekeeping ergo I've noticed a need for content like this! Solidarity! ❤
@@sempressfi Hey, marxism and communism is colectivist cancer garbage. I highly reccommend you listen to some real anarchists, Like Larken Rose, David D Friedman, Tom Woods, Michael Malice, Robert Higgs, Keith Night, Robert P Murphy, or read some of the real anarchists of the past, like Nietzche, Samuel Konkin, Entienne de le Boeti, Murray Rothbard, Walter Block, Henry David Thoreau or Lysander Spooner. You know, people with brains, who are not ecenomic illiterates.
I am a Chinese, although China is a socialist country, but I think I am an anarchist, unfortunately there are almost no anarchist organizations in China, can you recommend me some anarchist websites? (This is translated by translation software)
@@sempressfiIt’s especially ironic as Ukraine was home to one of the only anarchist nations in modern history, something many Ukrainians haven’t forgotten
as a post anarchist, the first definition is really bad. Goldman may have some really good work but the relation to violence is definitely best analysed by post-structuralists
@@RevolutionandIdeology neat i will check that out. i think anarchist should really update their intro theory tho because ive seen many people dismiss it because the modern landscape where the monopoly on violence and the control of the spectacle are both captured by a much more powerful state seems insurmountable through the lense of older thinkers
@@RevolutionandIdeology With revolution in your name, I doubt there is anything meaningful you can teach a real anarchist about anarchism. Revolutionaries are all violent thieving morons, from what I have seen.
Mutualism could fit under social anarchism or individualist anarchism. Mutualism coming from the individualist anarchist school tend to be more market oriented than Proudhon's Mutualism, which would also allow communes.
Whats the anarchists equivalent of a business? Or the equivalent unit of organized resources that distributes goods and services to those that wish to barter?
@@RevolutionandIdeology Thank you for the response and for the broader video. Very informative piece and I learned quite a bit. It might be worth another video diving deeper into what anarchism has to offer in terms of these units of "marketplace exchange" focused organizations. What a "worker-owned and controlled entity" would/does look like, how it functions, etc. One of the greatest achievements of modern capitalism is its ability to take the endless complexity of social exchange and offer some semblance of understanding of macro and micro events. The unit of delivery most are familiar with is the company and the method of delivery is the marketplace. If anarchism really does have something to offer, discovering its company/marketplace equivalent and advertising that to the western mind will undoubtedly stir about some movement. On the other hand, If the ideology doesn't have an equivalent unit of organization to this, that's also good to know. EIther way, I appreciate the content!
depends on the type of anarchism. in anarcho communism there are no markets nor trading, just a gift economy by each acording to capacity to each according to need (descentralized democratically planned economy)
All great answers above, I just want to add that there is no one answer. If all of the people who commented similar ideas were living and working in the same community, under anarchism, that community's answer to your question would likely look like a compromise between them. I recommend David Graeber's "Debt: the first 5000 years" for a VERY in-depth look at markets and services and barter and the like.
If all anarchists are socialist and there is no state, who will enforce the social and collective order in society? who will organize the society in this way without using power and force? Would't hierarchies naturally form if individuals are free from the state?
Anarchists are optimists. They believe in the "good" (this word is loaded, but for simplicity's sake) in human nature rather than the dogmatic Darwinist, greedy, violent, "original" sin, [insert other ideological baggage/adjective here], assertions about human nature. Most would also argue that these traits we think are innate are actually socialized via the ideal and material conditions in place.
Well who revolted and took over the means of production in the Anarchist Spanish Revolution of 1936? The people themselves, organising without a state, and based on shared agreements
@@ValentijnEnJack depends on your definition of Democracy, and since logocentrism is dead I'd be careful with simplificationd like this, but would personally agree, yes
This is a solid video, I always get a tad worried about communist videos on the internet (due to the insane amount of Tankies) but I was glad this was an actual explanation of what anarchy, and Anarcho-Communism actually is.
Plain ol' Anarchist here. I always find the different "versions" of anarchism interesting. At its core, anarchist organizing involves agreement. Regardless of what flavour of anarchism you believe is best, it will always come down to who is around you when you're organizing and what they want. No hierarchy means I don't get to push my anarcho-communism or collectivism on anyone else (not that I think anyone who really understands anarchism would). They're great categories for ease of discussion among people who are familiar with them, but once you actually start organizing (especially with people who aren't familiar with the terms), I think you're inevitably going to end up with something that is a combination of these things. Typing it out loud, it seems obvious, but I think worth saying. I'm also going to throw out David Graeber as a great source to learn about this kind of stuff.
I dig all this, the question I keep wondering and I know it’s silly, is: what are the grounds for something like a home? Is it just buildings in regard to production and work that are non private? What if someone was to build a house or something for themselves or their family? How would that work? Thanks-
The key is that “possession” is rooted in the concept of “use rights” or “usufruct” while “private property” is rooted in a divorce between the users and ownership. For example, a house that one lives in is a possession, whereas if one rents it to someone else at a profit it becomes property. Similarly, if one uses a saw to make a living as a self-employed carpenter, the saw is a possession; whereas if one employs others at wages to use the saw for one’s own profit, it is property. Needless to say, a capitalist workplace, where the workers are ordered about by a boss, is an example of “property” while a co-operative, where the workers manage their own work, is an example of “possession.” To quote Proudhon:
Please don't listen to these commies,they are not anarchist. If something is yours you paid for it you worked for it it is yours,and it's your right as a free individual to defend it with force against communist aggression.
@@AGENTOFDARWIN Nonsensical arbitrary commie definition. In reality the recognizing of property rights has historically been the one common denominator of every civilized society. It's a shame so many are under the etymological fallacy delusion that Proudhon is an authority on what anarchism is, when that's very far from the case. I wish people would stop referring to Prudhonism as "anarchism".
Great video. Not explored this in any detail until now. In an anarchist society how would we ensure the most competent people are fulfilling their ideal roles? (Hierarchy of value based on merit rather than power or currency).
Hey! There's nothing preventing an anarchist society from democratically establishing processes to ensure that certain roles need high degree of specialisation and skill (think Pilots, or a Surgeon). Workers Councils, Unions, committees, etc could democratically decide standards as well as appoint, elect, revoke, specialists in these sort of fields. The difference being that these decisions wouldn't be top down, obscure, and centralised in a unaccountable state apparatus. Merit is a very hard thing to grasp, and better to be democratically defined and easy to challenge.
Not the destruction of the state but an equilibrium between the person and the state that puts numbers on everyone. The state may exist .but .over there and not in 99.9% of all things
Thank you for putting this video together - such a useful introduction to people who have no idea about the most equitable way of organising society and allowing the greatest freedom.
I really enjoyed this explanation, I just have questions regarding: so If you work hard to have a house to raise a family, someone can claim as theirs? Because property belongs to no one? And if under mutual agreement that I worked for that space and decided to have and if the other part, changes their mind and wants to dispute, how do you solve this problem ?
Too much to write. Extensive explanation here: theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-anarchist-faq-editorial-collective-an-anarchist-faq-full#text-amuse-label-secb3
No it your house your private property. Its your right to defend it by force. Don't listen to these communist who think they are anarchist. This whole video is communist propaganda not about anarchy.
If you have a mansion with only one person living in it, then those other rooms will be filled, you will not be displaced, but if your privacy is important you would have the option to claim the single unit dwellling vacated by the families who moved into the property that better suits their requirement. Any issues which arise, because some will, could be solved via democratic institutions created by mutual agreement, or if people freely choose to do so they could still elect an expert representative to intellectually labor to create the policies on their behalf, but the representation would dissolve the moment that they're no longer the will of the populace they represent. Any representative democracy would still be free to operate if that's what the masses will, but couldn't force people to be represented by them and couldn't extend their powers beyond what their elected to do, which wouldn't be running an entire country, just maintaining some systems that require intellectual specialists. To cite a popular culture example, you wouldn't want Homer Simpson running your power plants, that's an extremely specialised job where experts would be required to make technical decisions on behalf of the community Those are my personal thoughts, any actual structures would have to be the result of communal will and able to be dissolved via communal will Here's kropotkins anarcho-communist version of expropriation, dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/kropotkin/conquest/ch4.html
The same way you solve every problem under anarchism: finding agreement with those involved. I think a lot of people have a hard time with this because we live in a world of manufactured scarcity which really affects how we think. We have more than we need for everyone to live a comfortable life, but the rich hoard it for profit. In an Anarchist society, nobody would claim "your" house as "theirs", because they "have" their own to live in. The idea of private property is so ingrained in us that it's hard to imagine a world where you don't "own" anything in the way we mean it now, but that doesn't mean you don't have safety, security, and stability, because everyone will have those things and will have no need to "claim your house". But again, it will all depend on the agreement you work out with your community. Anarchism will look a little different everywhere, because people are different.
I'm sorry but, according to wiki about statism, it says clearly that the opposition of statism are anti-statism and anarchism. And so I'm confused on the statement from Bakunin 10:39 that said he is Statism and Anarchism ? Can someone explain pls.
Huh? His writing is titled "Statism and Anarchism" (or "Statism and Anarchy"). He nowhere says that he is a statist. As an anarchist, Bakunin is clearly anti-statist; his entire work is critiquing statism. If you really want to understand what he means by "statism," read the introduction of the work here: theanarchistlibrary.org/library/mikhail-bakunin-statism-and-anarchy#toc2
@@RevolutionandIdeology Yes! I just found it the (, statism and anarchism) was his wrighting which he stated that quote! I thought it was like (Michael Müller , communist). My grammar was off. Thank you so much for replying! Keep the good content ! Anarchist
Proudhon goes into depths when explaining exactly why private property is theft, but not personal property, which he called liberty, along side possession and use. It kind goes as "the exclusive ownership to hold the products of your labor is liberty (personal property), but the exclusive ownership of the means (land) to the fruits of your labors is theft, murder and slavery (private property)" Basically, he argued that land is not something you can hold on to exclusively, and in doing so, would create hierarchical social relations and is detrimental to those who don't own private property, which is antithetical to anarchist principles. That's why private property is theft and the "Anarcho"-Capitalists are not anarchists.
I'm a proud Anarchist! Once the patriot Act was passed I gave up on the illusion that Americans believe they have Liberty. Ten years ago I moved my family to the mountains of Costa Rica and haven't been back! Fantastic vid!
@@chelseaforlife4675can't logically and scientifically refute the philosophy, so you stuck to Tu quoque fallacies huh? It's not our fault that we're forced to live under an oppressive system. And the internet came from the age of cold war. So, both capitalist and state socialism were equally responsible for it's creation.
@@chelseaforlife4675 Whether a technology was created within a capitalistic economy is irrelevant to the anarchist. As the ongoing production and distribution of an internet can occur also under anarchism - if desired. It is unclear what this comment was aiming to do other than highlight your own ignorance.
You didn't explain Anarcho-Syndicalism, though it was on your slide, and you did talk about individualism and egoism, although it was not on your slide.
While what you said about libertarianism might have been true in the past, I think today, with the Internet facilitating globalization of thought, American understanding of libertarianism is spread throughout the world.
It really has not. I have seen libertarian socialist groups in real life as active political groups, and on the Internet the socialist usage is still very strong, probably stronger than the distorted use in most cases.
@@mEmory______ It's called living in an information bubble. The algorithms feed you stuff you want to see, and are oblivious to how tainted your world view is becoming from social media. What I see in media is leftism getting more and more exposed as the vile violent thieving ideology it is, and the fascist tactics of collectivist revolutionaries getting more and more exposed, in favor for populist politics or libertarian and voluntaryist sentiments.
I would like to suggest everyone Fernando Pessoa's book, "The Anarchist Banker," which is, I think, a great portrayal of individual anarchism and also easy to read.
I don’t think an anarchist country can survive for long but I would love to live in an anarchist world. Governments should not have the liberty to abolish our freedoms
"I don’t think an anarchist country can survive for long" Of course not. The moment a society becomes anarchist, it's not a country anymore. That's kinda the whole point.
@@hansfranz8795 what I think they mean is that how will an anarchy care for itself, and who will enforce the principles of it? For example, let’s say someone was murdered in cold blood; what would happen to the murder? Who would bring that murder to justice? And if there is no government, who will make sure that justice is just? To bring that murder to justice would be governing the rule of some sort of laws, thus, going against the principles of anarchy. Enlighten me, for I genuinely want to learn.
