I know this is an older video, but I'm actually glad I watched this video now. I've been teetering on the brink between remaining ancom and going more apologetic for communistic state actions for "realistic, achievable goals". This really helped me realign within anarchism, thank you very much.
These ideas can align with things outside of anarchism. I actually think real Maoists would agree with most of what’s said. We don’t make apologies for the existing states either. We denounce the authoritarian state capitalist ventures that most “tankies” adore. Most people hear Mao and think China but that’s just not it at all. It’s just a term placed on a collection of ideas that tend to be the ultra left or anarcho style of communism. We are neither worshippers of mao or even big fans. It’s something I’d implore you to learn more about. As I’m here watching this series I’d say to watch and learn from others as well. This series is a straight banger
In my journey as a socialist i started out as an anarchist/syndicalist without knowing what that i was because i did not know what those terms meant, when i tried to learn more about socialism online that led me to listen to various marxist leninists and while I remained sceptical to the USSR and Maos China I slowly started to change my opinion and be in favour of them to the point of thinking that I was a marxist leninist and to defend the USSR in conversations. Your channel has helped me regain footing in my opinions and to also put a name to them. Not just from this series but from many of your videos I saw before this. You are doing great work and I hope your channel grows larger so that more people can be educated!
That’s more or less the journey I had and I think many others on this channel had. I always felt the supposed end goal of Marxist Leninism (a stateless, classless, moneyless society) was more important but yet the ML channels I watched never seemed to think one bit about an actual communist world
The way I see it, the State is like Tolkien's One Ring: it is the weapon of the enemy, it has only one master to which it always seeks to return, and it will bend all others towards that end. It cannot be wielded against its master, only destroyed.
I actually think that analysis is pretty close to Tolkien's. There's a great video done by the channel Hello Future Me about The Ring as an allegory. ua-cam.com/video/S2OWHhH-RPg/v-deo.html
"The dictatorship does not base itself at every given moment on the formal principle of a workers' democracy". Trotsky says the quiet part out loud and it's disgusting
I heard many socialists such as Tariq Ali thinking Trotsky would be a better alternative to Stalin and while I would say that Trotsky might be less brutal in many ways he is already very authoritarian. ua-cam.com/video/97qO3g5MGmc/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/o6T7tzrriUk/v-deo.html
@@hamizanyunos1502 well duh, he was like lenins favorite guy to replace him but like yeah he probably would be less inclined to just abuse the workers for self preservation but he was totally gonna be an authritarian
I like you breaking it down in terms of the process and function of the state conflicting with the end goals of socialism. "Idealism" gets thrown at anarchist theory a lot, but I feel this argument highlights that the state being a repressive instrument against the proletariat is the result of it's very function & historical role.
Absolutely. Anarchism utilizes a complex systemic analysis of _all_ power structures both social and economic, in contrast to authoritarian leftism, which utilizes a narrowly materialist analysis of economic modes and a narrowly idealist conception of the state.
I can't help but keep coming back to this series. I have read Critique of the Gotha Programme. I have also read The Individual, Society, and the State by Emma Goldman. Now I'm starting The State - Its Historic Role, by Kropotkin.
Check out ‘The Operating System: An Anarchist Theory of the Modern State’ (2021) by Eric Laursen. It’s not all that long and is very good & clearly argued
Восхитительный труд, товарищ! You can't imagine how much we miss people like you in the media here in exUSSR, we anarchists are rudely misunderstood. Keep the good work!
Hey! I'm just over 9 minutes into the video and am pausing it to watch later. I was already subscribed but I've now hit the notifications bell. Good stuff, fellow bread-crumb! :)
@@LuckyBlackCat where did breadcrumb originated? Hi LUCKY you remember me =D i mean i'm trans and depressed and anxious but i'm surviving OK right now! yep i'm gonna watch the video hopefully this weekend
@@asuka_the_void_witch Yes I remember you. It's hard to forget a name like technological akshually ༼void༽ spaghetti seeds! I'm sorry that you're having such difficulties but I'm glad you're surviving ok. I'm not sure who started the term "bread crumb", it's just something I've heard around.
The dismantling of Lenin’s interpretation of Marxism in this video gave me a real “goddamnit, they’re right” moment. This felt like a really important progression of my education. The contradiction between statism and social revolution is one that I’ve been growing an awareness of but unable to fully comprehend and I must admit, the failure to comprehend it led me to accept Lenin’s vision of revolutionary vanguardism as viable. But to accept his expression of the proletarian masses as actually desiring to be obedient as you deftly laid out is almost incomprehensibly counter-revolutionary. Such logic fosters not relations of love and cooperation between people, between revolutionaries and the wider proletariat, but instead of scorn and tyranny. I’ve been edging closer to libertarian socialist and anarchist principles and this video filled in the last gap I needed to feel very certain about adopting a stance of anti-statism. I’ll continue to watch the rest of the series to enhance my understanding but anyway, thanks comrade. You do great work.
