For clarification: According to Kropotkin, the 'trade' between communities is to be done on the basis of the principle of reciprocity: I help you because I can by offering you some of my surplus with the understanding that should I be in need, you will reciprocate IF you are in a position to do so. The relative values of the things transferred from one party to another should not be of consideration. We can draw an analogy here with how members of a family are (meant) to treat each other. A mother, for instance, does not feed her children BECAUSE she expects something of equal value in return from her children (or things of any value for that mater). But, if the mother is in need and the child can help there is an expectation that the child would help. In this sense, the transfer of goods, is not an exchange and transfers are certainly not based on contracts, an element of which is 'consideration' (i.e. a contract is valid if my obligation to give you X is coupled with your obligation to give me Y - that is a main difference between a promise and a contract). To, therefore, say that Kroptkin's system of exchange was based on mutual benefit is inaccurate. Reciprocal transfers do not require that the giver benefits as well as the receiver - that would be a market exchange between self-interested parties. For Proudhon, transfers would be in the form of exchanges where workers trade the goods they have produced in their cooperative enterprises according to their values. Here, in order for me to give you X you must give me Y and where the values of X and Y are equal in terms of the quantity of labour needed to produce them. Moreover, the reason why the Proudhon system is not capitalist has little to do with his view on human nature, nor is the fact that some would have more than others relevant. The reason why his system is not capitalist is because there is no class distinction between owners of the means of production and workers. Each worker in his system is also a part owner of the enterprise for which he works such that large scale productive enterprises are cooperatives. So, there is a relatively free market for labour and consumer goods but no one can own a company as a capitalist.
Cory, do you by chance have a list of references for this video breakdown? For these ideologies, finding sources that are not paywalled has been quite the challenge for me.
'A really good tussle with the material' as one of my old lecturers used to say. I think the theoretical side is well thought through.... but. Rather like Pacifism, it works effectively only IF everyone agrees. I think a point worth exploring is unlike Liberalism, Conservatism, Socialism etc. which have been tried and consequently can be critiqued, Anarchism has not been on, a sufficiently large scale. There are some primitive Protestant communities such as Mennonites, Amish and other Anabaptists that effectively work as an Anarchist community, but what are the costs in terms of technological advance and can this be transferred to the large scale?
I feel there's an inaccuracy in your terminology. In general, the term for communitarian anarchists is 'social anarchist'. Anarcho-collectivism is its own ideology, which is very similar to anarcho-communsim, except there is a type of currency, just no market. This was the anarchist school of Mikhail Bakunin. Kropotkin was communitarian, but not an anarcho-collectivst. In fact, he was very critical of collectivism. Syndicalism is not credited to Bakunin, but Rudolf Rocker--though its origins can be traced back to Proudhon.
Hiya. I'm using the terminology given in the Edexcel A-level politics specification. You may well be correct and it sounds like you know more about this topic than me, but these are the groupings the examiner would expect to see
@@coxysclassroom2237 So in practice in your A-level politics field, a student's more correct or in-depth anarchist analysis that disagrees with the presented groupings may perform worse?
@@DeJake Are you surprised by that? Seems like a pervasive structural problem in schools almost everywhere. Of couse, grading and hierarchies in school more generally have been criticized by many anarchist thinkers.
This gentleman does not understand anarchy. Anarchy simply is achieved and exists there is no “once we get beyond it”. Once anyone or any group of people start to decide what anyone else should do via coercion it is no longer anarchy. This need to have subtypes of anarchism is just due to a lack of courage and fear of taking full responsibility for themselves. They need an authority in charge because they are deeply psychologically troubled from their own childhood.
Hiya Vinesh. The goal of this video (and this series) is to explain the alevel anarchism specification to UK students. The specification headings for the exam include the topics I've covered in the video. I'm fully aware that many real like anarchists don't agree with this categorisation, but my goal is to get the students through the exam 😊
you cannot claim to knov what all anarchists think, please be more carefull with your wording say it like, anarchist theory leads to the conclusion... i am a pro welfare state anarcho individualist and i am still anti kcapitalist, i only want sociehy to be more decenhralized opposed to the bureacratic nature of anarcho communism and you gross over the difference between the right to use and the right to use, anarctists are not all against owner ship they ar for shared use of most products
I'm quoting from the A-level Politics textbooks - which I fully understand may not be in line with what actual anarchists think - but this is how the a-level specification wants students to categorise the different types. If you think the video presents it different from reality than you are welcome to make your own video response :)
@@TheAdiposeTV sorry I later realised this is part of a coarse, it makes sense that the books follow the general consensus more than the specific current versions. sorry for being pedantic about how you say it
thank you!!