Wouldn’t this make it where other countries would come with their armies and take pieces of our land. The target we would become makes this a bad idea.
@@RevolutionandIdeology I really am trying to wrap my head around this objectively but we couldn’t have one large organized military force if this land turned to full blown anarchism right? So how would we have even a decent chance at defending ourselves if let’s say a strong military we’re to come our way. Which obv would happen and it prob would happen quickly bc it would be in our enemies best interest to get at us when we’re weakest. Idk I just can’t see how we would have a fighting chance at protecting ourselves from other countries. I get the concept of us protecting ourselves from each other. Getting to that point seems it would be an extremely rough and tough road however if everything was already done and the govt was abolished and we have our security companies over various things and we have our own weapons, altho it still doesn’t feel like the right answer to me, I do see some argument in it and I will def bounce it around my head more to get a better grasp on it. However the protection from other countries, I just don’t see it. I appreciate the respectful conversation I find it all very fascinating.
@@usmc72409 Unfortunately this is what attempted anarchist societies have struggled with over the years. The Spanish Revolution he mentioned is an example, but ideally an anarchist revolution would be international, at least from my perspective as an anarcho-syndicalist. Worker's could coordinate through syndicalist and industrial unions directly take control of many sectors of the military-industrial complex, significantly weakening capital's force multipliers. But this is literally just a thought off the top of my head. Most anarchists would tell you that individuals working collaboratively could form more effective means of defense through democratic means. I would definitely look into Rojava, a current anarchist-style society that holds a large area in northeast Syria that was formed during the ongoing Syrian civil war and has been admirably defending itself to this day with at least three separate enemy factions on its borders. They were a huge part of the effort to drive out ISIS from Syria, and are still defending themselves from the fascist Turkish government today. Turkey just hates Kurds. Its whole thing with a long and terrible history. For context, Rojava was initially formed by Kurdish people, who are a displaced ethnic group in the middle east that have been terrorized by various regimes over the past century. Displaced by shitty post-WW1 border lines drawn by assholes in Europe. Yes, that's how the middle-eastern countries were created. Sorry, I'm rambling. lol
Re 3:28 - Perhaps the reason why anarchy is associated with chaos & destruction is that anarchist philosophies, as interesting as they are, are just that: _Philosophies._ Ever since the emergence of Neolithic city-states in what is now eastern Iraq, every human society larger than a village has had a government of some sort. It is also true that whenever a government has lost effectiveness (from being overthrown, or fracturing into mutually contending factions--basically anything other than losing to an invading force from outside), chaos has ensued until another government formed & imposed order on whatever territory it can get. If there are any viable anarchist polities, communes, whatever, that have not only existed for a significant length of time but managed to do so without a coherent government or laws, & still managed to keep order, then I'd like to hear about them. So far I haven't found any. Having said that, I will add that mutualism sounds fascinating.
lmao. city-states are indeed the root / origin of unequal structures. neolithic, or whenever. the bajillion years before that, and all of the humans living beyond those little city states (all of which collapsed, over and over) were probably living in infinitely different and imo interesting ways. would need an anarchist anthropologist to study. :) i'd also guess that not all cities had terrible structures. but yeah, it sounds like once farming started, it became easy to consolidate power (whereas with nomadic / hunter-gatherer life, not so easy). surely there were some decent villages out there, especially the first generation.
The way he expressed it was too vague. Anarchists disagree with private property owned by the government. They don’t disagree with individual owned private lands, such as homes. For example, if I buy a house, all anarchist would agree that it’s mine and no authority should take it from me.
private property relies on unequal social relationships and are enforced by violence. that’s what anarchists oppose. what they do not oppose is the personal private possession of goods, because it relies on truly free constructs.
@@your.lady.of.sorrows I don't entirely agree with this, in a far-flung, much-closer-to-anarchism-than-we-are-now world (respectfully of course, I'm not trying to "prove you wrong" but rather further the conversation). I don't think the concept of private property is necessary at all, on any level. We don't need to "own" things to use them. In practice, though, I think it results in the same thing (everyone has safety, security, stability), I just think the concept of ownership is something we'd be better off without. That's a long way off though. Usufruct!
I consider myself an anarchist, never voted and refuse to subscribe to any political or religious beliefs or ideals. I find it very interesting to see how many people have confused anarchism with socialism, they are very different. Anarchism is more of an individual pursuit that doesn’t require a mandate or a set of rules. Anachronism cannot be used as a vehicle to indoctrinate the masses because to do so would mean that it then becomes a political movement and self defeating. I’ve been asked many times about my political views and I have always been honest about the fact that I am an anarchist, and when asked about it I always say go and find out for yourself.
6:15 "All anarchism is socialist" - What about Anarcho-Capitalism: or would business become the government under a new guise, thus technically not fitting the definition?
@@RevolutionandIdeology Michael Malice has recently published an anthology book featuring essays of various anarchist philosophers; from Emma Goldman and Lysander Spooner to Herbert Spencer and Murray Rothbard as the black flag contains many colors. It's a fantastic read. However, I'm strongly of the opinion that the only likely sustainable attempt at anarchy is via anarcho-capitalism as it seems the only philosophy to take into account man's varied and diverse attributes of skill, intellect and ambition. I'm completely open to anarcho-communism for anyone willing to voluntarily abide by such a system, but it seems to neglect the inherent inequalities of every individual in every aspect of life that I see it being nearly impossible to enact any form of communism without the use of force. Force, of course being antithetical to anarchy. No human is equal to another and to get a group of people to voluntarily agree to a system where their own excellence/natural advantages go unrecognized, unfulfilled, unrealized and unrewarded would likely require a select group of people so amazingly approximate in skill, ability and ambition that it seems nearly impossible to achieve on any mass scale that tyranny of force would not become inevitable. www.amazon.com/Anarchist-Handbook-Michael-Malice/dp/B095DVF8FJ/ref=sr_1_1?crid=25G2M8Y6XM61O&dchild=1&keywords=anarchist+handbook+michael+malice&qid=1623906177&sprefix=anrachis%2Caps%2C237&sr=8-1
anarcho-capitalism is likely the best strategy for achieving anarchy. for many reasons, but a major one being that no market could ever hope; in it's most heinous, perverted and corrupt ambitions to attain the level of tyranny of the monopoly a state holds on violence. what are commonly espoused as critiques of anarcho-capitalism are infact descriptions of our statist status quo.
@@cambodianz I think the only thing that matters is the elimination of the arbitrary power of the state. I believe anarchy is the natural state of the universe. Things self organize without authoritarian force. Your body for example is self organizing. The cells are independent, yet they work together. I think if you eliminate authoritarian state government, like minded people would group together. These groups would then be able to cooperate like body organs to perform all the functions of society. Work would be meaningful, and innovation would not be stifled.
Have you watched the Zeitgeist documentaries? Or at least read the "New Human Rights Movement" by Peter Joseph? Which category would they fall in exactly?
When she says "social order" all went down the hill for me! The social order to me,means a organized structure,aka rulling class! Nope,that cant be a true Anarchy! But,hey,what the heck do I know?!😊
@@RevolutionandIdeology Anarchism can only work among the enlightened people,not a flawed people like 99.99999 of us are! It's a beautiful, holy idea that unfortunately will never come to be 😔
@@aaronsmall1394 the Holy one is an authority. Our problem as humans is we want our evil ways to proceed without question. God knows that others will oppress their fellows if there's no authority. It is already bad but it will be too much in an Anarchist situation. Let's not fool ourselves people have evil hearts and for many it is laws that make them behave decently. Our ways here on earth as human beings do not affect God it affects fellow men. So don't bother blaming him. He just wants us to be good humans to one another but we cannot separate good from bad if we don't know by which rules you're playing
Very nice presentation! But, please, emphasize that by 'Private Property' you refer to the resources and the means of production... and not minor, personal property, like clothes, telephones and other personal items, because it could be misleading to a modern consumerist!
> Marxism - Authoritarian Socialism I don't think so. Some anti-authoritarians (not all, mind you) would consider themselves as Marxists, and there are some anarchists believes in Marxism.
As mentioned, that can be considered pejorative or not. They might consider themselves to be Marxists but they couldn't consider themselves to be Socialists (in the Leninist sense). The same goes for Anarchists who consider themselves to be Marxists. We have to dive into the complexities of what "Marxism" means. For example, you might believe in dialectical materialism and consider yourself a Marxist in that respect and consider yourself Anarchist. But you can't believe in Socialism in the dictatorship of the proletariat sense and be Anarchist.
Any Socialist who beliefs in taking control of the state and the dictatorship of the proletariat is "authoritarian." I don't mean that to be pejorative or negative. It's merely categorical. (though many people do use it in a negative sense)
how do anarchist countries fight large scale wars? this question i derived from what i understood is that theres no government in an anarchist country so theres no huge military. my impression is that if there are military in this countries it would be small. tahnk you in advance for those who will have good good answer.
Anarchists don't believe in, nor have the desire to create 'countries.' In fact, many would argue manufacture of competing hierarchical forms of social organization are the reason large wars take place and thus, another strike against the nation-state.
@@RevolutionandIdeology YESSIR my personal believe is that an anarchist society would defend themselves together if need be to protect their own. I like to imagine a world where everyone looked out for their neighbors and respected each other's beliefs or whatever and there wouldn't really be a need to fight. But if fight they wanted them fight they will get.
this is a fair problem: what to do against states with large militaries. the Zapatistas are, unfortunately, constantly suppressed, but i think their way is indeed the natural way to go: guerrilla / DIY / creative tactics. all the creativity and freedom would be pointed toward defense, and hopefully the community would find some clever ways to survive: from using social media to denounce the state and gain the world's attention to proper military tactics, gotta do it all, gotta be like water. :(
You are correct! He doesn't seem to understand what Anarchy means. Anarchy comes from the latin meaning, " NO RULERS". Basically, no state. No government. It does NOT mean socialism and does NOT mean no leaders or rules. He's learning, give him time.
@@mattolivier1835"The etymological origin of anarchism is from the Ancient Greek anarkhia, meaning "without a ruler", composed of the prefix an- ("without") and the word arkhos ("leader" or "ruler")." "Drawing from mutualism, Mikhail Bakunin founded collectivist anarchism and entered the International Workingmen's Association, a class worker union later known as the First International that formed in 1864 to unite diverse revolutionary currents." "Mikhail Alexandrovich Bakunin[a] (/bəˈkuːnɪn/ bə-KOO-nin;[5] 30 May 1814 - 1 July 1876) was a Russian revolutionary anarchist. He is among the most influential figures of anarchism and a major figure in the revolutionary socialist, social anarchist,[6] and collectivist anarchist traditions." 😐😐😐 The prefix "no" in Latin is "non". Not "an". (As a non-speaker (see? NON-speaker) of Latin), "no leaders" is "nonduces". The major split between anarchism & communism happened between Marx & Bakunin. Hence, the false quote attributed to Bismarck about the heads of Europe should tremble "should the reds (communists/socialists) & blacks (anarchists) reunite".
I walked up to an Anarchist and kicked him in the balls! He did not look too happy and so I asked "Isn't this Anarchism?" "No!" he said "It's assault"!
all my life i have said " i do not want anyone to do anything they conceive as against their best interests." that confuses the average slave. if you asked Mahatma Ghandi if he was self-less or altruistic i believe he would say , " I am as self-ish as anyone on this planet. " i will let you figure out how he might actually be stating a simple accurate truth for him.
I know I'm commenting on a old video but in case if you see it I beg you please help me out. Should Anarchists vote for A Bernie like candidate against morons(I would argue fascist but eh whatever) like Trump. Or just wait for revolution? Thank you in advance and I love your work guys you are SOOO good
There's no right answer. From a moral stand point, harm reduction is better than 'nothing.' From an accelerationist standpoint, well--this one is tough to stomach. From a pure anarchist standpoint, voting in any capacity supports a system that was never designed to allow for individual autonomy and social equity. You have to follow your own priorities here.