I'd like to add that the idea the masses are too ignorant or inherently stupid to properly organize their lives, and need to either be educated or guided by some more intelligent or more skilled class of person, appears to date all the way back to the first states on earth. States continuously reinforce their need to exist through propaganda, and always have.
Along a similar line of thought the attitudes of Lenin and vanguardism are in some ways shockingly similar to what the founding figures of the United States believed, if they weren't one of the ones inherently opposed to direct democracy (which was just called democracy back then). They thought that the people could eventually rule themselves and manage the economy efficiently (some thought it was inevitable due to the printing press) but that they were too ignorant to currently do it. Jeffersons "Jeffersonian Democracy" also has a surprising amount of overlap with vanguardism and the idea of the paternalistic state bringing about a less hierarchical society. I find it especially interesting since the founding figures were also professional revolutionaries.
I stumbled upon your channel while looking at the "channels" tab on NonCompete's Channel, and I am already so impressed with this video, the first video of you I have watched, by both its artistic and intellectual qualities that I have no other choice other than to comment, like and subscribe! Well done comrade!
Thank you for this insightful take on the historical mistakes that led to a dictatorial perversion of marxist thought! 🙂 Can't wait for the other parts! Keep up the good work!
Until people are willing to reject political and economic hierarchy, both artificial hierarchies, Humanity does not evolve to the next level. #DirectDemocracy (no political hierarchy) Gifting and Sharing Economy (no economic hierarchy)
"The State is a term for the legislative and administrative machinery whereby certain business of the people is transacted, and badly so." ~ Emma Goldman
It’s videos like this that serve to educate me further. As someone who has over the years been all over the political spectrum but tended to have a natural inclination to the left it is amazing what your videos do to help make me a better anarchist. Reading is hard due to my adhd but your videos at least provide a baseline for me to grasp the concepts of the ideology. Thank you for your hard work and dedication!
I'm at 19:10 now. I often only have time to watch videos in small chunks. Leaving a comment to bookmark my spot and to boost you in the algorithm. Also, great Marx quote about freedom and the state! edit: now at 29:32
@@Anark Finally finished! Really good video. I'm looking forward to part 3. I already know a fair amount about the Soviet Union but know very little about Maoist China. What little I read I've mostly forgotten. So it will be great to learn about that. Thanks for doing the work to make this series.
This... is not only a superb video essay artistically, but a great resource for all anarchists who, from time to time, experience the feeling that nothing will get done without using the state in some way or another. Great work, thanks for the reminder that the means should always reflect the ends and greetings from the Països Catalans! 🏴🚩
Lately I've been interested in reading lenin just to know what he said and what he thought. I'm currently reading John Lee Andersons bio on Che Guevara and it just crazy to me how well read Che was and how much he sacrificed his life to liberate people from imperialist domination. You can see a direct line from his trip through Latin America and the utter brutality he saw and his time in Guatemala and the way the Cia coup so easily overthrew arbenz to why he felt it was necessary to basically abolish democracy so as to prevent any possible overthrow. I really can't blame him for his thinking but one thing that Lee doesn't mention or can't mention simply because it wasn't true is that Che never read any anarchist writings. He read so many fucking books throughout his entire life even before he took part in the Cuban revolution it makes me wonder what kind of person he would've been if he had read about anarchism. I still defend all the "socialist" states in the world against us imperialism simply because I find it ridiculous to criticize them without taking into account all the bullshit the US has ever done to them. If the US would leave those countries alone and let them do as they wish then maybe those countries would be in the mess they're in.
Exactly. The existence of constant meddling from a more powerful foe, has to be taken into account. I always say, a lot of the problems that exist in socialist states can be circled back to the west
There are 2 things I like about Lenin. 1. Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism is a good book 2. He decriminalized homosexuality in Russia. Other than that, I don't like him, but I hate Stalin even more.
2 isn't exactly true. There was no law declaring rights for homosexuals. Instead, the old anti-homosexuality laws were abolished as a consequence of abolishing the old constitution. The new Bolshevik constitution simply didn't reiterate them. I don't think it's warranted to interpret their absence as a positive repeal of repression when the party was more concerned about the management of the economy and military than social issues.
Brilliant video, superbly composed both in terms of argumentation and artfulness. Beginning and ending with Berkman's diary was a masterstroke, honestly bravo. I found this video very persuasive, though not a dyed in the wool tankie or anything, I'd generally describe myself as a Marxist with a sympathetic skepticism of anarchism. I don't love ML theory, but their projects have been the only ones to last simply because they were capable of resisting conquest. This video makes me question whether that's even worthwhile, though, if they're fundamentally bound to succumb to recuperation anyway, but then leaves me wondering: what's the proposition? How does one even abolish the state during the revolutionary moment? What if the proletariat doesn't want to? Or doesn't know what to do? If all these questions spontaneously solve themselves, what's to stop an adjacent imperialist power from steamrolling the revolution? Perhaps there needs to be an intemediary stage of statist socialism with the primary goal of abolishing private property, then a subsequent wave of revolutions against that paradigm toward anarchism? Wait, that's Maoism right? Alright, enough stream of consciousness, looking forward to part 2.