For clarification: According to Kropotkin, the 'trade' between communities is to be done on the basis of the principle of reciprocity: I help you because I can by offering you some of my surplus with the understanding that should I be in need, you will reciprocate IF you are in a position to do so. The relative values of the things transferred from one party to another should not be of consideration. We can draw an analogy here with how members of a family are (meant) to treat each other. A mother, for instance, does not feed her children BECAUSE she expects something of equal value in return from her children (or things of any value for that mater). But, if the mother is in need and the child can help there is an expectation that the child would help. In this sense, the transfer of goods, is not an exchange and transfers are certainly not based on contracts, an element of which is 'consideration' (i.e. a contract is valid if my obligation to give you X is coupled with your obligation to give me Y - that is a main difference between a promise and a contract). To, therefore, say that Kroptkin's system of exchange was based on mutual benefit is inaccurate. Reciprocal transfers do not require that the giver benefits as well as the receiver - that would be a market exchange between self-interested parties.
For Proudhon, transfers would be in the form of exchanges where workers trade the goods they have produced in their cooperative enterprises according to their values. Here, in order for me to give you X you must give me Y and where the values of X and Y are equal in terms of the quantity of labour needed to produce them. Moreover, the reason why the Proudhon system is not capitalist has little to do with his view on human nature, nor is the fact that some would have more than others relevant. The reason why his system is not capitalist is because there is no class distinction between owners of the means of production and workers. Each worker in his system is also a part owner of the enterprise for which he works such that large scale productive enterprises are cooperatives. So, there is a relatively free market for labour and consumer goods but no one can own a company as a capitalist.
Great Video thank you so much
Really helpful, thankyou so much.
Cory, do you by chance have a list of references for this video breakdown? For these ideologies, finding sources that are not paywalled has been quite the challenge for me.
Think it mainly came from the green political ideas book (Edexcel).
There is the anarchist library, where you will find many texts from Bakunin, Kropotkin, Goldman etc.
great video thank you! just wondering where emma goldman is?
'A really good tussle with the material' as one of my old lecturers used to say. I think the theoretical side is well thought through.... but. Rather like Pacifism, it works effectively only IF everyone agrees. I think a point worth exploring is unlike Liberalism, Conservatism, Socialism etc. which have been tried and consequently can be critiqued, Anarchism has not been on, a sufficiently large scale. There are some primitive Protestant communities such as Mennonites, Amish and other Anabaptists that effectively work as an Anarchist community, but what are the costs in terms of technological advance and can this be transferred to the large scale?
i was able to understand 👍
I feel there's an inaccuracy in your terminology. In general, the term for communitarian anarchists is 'social anarchist'. Anarcho-collectivism is its own ideology, which is very similar to anarcho-communsim, except there is a type of currency, just no market. This was the anarchist school of Mikhail Bakunin. Kropotkin was communitarian, but not an anarcho-collectivst. In fact, he was very critical of collectivism. Syndicalism is not credited to Bakunin, but Rudolf Rocker--though its origins can be traced back to Proudhon.
Hiya. I'm using the terminology given in the Edexcel A-level politics specification.
You may well be correct and it sounds like you know more about this topic than me, but these are the groupings the examiner would expect to see
@@coxysclassroom2237 So in practice in your A-level politics field, a student's more correct or in-depth anarchist analysis that disagrees with the presented groupings may perform worse?
@@DeJake Are you surprised by that? Seems like a pervasive structural problem in schools almost everywhere. Of couse, grading and hierarchies in school more generally have been criticized by many anarchist thinkers.
Egoism can be collectivist or individualist. If communalist the person believes this is the best for freedom
a commune is a collective
“Anarcho”-capitalism isn’t anarchism. Capitalism is inherently hierarchical.
This gentleman does not understand anarchy. Anarchy simply is achieved and exists there is no “once we get beyond it”. Once anyone or any group of people start to decide what anyone else should do via coercion it is no longer anarchy. This need to have subtypes of anarchism is just due to a lack of courage and fear of taking full responsibility for themselves. They need an authority in charge because they are deeply psychologically troubled from their own childhood.
Hiya Vinesh. The goal of this video (and this series) is to explain the alevel anarchism specification to UK students. The specification headings for the exam include the topics I've covered in the video. I'm fully aware that many real like anarchists don't agree with this categorisation, but my goal is to get the students through the exam 😊
Mutual aid is an interesting book but suffers from the flawed science of its time. btw I say PRU-don not PROUD-on
you cannot claim to knov what all anarchists think, please be more carefull with your wording say it like, anarchist theory leads to the conclusion...
i am a pro welfare state anarcho individualist
and i am still anti kcapitalist, i only want sociehy to be more decenhralized opposed to the bureacratic nature of anarcho communism
and you gross over the difference between the right to use and the right to use, anarctists are not all against owner ship they ar for shared use of most products
I'm quoting from the A-level Politics textbooks - which I fully understand may not be in line with what actual anarchists think - but this is how the a-level specification wants students to categorise the different types. If you think the video presents it different from reality than you are welcome to make your own video response :)
@@TheAdiposeTV sorry I later realised this is part of a coarse, it makes sense that the books follow the general consensus more than the specific current versions. sorry for being pedantic about how you say it