@@RevolutionandIdeology thank you soooo much for responding. I am an anarchist (at least I consider my self as one) but would've voted for Bernie of he was the candidate against Trump but I aim towards Anarchy and I think that's one road to there. Again thank you so much for the answer
I would argue that this is a settled issue, that's never really been an issue until recently. You can't just ignore that the real world exists. So if you have easy access to a polling place, and the ability to vote, whenever a local or national election rolls around, then yeah, vote. But please don't let that be the end of your political engagement in your community or society. Voting is what it is and unfortunately real people's lives can be impacted by the results of these sham fucking elections.
NO. This is against the whole goal of Anarchist goals. If you contribute to the system by voting FOR it - you are voting against your own interests and goals.
@@flippydaflip5310 Nah, I am not changing my views on Anarchism, if my gf want to be an Anarchist, I aint stopping her but I am a Democratic Socialist by heart!
@@BMD19840 I didn't say you should change your mind on anything... but the anarchist critique of hierarchy is a pretty simple and straightforward conversation - I don't understand why you haven't had it with your SO yet.
As I understand it, anarchism simply assumes all humans are perfect. In competence, conscience and communication. The Human itself is biologically inclined to develop structures of Power. So even if the formal structures of Power were taken away, new informal leaders would emerge and as time went on, structures would reemerge. So, as far as I get it, it's all a dream. You would need a school or some kind of church to at least try to teach the things needed to build a functioning "society". Whoever's in charge of that, is the state I guess.
certain individuals will try to get power, and they will fail against the community. people only have to be educated to be conscious of just that: to consistently be aware of people trying to cheat, use people, gain power, build unequal structures 'n systems, etc. people can even build structures as a community to prevent specific instances of that, perhaps making those people feel shame for it (like the little boys they are :) ). some personalities are indeed like that, you know, the shady business men sort, but they can't survive without the exploitation of others, so they'll eventually come crying back, lmao. just be aware, always.
humans are biologically inclined create systems of power? that's pretty miserable view of human life. i hope your mother isn't so terrible. i hope she was biologically inclined to take care of you and others.
I'm talking about healthy leadership here. Does that exist in your worldview? Or is every leader evil? Your highschool band leader? The leader of your group of friends? What about people who what to take initiative to solve a problem, and therefore convince others to help them. Is that evil? Solving problems? Because that's leadership. That's vision. It's what drives the world forward. And that's how most companies are founded. If you stifle the spirit of the entrepreneur, by telling him that pushing forward (or upward) isn't good, your gonna miss out on a lot of progress. Not all people are the same. (!) That's a fact of nature many (extreme-)leftists are missing out on. So some people might never have an idea on how to do something (new). Others on the other hand know what problems they want to solve, what needs they want to fulfill, and they know how to do it and how to convince others of their plan. That's how hierarchies emerge. There's a problem and someone steps up with a plan on how to solve it. - the others follow the plan. That's something that's been around since the dawn of humanity and no civilization has ever gotten away with no organization, or in other words hierarchy. (Planning) So it's something natural and healthy. Hierarchy is something natural and healthy. Exploitation isn't. If the power that's given to a leader by his/her people is abused, that's bad. But getting rid of hierarchy isn't ever gonna be possible or useful at all. You need to have systems in place that prevent the abuse of power. Rules and Procedures. Democracy is maybe not the holy solution, but it's definitely heavy bat for justice. Churchill: "No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." And at least in Germany, where I'm from, there are a lot of social security interventions. - even though it's not perfect. - You have workers rights, minimum wage... To prune the use of power. But my point is, hierarchy isn't the problem. The problem is the abuse of power and that can be mitigated. And it can be best mitigated if you accept that hierarchy isn't the problem but the real problem is the abuse of power. Have good day :)
How did humans live for hundreds of thousands of years without the concept of private property or individual ownership? The fallacy in your argument is connecting self-interest with private property. 1. Private property is a relatively novel concept in the course of human history. 2. It's perfectly possible to be self-interested without private property. Communal ownership could be in my self-interest (as it was for hundreds of thousands of years prior to the development of the concept private property and the associated laws and legal apparatuses to enforce it). I highly suggest reading Kropotkin's "Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution" theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-mutual-aid-a-factor-of-evolution
@@RevolutionandIdeology the reason humans actually succeeded in surviving without private property is because self consciousness was not the prevalent nature of humans then, life was lived mainly subconsciously. Today that is not the case, the more self consciousness develops the more personality becomes expressive. And hence the necessity of private property, we are no longer unconscious of life like animals.
@@RevolutionandIdeology if you read Julian Jame's The Bicameral mind, there is no moment in history when we became suddenly self conscious. It was a process from purely subconscious behaviour into schizophrenic like behaviour until the two hemispheres of our brain were seperated enough to distinguish between subjective and objective experiences. The moment the development of self consciousness brought forward personality, the individual became a thing.
@@hbhc1000 That's such a good book! And I absolutely love thinking about it and entertaining it as a possibility but it's just not sound enough to be taken as truth. It's definitely not sound enough to be then transferred into some grand theory on human nature, self-interest, and then, by extension, private property.
So who enforces these agreements? What prevents people from breaking the agreement? Fascism and Socialism are also against Capitalism yet neither one of those are considered "chaotic"
What? What is this with anarchists refusing private property?? Private property is fine, as long as everyone else is fine with it. THAT is the definition of anarchism. Private property is only a problem when it imposes on some other person AND that person voices that discomfort. Then everyone comes together to find a solution. Even if the solution is the discomforted person just voluntarily tolerating their discomfort for the good of others.
there's a difference between private property and personal property. Private property in this context refers to one's property that can be/is used to exploit others. So yeah, you can have property but not if you somehow use it to exploit others (for ex., being a landlord.)
No, Private Property is the material basis for individuals to accumulate Power with which they can exert Authority over others. If you retain private property and an Indivual can go ahead and for example have the water supply of your community, or possibly all the local arable land as their private property, you can force people in your locality to either do whatever appeases you, or you can literally starve them to death.
The person who made this video doesn't understand, or doesn't properly explain, what anarchists and Marx meant about private property. They make a distinction between private and personal property. Chomsky explains it well. People can own whatever they want under socialism and anarchism.
Ummm... if a business is "worker controlled" why does that go against the idea of private property? This makes no sense to me. If a business is "worker controlled", or "OWNED" by the workers, doesn't that mean private property is necessary? After all, something is OWNED. OWNERSHIP MEANS private property.
You're just semantically twisting the definition of "private" here. If something is "owned" communally by the people that actually use it, ie. the workers or the public, then this is not called private property in economic terms. No individual can decide the fate of the property. Decisions are made democratically. Hope that helps.
@@brokenbirthday I would add that we use words like "owned" because of where we are societally. It's hard for people (including myself, no denigrating anyone here) in such an individualist, capitalist society to really understand something that isn't owned by someone, but rather used by them, so we use "collectively owned" to get closer to that idea. I think @zpettigrew has pointed out a shortcoming of our language and collective understanding, not in socialism.
Sadly, anarchy wouldn't work in a larger scale, because it relies on the better nature of every human being involved. Freedom comes with responsibility and altruism. And we all know how that goes...
@sdrawkcabUK I have run into this argument before, and I am sorry to say, it is really stupid. First thing to note: they had armed militias. Yes, they were untrained peasants. That worked against them. Second to note: they were not well armed. Mainly because their so called allies refused to cooperate in expanding munition industry controlled by trade unions, and refused to arm their militias. Same situation with the Western powers. That was what lost them the war. Third: they were centralised and coordinated. There is no contradiction there. Anarchists are against social hierarchy. Military hierarchy serves an important executive function on the battlefield. As long as discipline treats all equally, and the military is accountable to the unions, that is right. Final note: military defeat does not mean an ideology does not work. How could it? They were defeated in a situation that was almost impossible.
God I wish people like you were capable of having a discourse beyond the cliche bullshit. It's so embarrassing for you and makes any kind of actual productive conversation impossible.
By both Goldman's and Kropotkin's definitions of anarchism, anarcho-capitalism is anarchism. Yes, obvious, but a lot of anarcho-socialists deny this. Even the speaker in the video "forgets" the definitions he just gave.
How is a country able to rebuild an economy when there is no control of the means of production? How can you be sure everyone has the same goal of achieving what marxists call the higher phase of communism if there is no enforced control? If there is no control, imperialists will take control of all the means of production. Ps: im not bashing the philosophy. i'm left wing and new to the Anarchy concept. Please share your Thoughts
In short, there is no "country" in anarchism so we're not sure how to answer your question. Check out the structure of syndicalism for your economic questions. theanarchistlibrary.org/library/george-woodcock-what-is-anarcho-syndicalism
@@RevolutionandIdeology i think you do understand the question but dont have an answer. my question is simple: how do you make sure the means of production are led by the right people? Capitalist will take over everything, maybe people who used to call themselves anarchists.
@@thijsslob3799 Reliance on renewable means of production would make resources decentralized and therefore not hierarchical.. Think of it as getting a solar panel instead of constantly getting oil from a giant company.
@@irenemartin4005 it would be wonderfull if it could work. But not all people will participate in such a society. An example from the top of my head: Lets say computer programmers, a trait that not many people are able to do. If there is scarcity in the capacity to make something, there might be people that feel they are entitled to earn more. If there demands Aren't met, they will be able to exploit others, because there is a demand for Lets say cybersecurity. You might have a sick child, if no doctors are willing to help what are you going to do? How do you make sure everyone participates?
@@thijsslob3799 An important point, but I think in an anarchist society the only rule should be to reciprocate. Suppose all the doctors in the city refused to do their work, okay, but in return they have to deal with the refusal of the rest of the population to give them any goods or services. they will not be able to get food or anything else and this will make them return to work in order to live..
Nice video, and thanks for discussing the topic. The video left me wondering.. if anarchists do not acknowledge/support/accept/believe in private property, why do so many of the strains still assume there is a market for products and companies to work for? If there is nothing to call mine why would I buy anything in an anarchist society?
I’ve leaned towards the anarchist school of thought for decades, but I’m open to the state socialist arguments because of one issue. What to do with the nuclear weapons and tech? Maybe it’s my lack of imagination, or I haven’t heard the correct arguments, but I can’t see how the nuclear problem is handled while even one capitalist power is still in control. Maybe it😢just too difficult for me to see all the capitalist nuclear states folding in a manageable window.
No, that is personal property. Private property refers to resources and means of production. Basically if a person owns an item or a house and is not using it to get more then it is personal property however if they own a factory or mine then they are using it to gain power and money which corrupts them therefore is not supported by anarchism.
13:00 Your chart puts socialism at the top, with all variations of anarchism below it. WRONG! What about Capitalists? I'm an Anarcho-Capitalist! Anarchism itself has nothing to do with socialism. Socialism requires a state. Anarchists are anti-state. When I use the term "state" I'm referring to rulers.
This video is fundamentally flawed: anarchists and communists do not inherently seek the same end. Traditionally, non-communist forms of socialism have been dominant within anarchist thought, which means they cannot actually ever be said to "want the same end". The only anarchists who would agree with this would be "anarcho-communists", who have rarely been a majority.
another in " my " principals of anarchism ... indeed the worker in a job or the inhabiter of a land or the MANAGER of a resource have inherent rights. those rights are not absolute because there is always a greater context involved - the group as a whole. the difference from our current conception - in general - is we need to aknowledge that the living being engaged in an activity accrues rights based on their voluntary spending of their life in the activity. it is THEIR life that they are responsible for and it is an ACT to do anything. so, we need to aknowledge that act for them and OURSELVES. sorry about the caps. peace.
So the private property aspect in the most simplest terms: if I have planted crops in the woods, anyone is allowed to come take said crops since I can’t claim ownership over said crops? That’s inherently flawed
@@Schedule1ne315 You're entire argument is based on the premise that people would come steal your crops for some unknown reason. It's based on a flawed understanding of human nature. Humans existed for hundreds of thousands of years (the VAST majority) of human history without any concept of private property. Greed is a result of private property, not the other way around.
@@RevolutionandIdeology You have no idea what you are talking about. You are assuming everyone is a good person. People did take ownership of land millennias ago and they needed a functional society (government) to prevent outsiders from ransacking, stealing and pillaging people. I think this ideology is flawed in a sense of where people are so privileged in having time for free thought that they think their theories are what is true when it is not. Thinking this will work when it will surely not. Look at how fast Autonomous zones started forming their own leaders and governments. hierarchies structures are necessary. All animals and insects have some hierarchies.