Some of these questions, as per how society would be organized without a state, are answered in my video "After the Revolution." Some of the other questions are just very conditional or reliant upon how we are defining terms: _"How does one even abolish the state during the revolutionary moment?"_ Simply refuse to centralize power. Formalize mechanisms by which all delegation and management is appointed from the bottom-up and can be recalled at their whim. _"What if the proletariat doesn't want to?"_ Then, unfortunately, they will have to recognize their mistake after they have sabotaged their own revolution. When the proletarian choose vanguard rule, they almost always grow to quickly resent the bureaucracy that grows from it and this is why all centralist attempts become highly suppressive of the workers. The way to avoid this is to do mass anarchist education, not mass education of vanguard priorities. If you teach the people that only a vanguard can liberate them, they may very well submit to counter-revolutionary centralism. If you bring them to a realization that they deserve to govern themselves and decide their own futures, that is what they will fight for. _"Or doesn't know what to do?"_ There's no reason to believe they will know perfectly what to do as soon as the reins are put in their hands, but as Bakunin said: "no dictatorship can have any other aim but that of self-perpetuation and it can beget only slavery in the people tolerating it; freedom can be created only by freedom.” That is to say, people will only learn to manage themselves by managing themselves. No era of vanguard rulership can ever teach the people what is needed for them to govern themselves. Quite the opposite, it can only teach them how to submit. Further, it is not clear that any centralist vanguard has known what to do any better, even configuring scenarios which are quite contrary to the needs and desires of the masses. _"what's to stop an adjacent imperialist power from steamrolling the revolution?"_ The confederated militias of all of the horizontal democratic entities, organized together into a defensive military. Anarchism does not mean "lack of coordination" or "lack of organization." It means that power roots from the bottom-up and all those appointed to positions of power are temporary and revocable, functioning only on explicit mandate. _"Perhaps there needs to be an intemediary stage of statist socialism with the primary goal of abolishing private property, then a subsequent wave of revolutions against that paradigm toward anarchism? Wait, that's Maoism right?"_ Yes, this is a very good description of Maoism. As I will show in part 3, such an arrangement is just as fatally doomed to failure as any other attempt to use the state, even with a dictator who wishes to diminish bureaucracy.
I hear these arguments a lot and they have always seemed wrong headed. I guess it is natural have being raised in a hierarchical society that we are going associate its functions with a proper state. But if we are truly revolutionary we are going to create something new and that might necessitate it looking deferent in key aspects in unexpected ways. Defense is going to be one. As defense is all about the ability to amass resources and coerce people to act against their self preservation. Neither of which an anarchist society by natural is doing excel at because they are contradictory to is values. The misconception is that historical anarchism produces states. No it doesn't that is antithetical to anarchism. Anarchism produces societies. So when you say whether anarchism is resilient the answer is yes but we are talking organizations, associations, collectives, cultures. Whether the persistence of indigenous culture to the survival of libertarian Christian societies both which have had considerable state violence directed at them and yet endure centuries later. Anarchism is resilient if anything.
Really great video. I am very happy to have discovered you on the Coffee with Comrades podcast which was also a really great episode. I am lean very heavily on the Marxist side of analysis, especially on political economy but am exploring organisational methods and theories. This type of content is extremely useful to me.
This is the best of your videos I've seen yet. Was hoping to see some more moaist pushback in the comments. As your channel grows, I'm sure they'll find it. Hope to become a patron when my finances are a bit better. You deserve support
@@Anark can you please do a video on the Anarchist syndicalist system and how it would function and which branches would accomplish which function? If that's your brand of Anarchism of course.
@@killjoy-3-5-89 I have produced a video which may answer many of your questions called "After the Revolution"! Go give it a watch and see if it's what you're looking for. If not, tell me where it's lacking, because I may very well do a part 2 one day.
I don't know where to reach you so I'll just try here: Do you accept subtitles somewhere? If so, I'd like to create Hungarian translations for your The State is Counter-Revolutionary series. I can't promise a fast turn-out, though I hope that's okay.
Vaush's chat brought me here, you should engage with him, I'd love to see you two discuss strategies for the left going forward. Spread the theory comrade!
Help spread the content, more people need to see this stuff especially considering all the idiot asshole MLs on twitter and their followings because people (Americans) don't know how to read anymore (ever).