@@RevolutionandIdeology I would say the agricultural age is when we started taking ownership of land. Technology has led us to property ownership. Obviously we couldn't do it as much when we were nomadic tribes but if we found a nice piece of land, we would definitely defend it and take ownership until other forces said otherwise. I think the main source to greed is that our brains are wired to self-preservation. We are not all that good and willing to do whatever it takes to survive. We are never satisfied. We always want more in case of the event that we encounter a horrible event where we could lose everything. Such as famines, floods, etc. The only way to counter against such flawed wiring is to become more spiritually connected and fight against your pre-wired selfishness which runs towards your fleshly desires. No one can be totally altruistic but you can do your best to try to fight that urge and become less primal.
How does anarchism deal with children? Do parents have authority over children? Do people other than parents have authority over children? Can children engage in mutual agreements with adults? At what point is a child no longer a child?
-Honestly depends on the type of communism, but for the most part, parents can choose if they want authority over their children, or want to care for their children at all, do note that disciplining a child is different than authority over them. -People can have authority over other people’s children if it’s their job to do so, like I said it depends on the type of anarchism so if they’re in anarcho- communism and they live in a community and are a teacher let’s say, then yeah people can have mandatory supervison over others kids -Yes. For good or bad unfortunately. -Since there won’t be a country wide law for a recognized adult age, depending on the anarchist ideology, either the community you live in makes up rules about when a child’s a child, or people just morally stick to the “old world” Adult age/Age of consent. If I am wrong about anything though do correct me
This is going to sound nuts but I actually think Anarcho monarchism makes sense in the format of a voluntary monarch existing with no successor for the purpose of facilitating and spreading the anarchist revolution through diplomacy and distribution of materials and facilities to communes and cooperatives possibly through a utopian socialist popular dismantling of capitalism at the source slowly ending the wealth gap with the wealth of capitalists. Certain ones like Elon musk would shit cry and scream that say tweeting is actually really important work, but it's not...
On one hand I think the political compass has contributed to a lot of confusion about anarchists politics. But also, what in the world do you even have to do to be marked a RW libertarian? Ex. To me supporting stock holder profits over morals seems very unlibertarian to me, as it implies private property. But also how did we get to where "anarchists" on twitter were some of the eggregiously coersive people Ive ever met. Im not sure if thats a feature, or an anomaly.
declared myself a Anarchist since the age of 15 years old, i'll be soon 44 and still proud of it! A
cringe
@@fuddlez8243 you’re cringe
Still follows sports
@@bawinshah1914 yeah well there’s a transition to everything I identify myself as a vegan. And for the longest time I played games / dude things in games that symbolized the harm or death of an animal. Simply just not thinking about it. Corporate America and capitalism has deep psychological effects on our social structure take that away and some people who use these as routes for energy to flow they may break on a mental level. Yeah sports are fairly shitty but not all require the risk of life some actual promote health benefits and often most sports don’t have to involve capital gain. There’s actually an native Americans tribe that had developed a sport where it’s a large basin and there are hoops and you have to toss this clay ball through the hoops. Sports can be simple fun and non contact or if all give consent then contact can be allowed. People also forget anarchism isn’t just saying fuck all to any structure what’s so ever it says it abolishes all government structure or states. Which means people can still vote. A vote can represent someone’s ideas or opinions and can be measured up against each view point and a grand decision can be made. Even if the votes went to a small committee that sat there to count the votes as long as the individuals consent to count, are constantly rotated by random selection with the choice to deny, as well as term caps where they essentially can’t be picked anymore after serving 5 times or whatever. And as long as all of these details were fully agreed on by the community by direct population vote. As long as there’s potentially a place or another community for someone to goto they can simply follow social structure by the population or simply relocate at their own whim and will. All of this will be anarchism. It still is anarchism to deem that you can temporarily create a state for something deemed absolutely necessary as long as when that task is don’t the state is disembodied immediately. Like a captain and his crew. See pirates are text book anarchists. But they have a strong figure called a captain but the captain is voted in by the crew( more so agreed on). If the captain dosent take care of the crew by safely getting the ship to where it needs to go they will make the captain jump ship or lock him up to create a new captain because the crew themselves know it takes a special skill of something like manning a ship and all they wanna do is be told where something is wrong so they can fix it. But they don’t wanna sit there doing garbage work that dosent actually show any benefits. Anarchism doesn’t say sports are bad it says capitalism is but at that point are you sitting there off grid? Did you build your own computer?? Supply your own electric? Feed supply your own water and make your own clothes? Shoes? Do you hunt or farm animals because that’s not very anarchists by your logic you are taking your own decisions and will to unrightfully claim another beings experience and right to live for absolutely no health benefits at all. So yeah trust me social norms will take some time to be fixed and for us to get there because even if right now you barter with someone if it’s not hand made you still ultimately support that capitalist company to keep doing it and I don’t believe there’s a hand built computer that has its own self written Operating system , that can access the internet freely using your free access electricity to power the router and device to give you some level of connection and then after all that I have no idea why UA-cam who would get no money of your “IP” would ever grant you access to their proprietary information and code enough for you to make the comment “still follows sports”
@@bawinshah1914 still uses Internet Service Providers
Great video. I'd add, though, that while Anarchists do believe in workers controlling the means of production, they do NOT believe this control should happen via the use of a State, as most Socialists believe. For Anarchists, the State apparatus is inherently oppressive, even when controlled by workers. Also, it's worth distinguishing between private property, which Anarchists oppose, and personal possession of goods, which Anarchists do NOT oppose. Private property relies on an inherently unequal relationship, enforced (violently, if need be) via State institutions. On the other hand, personal possession of goods relies on truly free, equal and mutual agreement between parties. For instance, if I knit (or make a trade for) a shirt, which in my eyes as well as those of my community I justifiably wear for protection from the elements, I have legitimate possession of that shirt. No authority can legitimately take that shirt away from me.
"The naturian anarchists explained by a young girl." ua-cam.com/video/0AiKMdq9QZk/v-deo.html
Well spoken...💪
nope. your first sentence means you are a socialist marxist
Small remark: you are talking about anarcho-communism, because other anarchist currents of thought defend property as a symbol of total freedom. The maximum exponent of this can be the anarcho-individualism, the theory for a perfect egoism.
And calling Anarchy as violence is the propaganda that movements such as the cult of personality known as Trumpism and the misbegotten QAnon phenomenon call Anarchism is used to undermine the power of the people.
I believe that Anarchist do not seek the destruction of the state as such. Rather I propose that the State doesn’t actually exist. It is a theoretical construct based on an authority that doesn’t exist. Therefore the establishment of an anarchist society should be a result of an understanding that no form of government is legitimate and the subsequent ignoring of state authority.
Good luck with that.
I understand your point, however, the state does exist, and holds a monopoly on violence. Good luck out there...
That's complete gibberish and has no basis in reality. Anarchism is an anti hirearchy movement that cleans the gears of hirearchy. Left is a movement not a destination.
The core problem of violence is that anyone who is ready to commit violence has a monopoly on it. learning to live outside the society of the violent while still interacting with it *is* the only realistic anarchist model. Everything else is religion that ignores the fact that humans are the murder monkeys. And defining anarchism in terms of the state is like trying to define atheism in terms of god: it just doesn't work, the categories are far too different
Problem is modern people are brainwashed and modern men are weak. Even if the authority doesnt exist, many weakminded people BELIEVE it exists. And they WILL do the "authorities" bidding in fear of being the target themselves.
“Anarchism stands for the liberation of the human mind from the dominion of religion and liberation of the human body from the coercion of property; liberation from the shackles and restraint of government. It stands for a social order based on the free grouping of individuals…”
― Emma Goldman,
That's basically how I've always seen anarchism
The natural conclusion from republican to libertarian to objectivist to anarchism or voluntarism
Awhile ago I repented to God then begged for help, "I was until then an Atheist."
I then had a dream of Jesus coming before God and he spoke of the Tabernacle in perfect context, "A word I didn't know existed.", and what I felt from Jesus when I held him was unlike anything I've ever felt before - A lifetime of Love every second - It brought me to sobbing and it changed my life, forever.
I've had other experiences since, "Several witnessed", one was seeing a bright orb of light pass across my face in the dark, hours before a major surgery the second I gave up in my heart.
Know that God and Jesus ARE real and that they Love us deeply. Let go of your hatred and Imagine yourself holding the people who've hurt you. Tell them you Love them.
Always have hope, I believe that prayer, following God's laws & Love is the answer, and through that, becoming humble, merciful, welcoming, giving, and forgiving, To All.
This is retarded leftist fake anarchism based in economical illiteracy.
@@riverside321 Well, yes, but without this delusion about being against property or for socializm.
Imagine being so delusional that you think anarchy and socialism goes together. 🤦🏼♂️🤦🏼♂️🤦🏼♂️
My ADHD is gonna make me watch this fourteen times, but I'm kinda up for it.
😅don't worry You don't have ADHD this ideology is just a confused mess.
@@lauraaw.2095 Yes it is cause it comes from a commie who thinks he an anarchist.
Check out larken rose for actual anarchist ideas not this communist crap.
❤
I can relate lol
I'm seeing more and more discussion of Anarchism as a viable/legitimate system of social order. This was obviously catalysized by the complete failure of large, top heavy, corrupt governments poor response to covid. The Basque people are a good example of a functional Anarchist system. They have a higher standard of living and less crime than all the other industrialized systems.
Basque is not lawless. It's not anarchy there
Power to the People
@@HumanTypewriter not as all, I hosted Basque students. They are far more well educated than those in the US public school system. As per the “no CRT” propaganda.
@@nacholibreri What are you talking about? Who brought up education? Also, if you're measuring intelligence against the US then the every other developed nation is filled with Einstein's.
@@HumanTypewriter people in the u.s. are smart you're just not seeing the ones who are
The problem is any attempt to move a society towards anarchy will result in violence by those who want to maintain power and control
I’d go further and say Anarchism will never work because of human nature. Actually, not even human nature, but the nature of life itself. Every organism will want more, thats how we become to being scientifically. Humanity will never truly get along and form an anarchy because of the nature of life. Anarchism is trying to deny human nature and will (in my opinion), never work. Although, I’d say the idea isn’t so far fetched.
That's obvious. The big question is when it's society ripe enough for this change?
Anarchism wont work in cities with thousands of people. There are way to many selfish, immoral people. Anarchism would work in small communities where everyone knows each other and depend on each other for survival. It takes people with a high degree of trustworthiness, honor and ethics for it to work. Many people dont fit that bill. I guess that is human nature for you
@@professorxslave1500Enough is enough . NYC is sick !
They'll be war. Just like any other revolution....
"What Anarchy Is Not" by Larken Rose
It's a pamphlet. Recommended!
Mr. Rose seems to me, to fill the role of bullshit artist.
@@AntonioGarmsci-cy5vt Unless you'd like to be another drop in the bucket without a logical explanation as to how you reached your conclusion, then I can only say that you're entitled to your opinion.
@@AntonioGarmsci-cy5vt i just watched it and it's not bad. it's a fairly ancappy, but still not a bad introduction.
this basically nails it:
"People are not perfect, and some are downright malicious and dangerous. And some people mistakenly view anarchism as a Utopian idea that would only work if everyone were generous and compassionate. But if people are too stupid, greedy and malicious to be free, aren't they also too stupid, greedy and malicious to be trusted with power? If you don't trust some stranger to have control over his own life, why would you ever trust him to have control over yours?"
ancoms also frequently conflate their preferences of economic arrangements with their anarchism. but anarchists should understand better than anyone that it's valuable to have different approches of how to organize society and to not force your preferences on others…
@@sofia.eris.bauhaus based
"The naturian anarchists explained by a young girl." ua-cam.com/video/0AiKMdq9QZk/v-deo.html
Thank you so much for making content on these topics. As an anarcho-communist, it's always bothered me that there's such an enormous amount of gatekeeping in the very few online communities I've been a part of. Someone wanting to know more about this stuff often asks a question (whether they're an "outsider" or not, even), and it's usually met with "This group wasn't made to educate you. Go look elsewhere for an answer to that." when there's very few resources available or accessible to do so, especially if you don't know what you can't know in terms of what to search, anyway... But here, I've noticed you've taken the time to respond directly to so many comments and questions - and with impressive insight, knowledge, and resources you provide, at that - and I can't begin to express how awesome and appreciated that is.
I'm so glad I came across this channel. We need less gatekeeping and more people like you to help raise awareness of these different perspectives, theories, social problems, alternatives, and so on if we really want to create a better society.
communism never works
Love this comment, especially since I've been more or less politically "homeless" since Feb of last year. Not that my ideology or political goals changed, just that long story short most of the leftist channels/communities I was in saw Russia invading Ukraine as just an opportunity to bash the US and therefore decided that meant Putin = good which...idk it's just disappointing, especially when there isn't much openness to talking to any Eastern European and Ukrainian leftists/anarchists/Marxists/etc.
Coincidentally, it led me to finally reading more about anarchist and I've finally found some anarchists online to follow. It makes sense now that I think about it - most of the Marxist and communist circles seem to be too caught up in the idea of Russia having been the USSR while anarchists are more like, "jfc it's been over 100 yrs of trying to force a square through a circle, fk that state and that one but fk the ones doing land grabbing even more" lol
Anyway, I didn't mean to go on a mini vent/dumping some feels. My intent was more to say that I have noticed these rigid attitudes and, as you say, the gatekeeping ergo I've noticed a need for content like this! Solidarity! ❤
@@sempressfi Hey, marxism and communism is colectivist cancer garbage. I highly reccommend you listen to some real anarchists, Like Larken Rose, David D Friedman, Tom Woods, Michael Malice, Robert Higgs, Keith Night, Robert P Murphy, or read some of the real anarchists of the past, like Nietzche, Samuel Konkin, Entienne de le Boeti, Murray Rothbard, Walter Block, Henry David Thoreau or Lysander Spooner. You know, people with brains, who are not ecenomic illiterates.
I am a Chinese, although China is a socialist country, but I think I am an anarchist, unfortunately there are almost no anarchist organizations in China, can you recommend me some anarchist websites? (This is translated by translation software)
@@sempressfiIt’s especially ironic as Ukraine was home to one of the only anarchist nations in modern history, something many Ukrainians haven’t forgotten
well delivered and spoken. Well DONE !!!
Thank you for watching!
as a post anarchist, the first definition is really bad. Goldman may have some really good work but the relation to violence is definitely best analysed by post-structuralists
We have an entire episode on post-structural anarchism. Post-structuralism is way beyond a very basic introduction to Anarchism (this video).
@@RevolutionandIdeology neat i will check that out.
i think anarchist should really update their intro theory tho because ive seen many people dismiss it because the modern landscape where the monopoly on violence and the control of the spectacle are both captured by a much more powerful state seems insurmountable through the lense of older thinkers
@@RevolutionandIdeology With revolution in your name, I doubt there is anything meaningful you can teach a real anarchist about anarchism. Revolutionaries are all violent thieving morons, from what I have seen.
Exacly. Emma was a fool and didn't understand the NAP. I'm the only real type of Anarchist, anarcho-capitalist.
Mutualism could fit under social anarchism or individualist anarchism. Mutualism coming from the individualist anarchist school tend to be more market oriented than Proudhon's Mutualism, which would also allow communes.
Whats the anarchists equivalent of a business? Or the equivalent unit of organized resources that distributes goods and services to those that wish to barter?
It depends on the specific type of Anarchism. The most common would be some manifestation of a worker-owned and controlled entity.
@@RevolutionandIdeology Thank you for the response and for the broader video. Very informative piece and I learned quite a bit. It might be worth another video diving deeper into what anarchism has to offer in terms of these units of "marketplace exchange" focused organizations. What a "worker-owned and controlled entity" would/does look like, how it functions, etc.
One of the greatest achievements of modern capitalism is its ability to take the endless complexity of social exchange and offer some semblance of understanding of macro and micro events. The unit of delivery most are familiar with is the company and the method of delivery is the marketplace. If anarchism really does have something to offer, discovering its company/marketplace equivalent and advertising that to the western mind will undoubtedly stir about some movement. On the other hand, If the ideology doesn't have an equivalent unit of organization to this, that's also good to know. EIther way, I appreciate the content!
Democratized control of the means of production and structure. See also "cooperative businesses".
depends on the type of anarchism. in anarcho communism there are no markets nor trading, just a gift economy by each acording to capacity to each according to need (descentralized democratically planned economy)
All great answers above, I just want to add that there is no one answer. If all of the people who commented similar ideas were living and working in the same community, under anarchism, that community's answer to your question would likely look like a compromise between them. I recommend David Graeber's "Debt: the first 5000 years" for a VERY in-depth look at markets and services and barter and the like.
If all anarchists are socialist and there is no state, who will enforce the social and collective order in society? who will organize the society in this way without using power and force? Would't hierarchies naturally form if individuals are free from the state?
Anarchists are optimists. They believe in the "good" (this word is loaded, but for simplicity's sake) in human nature rather than the dogmatic Darwinist, greedy, violent, "original" sin, [insert other ideological baggage/adjective here], assertions about human nature. Most would also argue that these traits we think are innate are actually socialized via the ideal and material conditions in place.
You're absolutely right.
Well who revolted and took over the means of production in the Anarchist Spanish Revolution of 1936? The people themselves, organising without a state, and based on shared agreements
@@eleftheriosepikuridis9110 "Organising without a state, and based on shared agreements." Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that just democracy?
@@ValentijnEnJack depends on your definition of Democracy, and since logocentrism is dead I'd be careful with simplificationd like this, but would personally agree, yes
This is a solid video, I always get a tad worried about communist videos on the internet (due to the insane amount of Tankies) but I was glad this was an actual explanation of what anarchy, and Anarcho-Communism actually is.
Oh so this a genuine anarchist channel then? I may well subscribe.
Its kind of worrying how many "socialist" channels there are.
@@Aluenvey no, its not
Plain ol' Anarchist here. I always find the different "versions" of anarchism interesting. At its core, anarchist organizing involves agreement. Regardless of what flavour of anarchism you believe is best, it will always come down to who is around you when you're organizing and what they want. No hierarchy means I don't get to push my anarcho-communism or collectivism on anyone else (not that I think anyone who really understands anarchism would). They're great categories for ease of discussion among people who are familiar with them, but once you actually start organizing (especially with people who aren't familiar with the terms), I think you're inevitably going to end up with something that is a combination of these things. Typing it out loud, it seems obvious, but I think worth saying.
I'm also going to throw out David Graeber as a great source to learn about this kind of stuff.
I dig all this, the question I keep wondering and I know it’s silly, is: what are the grounds for something like a home? Is it just buildings in regard to production and work that are non private? What if someone was to build a house or something for themselves or their family? How would that work? Thanks-
Tons of information here: libcom.org/article/housing-anarchist-approach-colin-ward
@@RevolutionandIdeology this perfect, thank you
The key is that “possession” is rooted in the concept of “use rights” or “usufruct” while “private property” is rooted in a divorce between the users and ownership. For example, a house that one lives in is a possession, whereas if one rents it to someone else at a profit it becomes property. Similarly, if one uses a saw to make a living as a self-employed carpenter, the saw is a possession; whereas if one employs others at wages to use the saw for one’s own profit, it is property. Needless to say, a capitalist workplace, where the workers are ordered about by a boss, is an example of “property” while a co-operative, where the workers manage their own work, is an example of “possession.” To quote Proudhon:
Please don't listen to these commies,they are not anarchist. If something is yours you paid for it you worked for it it is yours,and it's your right as a free individual to defend it with force against communist aggression.
@@AGENTOFDARWIN Nonsensical arbitrary commie definition. In reality the recognizing of property rights has historically been the one common denominator of every civilized society. It's a shame so many are under the etymological fallacy delusion that Proudhon is an authority on what anarchism is, when that's very far from the case. I wish people would stop referring to Prudhonism as "anarchism".
I've been an anarchist for 20 years and I didn't know what to call it til now
Great video. Not explored this in any detail until now. In an anarchist society how would we ensure the most competent people are fulfilling their ideal roles? (Hierarchy of value based on merit rather than power or currency).
Hey! There's nothing preventing an anarchist society from democratically establishing processes to ensure that certain roles need high degree of specialisation and skill (think Pilots, or a Surgeon). Workers Councils, Unions, committees, etc could democratically decide standards as well as appoint, elect, revoke, specialists in these sort of fields. The difference being that these decisions wouldn't be top down, obscure, and centralised in a unaccountable state apparatus. Merit is a very hard thing to grasp, and better to be democratically defined and easy to challenge.
Not the destruction of the state but an equilibrium between the person and the state that puts numbers on everyone. The state may exist .but .over there and not in 99.9% of all things
Against oppression and exploitation!Anarchism knows no borders!
Flag wavers of the world, untie!
Thank you for putting this video together - such a useful introduction to people who have no idea about the most equitable way of organising society and allowing the greatest freedom.
I really enjoyed this explanation, I just have questions regarding: so If you work hard to have a house to raise a family, someone can claim as theirs? Because property belongs to no one? And if under mutual agreement that I worked for that space and decided to have and if the other part, changes their mind and wants to dispute, how do you solve this problem ?
Too much to write. Extensive explanation here: theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-anarchist-faq-editorial-collective-an-anarchist-faq-full#text-amuse-label-secb3
No it your house your private property. Its your right to defend it by force. Don't listen to these communist who think they are anarchist. This whole video is communist propaganda not about anarchy.
If you have a mansion with only one person living in it, then those other rooms will be filled, you will not be displaced, but if your privacy is important you would have the option to claim the single unit dwellling vacated by the families who moved into the property that better suits their requirement.
Any issues which arise, because some will, could be solved via democratic institutions created by mutual agreement, or if people freely choose to do so they could still elect an expert representative to intellectually labor to create the policies on their behalf, but the representation would dissolve the moment that they're no longer the will of the populace they represent.
Any representative democracy would still be free to operate if that's what the masses will, but couldn't force people to be represented by them and couldn't extend their powers beyond what their elected to do, which wouldn't be running an entire country, just maintaining some systems that require intellectual specialists.
To cite a popular culture example, you wouldn't want Homer Simpson running your power plants, that's an extremely specialised job where experts would be required to make technical decisions on behalf of the community
Those are my personal thoughts, any actual structures would have to be the result of communal will and able to be dissolved via communal will
Here's kropotkins anarcho-communist version of expropriation,
dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/kropotkin/conquest/ch4.html
The same way you solve every problem under anarchism: finding agreement with those involved. I think a lot of people have a hard time with this because we live in a world of manufactured scarcity which really affects how we think. We have more than we need for everyone to live a comfortable life, but the rich hoard it for profit. In an Anarchist society, nobody would claim "your" house as "theirs", because they "have" their own to live in. The idea of private property is so ingrained in us that it's hard to imagine a world where you don't "own" anything in the way we mean it now, but that doesn't mean you don't have safety, security, and stability, because everyone will have those things and will have no need to "claim your house". But again, it will all depend on the agreement you work out with your community. Anarchism will look a little different everywhere, because people are different.
@@ericrae7531hmm
Great video! Best one I've found that easily explains it!
I'm sorry but, according to wiki about statism, it says clearly that the opposition of statism are anti-statism and anarchism. And so I'm confused on the statement from Bakunin 10:39 that said he is Statism and Anarchism ? Can someone explain pls.
Huh? His writing is titled "Statism and Anarchism" (or "Statism and Anarchy"). He nowhere says that he is a statist. As an anarchist, Bakunin is clearly anti-statist; his entire work is critiquing statism. If you really want to understand what he means by "statism," read the introduction of the work here: theanarchistlibrary.org/library/mikhail-bakunin-statism-and-anarchy#toc2
@@RevolutionandIdeology Yes! I just found it the (, statism and anarchism) was his wrighting which he stated that quote! I thought it was like
(Michael Müller , communist). My grammar was off. Thank you so much for replying! Keep the good content !
Anarchist
Statism is the opposite of Anarchism. Anarchy merely means "NO RULERS"!
The reason given for the Anarchist’s reasoning against private property applies to personal property as well. 7:00 - 7:20
Anarchist are not against private property communist are.
Anarchists are NOT all against private property. I'm not.
@@mattolivier1835you're not anarchist then.
@@bobmcireath1707false.
Proudhon goes into depths when explaining exactly why private property is theft, but not personal property, which he called liberty, along side possession and use.