Again, I'm amazed by your content and I've just had like 4 mind Blowing moments that my intuition direct my thoughts to draw that conclusion but never did until now! I would like to spread your videos but the city I live in is EXTREMELY neoliberal and even using the word "anti-capitalism" would have some backlashes. But great work nonetheless
I've read a bit about platformism as a major anarchist ideology, and to me it sounds quite similar to vanguardism. Can anybody explain the differences?
Hi, I'll give it a go. Firstly I think espesephismo is a better articulation and development of the principles. The platform is a document that serves to define points of unity in order for anarchists to act coherently. Makno came to valued unity after his experience in the revolution. The platform was a way to produce that unity. Both vangards and platformist groups are relatively small groups who see them selves as having understandings which are advanced in some ways to people more generally. Both have a requirement of ideological purity and both practices a kind of discipline. However a platformist group is not trying to seize power on behalf of the people. They are not the representatives of the people or the incarnation of the will of the people, they are a group of partisans, and unlike the vangardist they regard themselves as such. They are trying to aid in the development of mechanisms by which the people rules themselves. I'm contrast the vanguard gaining power is the same as the people gaining power because the vanguard is the real political will of the people. Thus the vanguard using the state to discipline the populous is simply the more conscious aspect of the people waking the less conscious. To an anarchist, even when unified by a platform, the only way for the people to gain power is if the mechanisms of disciplining the populous by a minority faction of any completion is dismantled. For a vangardist, the vanguard is the personification of true political will of the people, so when they cease power, the people have ceased power. In summary: the platform is a way of coordinating groups of anarchists for the purpose of supporting a revolution so that people may rule themselves. The vanguard is a (self) description of a group as the personification of the correct political will of the people. Such that if the vanguard ceased power then the people will have ceased power.
i agree with the content of the video, but i have a huge problem with how the theoretical concept of the "state" is framed (in the first half of the video). this framing issue is not obviously a problem here because it occurs in tandem with a correct analysis, but the inveteration of this framing as a habit of thinking, in the telephone game of intellectual activity, (has and) will lead to problems. specifically, taking for granted the historical and empirical evidence building up to the phenomenon of the state, and instead treating the "state" as its own a-priori, synthetic concept. this is not only contained in phrases you use like "guaranteed", "inherent", "inner necessity", "doomed", "destined", etc., but also in the argument beginning at [10:00] as if the critique of the state proceeded from logical deduction, or from "common sense" (scare quotes, not quotation quotes). this is not a critique of your own personal understanding of the state, but for those in your audience unequipped with adequate intellectual sensitivity to this inversion* of the empirical with the abstract, if they are to teach others in this sort of theory, or come up with theory of their own, they may, as a matter of habit, formulate these things with the aprioristic inversion. *this inversion is, in the first place, instilled in us by traditional, hierarchical education; see summary here: anti[hyphen]dialectics[dot]co[dot]uk/Summary_of_Essay_Nine-Part-01.htm#Ruling-Class_Thought_ NB on links to anti[hyphen]dialectics[dot]co[dot]uk: 1. here, they don't take you to the top of the page but the relevant section farther down the page (see "#"s) 2. internal links and footnotes contain elaborations of arguments if you have doubts 3. talks a lot about dialectics and hegel, but (and this is also the intention of the website author) is also applicable to philosophy in general 4. replace brackets (e.g. "[hyphen]", "[dot]") with actual ASCII symbols (resp. "-", ".") 5. links from here to anti-dialectics website may break as the website author edits and adds to their arguments (interestingly, the author of anti[hyphen]dialectics[dot]co[dot]uk has a counter-interpretation to the (specific) lenin quote at 21:55, see: anti[hyphen]dialectics[dot]co[dot]uk/page%2009_01.htm#Ideas_Introduced_From_The_Outside but does agree that other revolutionaries do try to "enlighten" the working class, as a general trend) in fact this aprioristic inversion, it has been argued, actually entrenches the mental-physical division of labor (perpetuating an intellectual elite), which characterises, ironically, the top-down approach of the authoritarians. (said argument summarized here: anti[hyphen]dialectics[dot]co[dot]uk/Rest_of_Summary_of_Twelve.htm#Armchair-Super-Scientists ) of course later in the video, you acknowledge this, and in later videos you do expound on the empirical bases, but those are separate videos from this (i.e. viewers perhaps won't watch the others), and the language you use is problematic in itself (and is not so easily excused by a vague reference to the "[insufficiency of existing in the] realm of ideas"). Further reading: we see this problem in Engels to C. Schmidt In Berlin (London, August 5, 1890): marxists[dot]org/archive/marx/works/1890/letters/90_08_05.htm
History has shown that Counter-Revolutionary Action is treated as a crime worse than Treason. You see a misguided rebel may be granted clemency to demonstrate the benevolence of the rulers. But for a Counter-Revolutionary not only did they fought against the people as the people are always on the side of who one, but they fought against destiny itself as all successful revolutions were inevitable and destined to be achieved. For a Counter-Revolutionary the lightest sentence one can receive is a self imposed exile for themselves and their families. The harshest sentence, well history has plenty of examples and I'm sure your imagination can come up with worse.