It kind goes as "the exclusive ownership to hold the products of your labor is liberty (personal property), but the exclusive ownership of the means (land) to the fruits of your labors is theft, murder and slavery (private property)"
Basically, he argued that land is not something you can hold on to exclusively, and in doing so, would create hierarchical social relations and is detrimental to those who don't own private property, which is antithetical to anarchist principles. That's why private property is theft and the "Anarcho"-Capitalists are not anarchists.
I'm a proud Anarchist! Once the patriot Act was passed I gave up on the illusion that Americans believe they have Liberty. Ten years ago I moved my family to the mountains of Costa Rica and haven't been back! Fantastic vid!
and yet u use the internet, a product of capitalism on technology created as a result of capitalism distributed in a capitalist fashion
@@chelseaforlife4675can't logically and scientifically refute the philosophy, so you stuck to Tu quoque fallacies huh?
It's not our fault that we're forced to live under an oppressive system. And the internet came from the age of cold war. So, both capitalist and state socialism were equally responsible for it's creation.
@@chelseaforlife4675 Whether a technology was created within a capitalistic economy is irrelevant to the anarchist. As the ongoing production and distribution of an internet can occur also under anarchism - if desired. It is unclear what this comment was aiming to do other than highlight your own ignorance.
You didn't explain Anarcho-Syndicalism, though it was on your slide, and you did talk about individualism and egoism, although it was not on your slide.
Very astute observation. Here's a cookie 🍪
While what you said about libertarianism might have been true in the past, I think today, with the Internet facilitating globalization of thought, American understanding of libertarianism is spread throughout the world.
It really has not. I have seen libertarian socialist groups in real life as active political groups, and on the Internet the socialist usage is still very strong, probably stronger than the distorted use in most cases.
"The naturian anarchists explained by a young girl." ua-cam.com/video/0AiKMdq9QZk/v-deo.html
no it does not
@@mEmory______ It's called living in an information bubble. The algorithms feed you stuff you want to see, and are oblivious to how tainted your world view is becoming from social media. What I see in media is leftism getting more and more exposed as the vile violent thieving ideology it is, and the fascist tactics of collectivist revolutionaries getting more and more exposed, in favor for populist politics or libertarian and voluntaryist sentiments.
That's certainly true in Canada. I think most people here associate libertarianism with the American right.
Thank you very much for your channel!
I would like to suggest everyone Fernando Pessoa's book, "The Anarchist Banker," which is, I think, a great portrayal of individual anarchism and also easy to read.
Oh, I’m a socialist, but I’m trying to understand about other leftist ideologies, so that’s why im here to understand about anarchism.
@@真夜中の橋anarchism is ideal
@@Moodboard39 *2 months after leaving that comment* : yeah, you’re right. Anything other than socialism isn’t materialistic or scientific.
Really insightful..i gained lot of clarity. Many thanks great job
Great to hear!
I don’t think an anarchist country can survive for long but I would love to live in an anarchist world. Governments should not have the liberty to abolish our freedoms
"I don’t think an anarchist country can survive for long"
Of course not. The moment a society becomes anarchist, it's not a country anymore. That's kinda the whole point.
@@hansfranz8795 Anarchism goes completely against nation states.
@@hansfranz8795 what I think they mean is that how will an anarchy care for itself, and who will enforce the principles of it? For example, let’s say someone was murdered in cold blood; what would happen to the murder? Who would bring that murder to justice? And if there is no government, who will make sure that justice is just? To bring that murder to justice would be governing the rule of some sort of laws, thus, going against the principles of anarchy. Enlighten me, for I genuinely want to learn.
@@Nottoday_22pilot If a lion kills and eats a deer, does the lion get judged and go to prison? survivor of the fittest.
@@altorgoman8658 Lions don’t eat deers ,and we aren’t a Lion or a Deer.
the lack of a state makes the people vulnerable to foreign interventions.
Wouldn’t this make it where other countries would come with their armies and take pieces of our land. The target we would become makes this a bad idea.
There's nothing to say that Anarchists can't defend themselves.
@@RevolutionandIdeology I really am trying to wrap my head around this objectively but we couldn’t have one large organized military force if this land turned to full blown anarchism right? So how would we have even a decent chance at defending ourselves if let’s say a strong military we’re to come our way. Which obv would happen and it prob would happen quickly bc it would be in our enemies best interest to get at us when we’re weakest. Idk I just can’t see how we would have a fighting chance at protecting ourselves from other countries. I get the concept of us protecting ourselves from each other. Getting to that point seems it would be an extremely rough and tough road however if everything was already done and the govt was abolished and we have our security companies over various things and we have our own weapons, altho it still doesn’t feel like the right answer to me, I do see some argument in it and I will def bounce it around my head more to get a better grasp on it. However the protection from other countries, I just don’t see it. I appreciate the respectful conversation I find it all very fascinating.
@@usmc72409 Unfortunately this is what attempted anarchist societies have struggled with over the years. The Spanish Revolution he mentioned is an example, but ideally an anarchist revolution would be international, at least from my perspective as an anarcho-syndicalist. Worker's could coordinate through syndicalist and industrial unions directly take control of many sectors of the military-industrial complex, significantly weakening capital's force multipliers. But this is literally just a thought off the top of my head. Most anarchists would tell you that individuals working collaboratively could form more effective means of defense through democratic means. I would definitely look into Rojava, a current anarchist-style society that holds a large area in northeast Syria that was formed during the ongoing Syrian civil war and has been admirably defending itself to this day with at least three separate enemy factions on its borders. They were a huge part of the effort to drive out ISIS from Syria, and are still defending themselves from the fascist Turkish government today. Turkey just hates Kurds. Its whole thing with a long and terrible history. For context, Rojava was initially formed by Kurdish people, who are a displaced ethnic group in the middle east that have been terrorized by various regimes over the past century. Displaced by shitty post-WW1 border lines drawn by assholes in Europe. Yes, that's how the middle-eastern countries were created. Sorry, I'm rambling. lol
Correct !
@@brokenbirthday Rojava. I’m going down the rabbit hole now. Sounds very interesting thanks!
Re 3:28 - Perhaps the reason why anarchy is associated with chaos & destruction is that anarchist philosophies, as interesting as they are, are just that: _Philosophies._ Ever since the emergence of Neolithic city-states in what is now eastern Iraq, every human society larger than a village has had a government of some sort. It is also true that whenever a government has lost effectiveness (from being overthrown, or fracturing into mutually contending factions--basically anything other than losing to an invading force from outside), chaos has ensued until another government formed & imposed order on whatever territory it can get. If there are any viable anarchist polities, communes, whatever, that have not only existed for a significant length of time but managed to do so without a coherent government or laws, & still managed to keep order, then I'd like to hear about them. So far I haven't found any.
Having said that, I will add that mutualism sounds fascinating.
So about that 350,000 of "just" homo sapien existence before the above cited city-states...
@@RevolutionandIdeology Then you consider anarcho-primitivism to be a viable alternative?
lmao. city-states are indeed the root / origin of unequal structures. neolithic, or whenever.
the bajillion years before that, and all of the humans living beyond those little city states (all of which collapsed, over and over) were probably living in infinitely different and imo interesting ways. would need an anarchist anthropologist to study. :)
i'd also guess that not all cities had terrible structures. but yeah, it sounds like once farming started, it became easy to consolidate power (whereas with nomadic / hunter-gatherer life, not so easy). surely there were some decent villages out there, especially the first generation.
IT'S NOT CHAOS IT'S TRUE FREEDOM!
That true freedom is very unstable, and quictly falls into a true cnaos
Statement is too vague with it's choice of words, which could allow people to claim it's still chaos. Just like how the first replyer here did.
I’m a little confused on the private property aspect, though an anarchist lens how would public and private property work. Especially with homes?
The way he expressed it was too vague. Anarchists disagree with private property owned by the government. They don’t disagree with individual owned private lands, such as homes. For example, if I buy a house, all anarchist would agree that it’s mine and no authority should take it from me.
@@your.lady.of.sorrows gotcha! Makes much more sense ty!
private property relies on unequal social relationships and are enforced by violence. that’s what anarchists oppose. what they do not oppose is the personal private possession of goods, because it relies on truly free constructs.
Aren't anarchists socialists.
@@your.lady.of.sorrows I don't entirely agree with this, in a far-flung, much-closer-to-anarchism-than-we-are-now world (respectfully of course, I'm not trying to "prove you wrong" but rather further the conversation). I don't think the concept of private property is necessary at all, on any level. We don't need to "own" things to use them. In practice, though, I think it results in the same thing (everyone has safety, security, stability), I just think the concept of ownership is something we'd be better off without. That's a long way off though. Usufruct!
I consider myself an anarchist, never voted and refuse to subscribe to any political or religious beliefs or ideals. I find it very interesting to see how many people have confused anarchism with socialism, they are very different. Anarchism is more of an individual pursuit that doesn’t require a mandate or a set of rules. Anachronism cannot be used as a vehicle to indoctrinate the masses because to do so would mean that it then becomes a political movement and self defeating. I’ve been asked many times about my political views and I have always been honest about the fact that I am an anarchist, and when asked about it I always say go and find out for yourself.
Well anarchism is a political belief
“ Democracy would devolve into Chaos “ 2022 And so it has…
Democracy is NOT anarchism! Democracy requires a state.
democracy does not exist anyware period bold--- but a fact
6:15 "All anarchism is socialist" - What about Anarcho-Capitalism: or would business become the government under a new guise, thus technically not fitting the definition?
We would argue that Anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron.
@@RevolutionandIdeology they would probably be mutualists but in America the definitions of capitalism and socialism are unique.
@@RevolutionandIdeology Michael Malice has recently published an anthology book featuring essays of various anarchist philosophers; from Emma Goldman and Lysander Spooner to Herbert Spencer and Murray Rothbard as the black flag contains many colors. It's a fantastic read. However, I'm strongly of the opinion that the only likely sustainable attempt at anarchy is via anarcho-capitalism as it seems the only philosophy to take into account man's varied and diverse attributes of skill, intellect and ambition. I'm completely open to anarcho-communism for anyone willing to voluntarily abide by such a system, but it seems to neglect the inherent inequalities of every individual in every aspect of life that I see it being nearly impossible to enact any form of communism without the use of force. Force, of course being antithetical to anarchy. No human is equal to another and to get a group of people to voluntarily agree to a system where their own excellence/natural advantages go unrecognized, unfulfilled, unrealized and unrewarded would likely require a select group of people so amazingly approximate in skill, ability and ambition that it seems nearly impossible to achieve on any mass scale that tyranny of force would not become inevitable. www.amazon.com/Anarchist-Handbook-Michael-Malice/dp/B095DVF8FJ/ref=sr_1_1?crid=25G2M8Y6XM61O&dchild=1&keywords=anarchist+handbook+michael+malice&qid=1623906177&sprefix=anrachis%2Caps%2C237&sr=8-1
anarcho-capitalism is likely the best strategy for achieving anarchy. for many reasons, but a major one being that no market could ever hope; in it's most heinous, perverted and corrupt ambitions to attain the level of tyranny of the monopoly a state holds on violence. what are commonly espoused as critiques of anarcho-capitalism are infact descriptions of our statist status quo.
@@cambodianz I think the only thing that matters is the elimination of the arbitrary power of the state. I believe anarchy is the natural state of the universe. Things self organize without authoritarian force. Your body for example is self organizing. The cells are independent, yet they work together. I think if you eliminate authoritarian state government, like minded people would group together. These groups would then be able to cooperate like body organs to perform all the functions of society. Work would be meaningful, and innovation would not be stifled.
Have you watched the Zeitgeist documentaries? Or at least read the "New Human Rights Movement" by Peter Joseph? Which category would they fall in exactly?
We've seen the films, but have not read the Joseph work. What do you mean by category though?
When she says "social order" all went down the hill for me!
The social order to me,means a organized structure,aka rulling class!
Nope,that cant be a true Anarchy!
But,hey,what the heck do I know?!😊
An organized structure doesn't require a ruling class. Even the most egalitarian societies since the dawn of humanity have had social order.