Wait, how did that follow? You first mention how the masses are powerful and thus a threat to the state. And then you say in an aside that in addition to following its own interests, the state will also act in the interest of the most powerful agents. You use that for syllogism to say that the state will always betray the workers, but wouldn't the state not do that if large worker institutions were established thus making the class of the workers a powerful agent the state would act in the interests thereof?
The masses are not the state and therefore their power is a threat to the state. Thus they must be suppressed, coerced, or made to enact the will of the state. Only in the last of these are individuals made into agents of the state, but they are also robbed of their power to threaten the state. The most powerful agents are then the capitalist class under capitalism and the bureaucratic functionaries and leaders of the labor process under state capitalism.
I know this is an older video, but I'm actually glad I watched this video now. I've been teetering on the brink between remaining ancom and going more apologetic for communistic state actions for "realistic, achievable goals". This really helped me realign within anarchism, thank you very much.
I'm glad it had that effect on you. I invite you to watch the rest of the series if you want the point laid out in scrutinizing detail.
This comment legit gives me hope and life that my life in that last 10 years has not been wasted. Cheers Comrade, welcome home.
@@samm9184 based
🤣😝🤗
These ideas can align with things outside of anarchism. I actually think real Maoists would agree with most of what’s said. We don’t make apologies for the existing states either. We denounce the authoritarian state capitalist ventures that most “tankies” adore. Most people hear Mao and think China but that’s just not it at all. It’s just a term placed on a collection of ideas that tend to be the ultra left or anarcho style of communism.
We are neither worshippers of mao or even big fans. It’s something I’d implore you to learn more about. As I’m here watching this series I’d say to watch and learn from others as well.
This series is a straight banger
In my journey as a socialist i started out as an anarchist/syndicalist without knowing what that i was because i did not know what those terms meant, when i tried to learn more about socialism online that led me to listen to various marxist leninists and while I remained sceptical to the USSR and Maos China I slowly started to change my opinion and be in favour of them to the point of thinking that I was a marxist leninist and to defend the USSR in conversations. Your channel has helped me regain footing in my opinions and to also put a name to them. Not just from this series but from many of your videos I saw before this. You are doing great work and I hope your channel grows larger so that more people can be educated!
That’s more or less the journey I had and I think many others on this channel had. I always felt the supposed end goal of Marxist Leninism (a stateless, classless, moneyless society) was more important but yet the ML channels I watched never seemed to think one bit about an actual communist world
Trotsky becoming the thing he warned against like he's just picked up the One Ring and is like wait guys it's fine we can use this for good
The way I see it, the State is like Tolkien's One Ring: it is the weapon of the enemy, it has only one master to which it always seeks to return, and it will bend all others towards that end. It cannot be wielded against its master, only destroyed.
I actually think that analysis is pretty close to Tolkien's. There's a great video done by the channel Hello Future Me about The Ring as an allegory. ua-cam.com/video/S2OWHhH-RPg/v-deo.html
What is its master?' Capital?
@@distortiontildeafness Currently, yes, but more broadly than that, it's the drive to dominate and control others.
I wonder is Tolkien, as an anarcho-monarchist would like this analogy?
@@distortiontildeafness Capital-P Power
"The dictatorship does not base itself at every given moment on the formal principle of a workers' democracy". Trotsky says the quiet part out loud and it's disgusting
I heard many socialists such as Tariq Ali thinking Trotsky would be a better alternative to Stalin and while I would say that Trotsky might be less brutal in many ways he is already very authoritarian.
ua-cam.com/video/97qO3g5MGmc/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/o6T7tzrriUk/v-deo.html
@@hamizanyunos1502 well duh, he was like lenins favorite guy to replace him but like yeah he probably would be less inclined to just abuse the workers for self preservation but he was totally gonna be an authritarian
thank god trotsky never came to power
Tbf I think he meant industrial democracy ie: co ops
source?
I like you breaking it down in terms of the process and function of the state conflicting with the end goals of socialism. "Idealism" gets thrown at anarchist theory a lot, but I feel this argument highlights that the state being a repressive instrument against the proletariat is the result of it's very function & historical role.
Absolutely. Anarchism utilizes a complex systemic analysis of _all_ power structures both social and economic, in contrast to authoritarian leftism, which utilizes a narrowly materialist analysis of economic modes and a narrowly idealist conception of the state.
I can't help but keep coming back to this series. I have read Critique of the Gotha Programme. I have also read The Individual, Society, and the State by Emma Goldman. Now I'm starting The State - Its Historic Role, by Kropotkin.