@@RevolutionandIdeology Anarchism can only work among the enlightened people,not a flawed people like 99.99999 of us are! It's a beautiful, holy idea that unfortunately will never come to be 😔
@@kris4645 that literally defines Christianity too
@@aaronsmall1394 the Holy one is an authority. Our problem as humans is we want our evil ways to proceed without question. God knows that others will oppress their fellows if there's no authority. It is already bad but it will be too much in an Anarchist situation. Let's not fool ourselves people have evil hearts and for many it is laws that make them behave decently. Our ways here on earth as human beings do not affect God it affects fellow men. So don't bother blaming him. He just wants us to be good humans to one another but we cannot separate good from bad if we don't know by which rules you're playing
@@lauraaw.2095 But at the same time no government and no religion is literally Christianity if you think about it
Very nice presentation! But, please, emphasize that by 'Private Property' you refer to the resources and the means of production... and not minor, personal property, like clothes, telephones and other personal items, because it could be misleading to a modern consumerist!
> Marxism - Authoritarian Socialism
I don't think so. Some anti-authoritarians (not all, mind you) would consider themselves as Marxists, and there are some anarchists believes in Marxism.
As mentioned, that can be considered pejorative or not. They might consider themselves to be Marxists but they couldn't consider themselves to be Socialists (in the Leninist sense). The same goes for Anarchists who consider themselves to be Marxists. We have to dive into the complexities of what "Marxism" means. For example, you might believe in dialectical materialism and consider yourself a Marxist in that respect and consider yourself Anarchist. But you can't believe in Socialism in the dictatorship of the proletariat sense and be Anarchist.
Any Socialist who beliefs in taking control of the state and the dictatorship of the proletariat is "authoritarian." I don't mean that to be pejorative or negative. It's merely categorical. (though many people do use it in a negative sense)
And a rose by any other name smells the same! In other words it’s the same political garbage.
how do anarchist countries fight large scale wars? this question i derived from what i understood is that theres no government in an anarchist country so theres no huge military. my impression is that if there are military in this countries it would be small. tahnk you in advance for those who will have good good answer.
Anarchists don't believe in, nor have the desire to create 'countries.' In fact, many would argue manufacture of competing hierarchical forms of social organization are the reason large wars take place and thus, another strike against the nation-state.
@@RevolutionandIdeology YESSIR my personal believe is that an anarchist society would defend themselves together if need be to protect their own. I like to imagine a world where everyone looked out for their neighbors and respected each other's beliefs or whatever and there wouldn't really be a need to fight. But if fight they wanted them fight they will get.
this is a fair problem: what to do against states with large militaries. the Zapatistas are, unfortunately, constantly suppressed, but i think their way is indeed the natural way to go: guerrilla / DIY / creative tactics. all the creativity and freedom would be pointed toward defense, and hopefully the community would find some clever ways to survive: from using social media to denounce the state and gain the world's attention to proper military tactics, gotta do it all, gotta be like water. :(
Why do you want to invade other countries? THAT is the question!
This is the biggest problem with anarchy. The communists will simply destroy them. We don’t believe in was is not good enough in that scenario
I fell like Anarchism is very misunderstood
What about Eco Anarchism?
As an anarchist you have a very loose understanding of anarchism when it comes to the concept of ownership and collectivism
Feel free to detail what you think is missing here:
@@RevolutionandIdeology guess he is still trying to study lol. I thought this was a pretty good presentation of multiple forms of anarchism
You are correct! He doesn't seem to understand what Anarchy means. Anarchy comes from the latin meaning, " NO RULERS". Basically, no state. No government. It does NOT mean socialism and does NOT mean no leaders or rules. He's learning, give him time.
@@mattolivier1835"The etymological origin of anarchism is from the Ancient Greek anarkhia, meaning "without a ruler", composed of the prefix an- ("without") and the word arkhos ("leader" or "ruler")." "Drawing from mutualism, Mikhail Bakunin founded collectivist anarchism and entered the International Workingmen's Association, a class worker union later known as the First International that formed in 1864 to unite diverse revolutionary currents." "Mikhail Alexandrovich Bakunin[a] (/bəˈkuːnɪn/ bə-KOO-nin;[5] 30 May 1814 - 1 July 1876) was a Russian revolutionary anarchist. He is among the most influential figures of anarchism and a major figure in the revolutionary socialist, social anarchist,[6] and collectivist anarchist traditions." 😐😐😐 The prefix "no" in Latin is "non". Not "an". (As a non-speaker (see? NON-speaker) of Latin), "no leaders" is "nonduces". The major split between anarchism & communism happened between Marx & Bakunin. Hence, the false quote attributed to Bismarck about the heads of Europe should tremble "should the reds (communists/socialists) & blacks (anarchists) reunite".
Currency is vital to incentive, incentive is vital to progress
Capitalism IS the crisis!!! RBE, within Anarchist Principles is the solution!!! All Anarchists are socialists but not all socialists are Anarchists!!!
Nah
I walked up to an Anarchist and kicked him in the balls! He did not look too happy and so I asked "Isn't this Anarchism?" "No!" he said "It's assault"!
brilliant .... i am and always will be an anarchist
youre not an anarchist, you probably support unions and min wages
Your comment section is a goldmine of good laughs at the expense of AnCaps. Sorry about that. lol
all my life i have said " i do not want anyone to do anything they conceive as against their best interests." that confuses the average slave. if you asked Mahatma Ghandi if he was self-less or altruistic i believe he would say , " I am as self-ish as anyone on this planet. " i will let you figure out how he might actually be stating a simple accurate truth for him.
I know I'm commenting on a old video but in case if you see it I beg you please help me out.
Should Anarchists vote for A Bernie like candidate against morons(I would argue fascist but eh whatever) like Trump. Or just wait for revolution?
Thank you in advance and I love your work guys you are SOOO good
There's no right answer. From a moral stand point, harm reduction is better than 'nothing.' From an accelerationist standpoint, well--this one is tough to stomach. From a pure anarchist standpoint, voting in any capacity supports a system that was never designed to allow for individual autonomy and social equity. You have to follow your own priorities here.
@@RevolutionandIdeology thank you soooo much for responding. I am an anarchist (at least I consider my self as one) but would've voted for Bernie of he was the candidate against Trump but I aim towards Anarchy and I think that's one road to there. Again thank you so much for the answer
I would argue that this is a settled issue, that's never really been an issue until recently. You can't just ignore that the real world exists. So if you have easy access to a polling place, and the ability to vote, whenever a local or national election rolls around, then yeah, vote. But please don't let that be the end of your political engagement in your community or society. Voting is what it is and unfortunately real people's lives can be impacted by the results of these sham fucking elections.
@@brokenbirthday thank you. And yea makes sense
NO. This is against the whole goal of Anarchist goals. If you contribute to the system by voting FOR it - you are voting against your own interests and goals.
my girlfriend is an Anarchist, I am a Democratic Socialist thus why I seek this video out. I want to get a very basic understanding of her views
Hope it helped!
@@RevolutionandIdeology Not really, I am more confused
@@BMD19840 You and your girlfriend need to start communicating better.
@@flippydaflip5310 Nah, I am not changing my views on Anarchism, if my gf want to be an Anarchist, I aint stopping her but I am a Democratic Socialist by heart!
@@BMD19840 I didn't say you should change your mind on anything... but the anarchist critique of hierarchy is a pretty simple and straightforward conversation - I don't understand why you haven't had it with your SO yet.
As I understand it, anarchism simply assumes all humans are perfect. In competence, conscience and communication. The Human itself is biologically inclined to develop structures of Power. So even if the formal structures of Power were taken away, new informal leaders would emerge and as time went on, structures would reemerge. So, as far as I get it, it's all a dream. You would need a school or some kind of church to at least try to teach the things needed to build a functioning "society". Whoever's in charge of that, is the state I guess.
This is also my concern. What is the Anarchist rebuttal to this statement?
@@FreddysFather ua-cam.com/video/e27RVFxNOcc/v-deo.html
certain individuals will try to get power, and they will fail against the community. people only have to be educated to be conscious of just that: to consistently be aware of people trying to cheat, use people, gain power, build unequal structures 'n systems, etc. people can even build structures as a community to prevent specific instances of that, perhaps making those people feel shame for it (like the little boys they are :) ). some personalities are indeed like that, you know, the shady business men sort, but they can't survive without the exploitation of others, so they'll eventually come crying back, lmao. just be aware, always.
humans are biologically inclined create systems of power? that's pretty miserable view of human life. i hope your mother isn't so terrible. i hope she was biologically inclined to take care of you and others.
I'm talking about healthy leadership here. Does that exist in your worldview?
Or is every leader evil?
Your highschool band leader? The leader of your group of friends?
What about people who what to take initiative to solve a problem, and therefore convince others to help them. Is that evil? Solving problems? Because that's leadership. That's vision. It's what drives the world forward. And that's how most companies are founded. If you stifle the spirit of the entrepreneur, by telling him that pushing forward (or upward) isn't good, your gonna miss out on a lot of progress.
Not all people are the same. (!)
That's a fact of nature many (extreme-)leftists are missing out on.
So some people might never have an idea on how to do something (new). Others on the other hand know what problems they want to solve, what needs they want to fulfill, and they know how to do it and how to convince others of their plan.
That's how hierarchies emerge. There's a problem and someone steps up with a plan on how to solve it. - the others follow the plan. That's something that's been around since the dawn of humanity and no civilization has ever gotten away with no organization, or in other words hierarchy. (Planning)
So it's something natural and healthy.
Hierarchy is something natural and healthy.
Exploitation isn't. If the power that's given to a leader by his/her people is abused, that's bad.
But getting rid of hierarchy isn't ever gonna be possible or useful at all.
You need to have systems in place that prevent the abuse of power. Rules and Procedures.
Democracy is maybe not the holy solution, but it's definitely heavy bat for justice.
Churchill: "No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
And at least in Germany, where I'm from, there are a lot of social security interventions. - even though it's not perfect. - You have workers rights, minimum wage... To prune the use of power.
But my point is, hierarchy isn't the problem. The problem is the abuse of power and that can be mitigated. And it can be best mitigated if you accept that hierarchy isn't the problem but the real problem is the abuse of power.
Have good day :)
How would defence of the community against a state work in anarchism? How would the militias be armed and rewarded to stay loyal?
By abolishing private property self interest is abolished making the idea inconsistent with human nature and hence nothing but destructive.
How did humans live for hundreds of thousands of years without the concept of private property or individual ownership? The fallacy in your argument is connecting self-interest with private property. 1. Private property is a relatively novel concept in the course of human history. 2. It's perfectly possible to be self-interested without private property. Communal ownership could be in my self-interest (as it was for hundreds of thousands of years prior to the development of the concept private property and the associated laws and legal apparatuses to enforce it). I highly suggest reading Kropotkin's "Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution" theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-mutual-aid-a-factor-of-evolution
@@RevolutionandIdeology the reason humans actually succeeded in surviving without private property is because self consciousness was not the prevalent nature of humans then, life was lived mainly subconsciously. Today that is not the case, the more self consciousness develops the more personality becomes expressive. And hence the necessity of private property, we are no longer unconscious of life like animals.
@@hbhc1000 When do you think self-consciousness came about?
@@RevolutionandIdeology if you read Julian Jame's The Bicameral mind, there is no moment in history when we became suddenly self conscious. It was a process from purely subconscious behaviour into schizophrenic like behaviour until the two hemispheres of our brain were seperated enough to distinguish between subjective and objective experiences. The moment the development of self consciousness brought forward personality, the individual became a thing.
@@hbhc1000 That's such a good book! And I absolutely love thinking about it and entertaining it as a possibility but it's just not sound enough to be taken as truth. It's definitely not sound enough to be then transferred into some grand theory on human nature, self-interest, and then, by extension, private property.
So who enforces these agreements? What prevents people from breaking the agreement? Fascism and Socialism are also against Capitalism yet neither one of those are considered "chaotic"
What? What is this with anarchists refusing private property?? Private property is fine, as long as everyone else is fine with it. THAT is the definition of anarchism.
Private property is only a problem when it imposes on some other person AND that person voices that discomfort. Then everyone comes together to find a solution. Even if the solution is the discomforted person just voluntarily tolerating their discomfort for the good of others.
there's a difference between private property and personal property. Private property in this context refers to one's property that can be/is used to exploit others. So yeah, you can have property but not if you somehow use it to exploit others (for ex., being a landlord.)
@@an6350 thank you for explaining this
No, Private Property is the material basis for individuals to accumulate Power with which they can exert Authority over others. If you retain private property and an Indivual can go ahead and for example have the water supply of your community, or possibly all the local arable land as their private property, you can force people in your locality to either do whatever appeases you, or you can literally starve them to death.
Ah ok. Private as opposed to public. Private as different from personal. Thank you!
The person who made this video doesn't understand, or doesn't properly explain, what anarchists and Marx meant about private property. They make a distinction between private and personal property. Chomsky explains it well. People can own whatever they want under socialism and anarchism.
I’d say a video about socialism benefits greatly from knowing what Anarchism is aswell
Vladimir Lenin
Ummm... if a business is "worker controlled" why does that go against the idea of private property? This makes no sense to me. If a business is "worker controlled", or "OWNED" by the workers, doesn't that mean private property is necessary? After all, something is OWNED. OWNERSHIP MEANS private property.
You're just semantically twisting the definition of "private" here. If something is "owned" communally by the people that actually use it, ie. the workers or the public, then this is not called private property in economic terms. No individual can decide the fate of the property. Decisions are made democratically. Hope that helps.
Collectively owned.
@@shutupshutup2713 Kinda? Can you clarify? I don't quite understand.
@@brokenbirthday I would add that we use words like "owned" because of where we are societally. It's hard for people (including myself, no denigrating anyone here) in such an individualist, capitalist society to really understand something that isn't owned by someone, but rather used by them, so we use "collectively owned" to get closer to that idea. I think @zpettigrew has pointed out a shortcoming of our language and collective understanding, not in socialism.
Sadly, anarchy wouldn't work in a larger scale, because it relies on the better nature of every human being involved. Freedom comes with responsibility and altruism. And we all know how that goes...
I suggest listening to our 2-part series on human nature: ua-cam.com/video/7I281VG5-SU/v-deo.html
But it has.
@@mEmory______ Anarchy has worked in a larger scale? Where? I want to learn about that case.
@@neliaferreira9983 Spanish agricultural and industrial collectives in late 1930s spain for one example.
@sdrawkcabUK I have run into this argument before, and I am sorry to say, it is really stupid. First thing to note: they had armed militias. Yes, they were untrained peasants. That worked against them. Second to note: they were not well armed. Mainly because their so called allies refused to cooperate in expanding munition industry controlled by trade unions, and refused to arm their militias. Same situation with the Western powers. That was what lost them the war. Third: they were centralised and coordinated. There is no contradiction there. Anarchists are against social hierarchy. Military hierarchy serves an important executive function on the battlefield. As long as discipline treats all equally, and the military is accountable to the unions, that is right. Final note: military defeat does not mean an ideology does not work. How could it? They were defeated in a situation that was almost impossible.
So if the US were to separate, an anarchist president would allow that assuming a meaningful democratic process had taken place?
There wouldn’t be an anarchist president since anarchy doesn’t have rulers or a state because both of those are inherently oppressive.
The idea of an "anarchist state president" is as oxymoronic as that of a "benign dictator" - ie, I won't hold my breath if I were you.
Anarchy means no government you fool.
Your view on private property is absurd. I’m sure you have a house and private property. Well my freedom tells me I want it and I don’t like to share.
God I wish people like you were capable of having a discourse beyond the cliche bullshit. It's so embarrassing for you and makes any kind of actual productive conversation impossible.
"You critique society - yet you participate in society! HAHA o-w-n-e-d!"
@@eleftheriosepikuridis9110 ummm ok? Sure. What you said makes NO sense. 🤣🤣 you know F all about me. Go impede someone else you worthless troll.
This is correct. The ownership after one's own self is one's property. If I am not to own myself nor the fruits of my labor, I am a slave.
@@cambodianz 👏👏👏👏👏👏👏
Why not more exploration of Bakoonan?
Like here: ua-cam.com/video/s3aYumFfO4I/v-deo.html
Anarchism is political Peter Pan-ism.
K. Good talk.
excelent presentation
No Archons is anarchy and that's it.
By both Goldman's and Kropotkin's definitions of anarchism, anarcho-capitalism is anarchism. Yes, obvious, but a lot of anarcho-socialists deny this. Even the speaker in the video "forgets" the definitions he just gave.
Good lesson here on Anarchy
How is a country able to rebuild an economy when there is no control of the means of production? How can you be sure everyone has the same goal of achieving what marxists call the higher phase of communism if there is no enforced control?
If there is no control, imperialists will take control of all the means of production.
Ps: im not bashing the philosophy. i'm left wing and new to the Anarchy concept. Please share your Thoughts
In short, there is no "country" in anarchism so we're not sure how to answer your question. Check out the structure of syndicalism for your economic questions. theanarchistlibrary.org/library/george-woodcock-what-is-anarcho-syndicalism
@@RevolutionandIdeology i think you do understand the question but dont have an answer. my question is simple: how do you make sure the means of production are led by the right people? Capitalist will take over everything, maybe people who used to call themselves anarchists.
@@thijsslob3799 Reliance on renewable means of production would make resources decentralized and therefore not hierarchical.. Think of it as getting a solar panel instead of constantly getting oil from a giant company.
@@irenemartin4005 it would be wonderfull if it could work. But not all people will participate in such a society. An example from the top of my head: Lets say computer programmers, a trait that not many people are able to do. If there is scarcity in the capacity to make something, there might be people that feel they are entitled to earn more. If there demands Aren't met, they will be able to exploit others, because there is a demand for Lets say cybersecurity.
You might have a sick child, if no doctors are willing to help what are you going to do?
How do you make sure everyone participates?
@@thijsslob3799 An important point, but I think in an anarchist society the only rule should be to reciprocate.
Suppose all the doctors in the city refused to do their work, okay, but in return they have to deal with the refusal of the rest of the population to give them any goods or services.
they will not be able to get food or anything else and this will make them return to work in order to live..
Nice video, and thanks for discussing the topic. The video left me wondering.. if anarchists do not acknowledge/support/accept/believe in private property, why do so many of the strains still assume there is a market for products and companies to work for? If there is nothing to call mine why would I buy anything in an anarchist society?
Because there's a lot of different schools of anarchist thought, and he explained just one of them while claiming it's the only one.
Because he's describing a communist school of thought not anarchist.
If you want.to know how Anarchism would play out, read "The Road"
Very well done
"The naturian anarchists explained by a young girl." ua-cam.com/video/0AiKMdq9QZk/v-deo.html
I’ve leaned towards the anarchist school of thought for decades, but I’m open to the state socialist arguments because of one issue. What to do with the nuclear weapons and tech?
Maybe it’s my lack of imagination, or I haven’t heard the correct arguments, but I can’t see how the nuclear problem is handled while even one capitalist power is still in control. Maybe it😢just too difficult for me to see all the capitalist nuclear states folding in a manageable window.
What about owning a house and property to raise your family? Is that "bad private property"
No, that is personal property. Private property refers to resources and means of production. Basically if a person owns an item or a house and is not using it to get more then it is personal property however if they own a factory or mine then they are using it to gain power and money which corrupts them therefore is not supported by anarchism.
Wouldn't the third school of thought be reformative socialism (social democracy)? Why only count libertarian and authoritarian socialism?
What's the political philosophy of libertarian anarchism but still need govt to play a role but not to the extent of Marxism?
Anarchism forever and ever
When you exist, you take somebodies space already. I love capitalism.
Democracy >>
@@Blue_Nades Democracy is evil.
anyone here into thorstein veblen? wondering how he plays into all this.
Nice. Sounds good.
i think very old ireland was an anarchist society not confirmed
13:00 Your chart puts socialism at the top, with all variations of anarchism below it. WRONG! What about Capitalists? I'm an Anarcho-Capitalist! Anarchism itself has nothing to do with socialism. Socialism requires a state. Anarchists are anti-state. When I use the term "state" I'm referring to rulers.
This Video is totally not biased ;)
“An-“ without
“-archy” rulers
Anarchy means without rulers, NOT communism.
This video is fundamentally flawed: anarchists and communists do not inherently seek the same end. Traditionally, non-communist forms of socialism have been dominant within anarchist thought, which means they cannot actually ever be said to "want the same end". The only anarchists who would agree with this would be "anarcho-communists", who have rarely been a majority.
So as a life long anarchist ask yourself, does what you own means more to you than the people around you
another in " my " principals of anarchism ... indeed the worker in a job or the inhabiter of a land or the MANAGER of a resource have inherent rights. those rights are not absolute because there is always a greater context involved - the group as a whole. the difference from our current conception - in general - is we need to aknowledge that the living being engaged in an activity accrues rights based on their voluntary spending of their life in the activity. it is THEIR life that they are responsible for and it is an ACT to do anything. so, we need to aknowledge that act for them and OURSELVES. sorry about the caps. peace.
So the private property aspect in the most simplest terms: if I have planted crops in the woods, anyone is allowed to come take said crops since I can’t claim ownership over said crops? That’s inherently flawed
Am I allowed to shoot them for trying to take the crops? Because stopping them would be interfering with freedoms based on this
@@Schedule1ne315 You're entire argument is based on the premise that people would come steal your crops for some unknown reason. It's based on a flawed understanding of human nature. Humans existed for hundreds of thousands of years (the VAST majority) of human history without any concept of private property. Greed is a result of private property, not the other way around.
@@RevolutionandIdeology You have no idea what you are talking about. You are assuming everyone is a good person. People did take ownership of land millennias ago and they needed a functional society (government) to prevent outsiders from ransacking, stealing and pillaging people. I think this ideology is flawed in a sense of where people are so privileged in having time for free thought that they think their theories are what is true when it is not. Thinking this will work when it will surely not. Look at how fast Autonomous zones started forming their own leaders and governments. hierarchies structures are necessary. All animals and insects have some hierarchies.
@@santanadrums " People did take ownership of land millennias ago " - Thousands of years, yes. Hundreds of thousands of years? No.
@@RevolutionandIdeology I would say the agricultural age is when we started taking ownership of land. Technology has led us to property ownership. Obviously we couldn't do it as much when we were nomadic tribes but if we found a nice piece of land, we would definitely defend it and take ownership until other forces said otherwise. I think the main source to greed is that our brains are wired to self-preservation. We are not all that good and willing to do whatever it takes to survive. We are never satisfied. We always want more in case of the event that we encounter a horrible event where we could lose everything. Such as famines, floods, etc. The only way to counter against such flawed wiring is to become more spiritually connected and fight against your pre-wired selfishness which runs towards your fleshly desires. No one can be totally altruistic but you can do your best to try to fight that urge and become less primal.
How does anarchism deal with children? Do parents have authority over children? Do people other than parents have authority over children? Can children engage in mutual agreements with adults? At what point is a child no longer a child?
-Honestly depends on the type of communism, but for the most part, parents can choose if they want authority over their children, or want to care for their children at all, do note that disciplining a child is different than authority over them.
-People can have authority over other people’s children if it’s their job to do so, like I said it depends on the type of anarchism so if they’re in anarcho- communism and they live in a community and are a teacher let’s say, then yeah people can have mandatory supervison over others kids
-Yes. For good or bad unfortunately.
-Since there won’t be a country wide law for a recognized adult age, depending on the anarchist ideology, either the community you live in makes up rules about when a child’s a child, or people just morally stick to the “old world” Adult age/Age of consent.
If I am wrong about anything though do correct me
This is going to sound nuts but I actually think Anarcho monarchism makes sense in the format of a voluntary monarch existing with no successor for the purpose of facilitating and spreading the anarchist revolution through diplomacy and distribution of materials and facilities to communes and cooperatives possibly through a utopian socialist popular dismantling of capitalism at the source slowly ending the wealth gap with the wealth of capitalists. Certain ones like Elon musk would shit cry and scream that say tweeting is actually really important work, but it's not...
Is Americorps an anarchist organization? It has an A in a black circle... ;)
do a review on human centipede
Viva the revolution
On one hand I think the political compass has contributed to a lot of confusion about anarchists politics.
But also, what in the world do you even have to do to be marked a RW libertarian?
Ex. To me supporting stock holder profits over morals seems very unlibertarian to me, as it implies private property.
But also how did we get to where "anarchists" on twitter were some of the eggregiously coersive people Ive ever met. Im not sure if thats a feature, or an anomaly.