I am glad to hear that it has been such a useful resource for you. It was an enormous undertaking.
@@Anark Keep up the good work, comrade.
Check out ‘The Operating System: An Anarchist Theory of the Modern State’ (2021) by Eric Laursen. It’s not all that long and is very good & clearly argued
@@nickapvikes Thank you for the recommendation. I'll have to keep it in mind.
"The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a state is a good guy with a state." - Lenin
That essentially boils it all down to its core, showing how ludicrous Stateism is.
But a good guy with a state turn into a bad guy (and it does not work the other way around). The idea of "one guy" is essentially wrong.
@@vvlaunay exactly, the point is that the only correct answer is no state
but until states as a concept dissolve off of the world stage, a state of sorts will be needed to navigate that global space.
@@Very_Okay says who?
Восхитительный труд, товарищ! You can't imagine how much we miss people like you in the media here in exUSSR, we anarchists are rudely misunderstood. Keep the good work!
I've had a copy of berkman's diary for years, and I always come back to the passage that you read at the end. Such a great book.
This should be essential viewing for any anarchist. Great work.
Hey! I'm just over 9 minutes into the video and am pausing it to watch later. I was already subscribed but I've now hit the notifications bell. Good stuff, fellow bread-crumb! :)
bread-crumb!!!!!!!!! i'm dying °˖✧◝(⁰▿⁰)◜✧˖°
@@asuka_the_void_witch Lol, I can't take credit for that term but I do like it.
Btw, I dropped a new video today. Yay! :)
I hope all is well with you.
@@LuckyBlackCat where did breadcrumb originated?
Hi LUCKY you remember me =D i mean i'm trans and depressed and anxious but i'm surviving OK right now!
yep i'm gonna watch the video hopefully this weekend
@@asuka_the_void_witch Yes I remember you. It's hard to forget a name like technological akshually ༼void༽ spaghetti seeds! I'm sorry that you're having such difficulties but I'm glad you're surviving ok.
I'm not sure who started the term "bread crumb", it's just something I've heard around.
@@LuckyBlackCat cheers comrade :3
The dismantling of Lenin’s interpretation of Marxism in this video gave me a real “goddamnit, they’re right” moment. This felt like a really important progression of my education. The contradiction between statism and social revolution is one that I’ve been growing an awareness of but unable to fully comprehend and I must admit, the failure to comprehend it led me to accept Lenin’s vision of revolutionary vanguardism as viable. But to accept his expression of the proletarian masses as actually desiring to be obedient as you deftly laid out is almost incomprehensibly counter-revolutionary. Such logic fosters not relations of love and cooperation between people, between revolutionaries and the wider proletariat, but instead of scorn and tyranny.
I’ve been edging closer to libertarian socialist and anarchist principles and this video filled in the last gap I needed to feel very certain about adopting a stance of anti-statism. I’ll continue to watch the rest of the series to enhance my understanding but anyway, thanks comrade. You do great work.
I'd like to add that the idea the masses are too ignorant or inherently stupid to properly organize their lives, and need to either be educated or guided by some more intelligent or more skilled class of person, appears to date all the way back to the first states on earth. States continuously reinforce their need to exist through propaganda, and always have.
Along a similar line of thought the attitudes of Lenin and vanguardism are in some ways shockingly similar to what the founding figures of the United States believed, if they weren't one of the ones inherently opposed to direct democracy (which was just called democracy back then).
They thought that the people could eventually rule themselves and manage the economy efficiently (some thought it was inevitable due to the printing press) but that they were too ignorant to currently do it. Jeffersons "Jeffersonian Democracy" also has a surprising amount of overlap with vanguardism and the idea of the paternalistic state bringing about a less hierarchical society. I find it especially interesting since the founding figures were also professional revolutionaries.
You're foreseeing the arguments I will make in part 4. Suffice to say, we agree. This is the foundational propaganda of the state in all eras.
I stumbled upon your channel while looking at the "channels" tab on NonCompete's Channel, and I am already so impressed with this video, the first video of you I have watched, by both its artistic and intellectual qualities that I have no other choice other than to comment, like and subscribe! Well done comrade!
Thank you for this insightful take on the historical mistakes that led to a dictatorial perversion of marxist thought!
🙂
Can't wait for the other parts!
Keep up the good work!
Glad you're enjoying the content! Already at work on part 2!
Until people are willing to reject political and economic hierarchy, both artificial hierarchies, Humanity does not evolve to the next level.
#DirectDemocracy (no political hierarchy)
Gifting and Sharing Economy (no economic hierarchy)
I really love your narration - it makes such a difference when the tone of voice helps bring out the meaning!
I appreciate it!
Welp, time to start an Anarchist metalcore band and have the "lyrics" of one song just solely consist of that final Berkman quote lol
"The State is a term for the legislative and administrative machinery whereby certain business of the people is transacted, and badly so." ~ Emma Goldman
@@novinceinhosic3531 Not that I know of, just historical research she had done and observed.
Really like the music in the background
The songs are:
Chopin "Nocturne op 37 N. 1"
Chopin "Nocturne op 15 N. 3"
Chopin "Nocturne op 55 N. 1"
Debussy "Préludes, Premier Livre II. Voiles"
@@Anark Thank you. I put them all on my Spotify liked list.
It’s videos like this that serve to educate me further. As someone who has over the years been all over the political spectrum but tended to have a natural inclination to the left it is amazing what your videos do to help make me a better anarchist. Reading is hard due to my adhd but your videos at least provide a baseline for me to grasp the concepts of the ideology. Thank you for your hard work and dedication!
I'm at 19:10 now. I often only have time to watch videos in small chunks. Leaving a comment to bookmark my spot and to boost you in the algorithm. Also, great Marx quote about freedom and the state!
edit: now at 29:32
Oooh. You almost to the juicy part
@@Anark Finally finished! Really good video. I'm looking forward to part 3. I already know a fair amount about the Soviet Union but know very little about Maoist China. What little I read I've mostly forgotten. So it will be great to learn about that. Thanks for doing the work to make this series.
This... is not only a superb video essay artistically, but a great resource for all anarchists who, from time to time, experience the feeling that nothing will get done without using the state in some way or another. Great work, thanks for the reminder that the means should always reflect the ends and greetings from the Països Catalans! 🏴🚩
This was super well made and informative. I'm definitely subscribing.
Always a good day when there's a new Anark video.
The state shall never dissolve itself or in anyway put the needs of the People over its own. A gradual process of decentralization is the only way.
If I had any money jt would go to your patreon lmao
Thanks for watching and interacting with the channel! Spread the word around. It helps a lot
Lately I've been interested in reading lenin just to know what he said and what he thought. I'm currently reading John Lee Andersons bio on Che Guevara and it just crazy to me how well read Che was and how much he sacrificed his life to liberate people from imperialist domination. You can see a direct line from his trip through Latin America and the utter brutality he saw and his time in Guatemala and the way the Cia coup so easily overthrew arbenz to why he felt it was necessary to basically abolish democracy so as to prevent any possible overthrow. I really can't blame him for his thinking but one thing that Lee doesn't mention or can't mention simply because it wasn't true is that Che never read any anarchist writings. He read so many fucking books throughout his entire life even before he took part in the Cuban revolution it makes me wonder what kind of person he would've been if he had read about anarchism. I still defend all the "socialist" states in the world against us imperialism simply because I find it ridiculous to criticize them without taking into account all the bullshit the US has ever done to them. If the US would leave those countries alone and let them do as they wish then maybe those countries would be in the mess they're in.
Exactly. The existence of constant meddling from a more powerful foe, has to be taken into account. I always say, a lot of the problems that exist in socialist states can be circled back to the west
Hail freedom
Hail anarchy
Hail anarchy hail anarchy
Good stuff. Looking forward to watching your future video.
Have a great day everybody!
Awesome video, loved it I’m really excited for you to continue this series!
Just found your channel and this is the first video I’ve watched, I can already tell this is one of my best finds.
Use this comment at a petition to rename Marxist-Leninism to Blanquist-Leninism
Comment for the algorithm
well hello
I'll do that too.
Great content, thank you! Can't wait to watch the whole series.
Another excellent vid.
May I have a conversation with you at some point? Are you available on discord?
Sure, I'd love to! Send me a DM on Twitter with your handle
There are 2 things I like about Lenin.
1. Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism is a good book
2. He decriminalized homosexuality in Russia.
Other than that, I don't like him, but I hate Stalin even more.
2 isn't exactly true. There was no law declaring rights for homosexuals. Instead, the old anti-homosexuality laws were abolished as a consequence of abolishing the old constitution. The new Bolshevik constitution simply didn't reiterate them. I don't think it's warranted to interpret their absence as a positive repeal of repression when the party was more concerned about the management of the economy and military than social issues.
@@HarryS77 Oh I see. I read somewhere that he just flat-out decriminalized it.
@@comradefreedom8275 tsk tsk tankie propaganda
@@HarryS77 ... I found it on Wikipedia...
I don’t like him either but he also
1. Pushed severely against antisemitism
2. Pushed for women’s rights to healthcare and political participation
This series is incredible! Very informative and very clearly explained (like all your videos). Great contribution, thank you Anark!
Brilliant video, superbly composed both in terms of argumentation and artfulness. Beginning and ending with Berkman's diary was a masterstroke, honestly bravo. I found this video very persuasive, though not a dyed in the wool tankie or anything, I'd generally describe myself as a Marxist with a sympathetic skepticism of anarchism. I don't love ML theory, but their projects have been the only ones to last simply because they were capable of resisting conquest. This video makes me question whether that's even worthwhile, though, if they're fundamentally bound to succumb to recuperation anyway, but then leaves me wondering: what's the proposition? How does one even abolish the state during the revolutionary moment? What if the proletariat doesn't want to? Or doesn't know what to do? If all these questions spontaneously solve themselves, what's to stop an adjacent imperialist power from steamrolling the revolution? Perhaps there needs to be an intemediary stage of statist socialism with the primary goal of abolishing private property, then a subsequent wave of revolutions against that paradigm toward anarchism? Wait, that's Maoism right? Alright, enough stream of consciousness, looking forward to part 2.
Some of these questions, as per how society would be organized without a state, are answered in my video "After the Revolution." Some of the other questions are just very conditional or reliant upon how we are defining terms:
_"How does one even abolish the state during the revolutionary moment?"_
Simply refuse to centralize power. Formalize mechanisms by which all delegation and management is appointed from the bottom-up and can be recalled at their whim.
_"What if the proletariat doesn't want to?"_
Then, unfortunately, they will have to recognize their mistake after they have sabotaged their own revolution. When the proletarian choose vanguard rule, they almost always grow to quickly resent the bureaucracy that grows from it and this is why all centralist attempts become highly suppressive of the workers. The way to avoid this is to do mass anarchist education, not mass education of vanguard priorities. If you teach the people that only a vanguard can liberate them, they may very well submit to counter-revolutionary centralism. If you bring them to a realization that they deserve to govern themselves and decide their own futures, that is what they will fight for.
_"Or doesn't know what to do?"_
There's no reason to believe they will know perfectly what to do as soon as the reins are put in their hands, but as Bakunin said: "no dictatorship can have any other aim but that of self-perpetuation and it can beget only slavery in the people tolerating it; freedom can be created only by freedom.” That is to say, people will only learn to manage themselves by managing themselves. No era of vanguard rulership can ever teach the people what is needed for them to govern themselves. Quite the opposite, it can only teach them how to submit. Further, it is not clear that any centralist vanguard has known what to do any better, even configuring scenarios which are quite contrary to the needs and desires of the masses.
_"what's to stop an adjacent imperialist power from steamrolling the revolution?"_
The confederated militias of all of the horizontal democratic entities, organized together into a defensive military. Anarchism does not mean "lack of coordination" or "lack of organization." It means that power roots from the bottom-up and all those appointed to positions of power are temporary and revocable, functioning only on explicit mandate.
_"Perhaps there needs to be an intemediary stage of statist socialism with the primary goal of abolishing private property, then a subsequent wave of revolutions against that paradigm toward anarchism? Wait, that's Maoism right?"_
Yes, this is a very good description of Maoism. As I will show in part 3, such an arrangement is just as fatally doomed to failure as any other attempt to use the state, even with a dictator who wishes to diminish bureaucracy.
I hear these arguments a lot and they have always seemed wrong headed. I guess it is natural have being raised in a hierarchical society that we are going associate its functions with a proper state. But if we are truly revolutionary we are going to create something new and that might necessitate it looking deferent in key aspects in unexpected ways.
Defense is going to be one. As defense is all about the ability to amass resources and coerce people to act against their self preservation. Neither of which an anarchist society by natural is doing excel at because they are contradictory to is values.
The misconception is that historical anarchism produces states. No it doesn't that is antithetical to anarchism. Anarchism produces societies. So when you say whether anarchism is resilient the answer is yes but we are talking organizations, associations, collectives, cultures. Whether the persistence of indigenous culture to the survival of libertarian Christian societies both which have had considerable state violence directed at them and yet endure centuries later. Anarchism is resilient if anything.
It's criminal that you only have 5k subscribers
Really great video. I am very happy to have discovered you on the Coffee with Comrades podcast which was also a really great episode. I am lean very heavily on the Marxist side of analysis, especially on political economy but am exploring organisational methods and theories. This type of content is extremely useful to me.
dude you should have so many more subscribers
I appreciate it!
@@Anark Working on it, so I dont have to keep sending you money each month. Work harder, you are below quota, Daniel.
Great video! you put a lot of stuff I was thinking about into words.
A moomin anarchist!
Excellent series Anark I have enjoyed them quite a bit.
Really cool video will you do one about kronstadt as well?
Yup! Kronstadt will be mentioned in part 2 when I talk about the USSR
This is the best of your videos I've seen yet. Was hoping to see some more moaist pushback in the comments. As your channel grows, I'm sure they'll find it. Hope to become a patron when my finances are a bit better. You deserve support
This is an amazing video comrade. I hope you're doing well in these tough times. Do you think you'll release part 2 soon?
Thanks! And absolutely. It has been a lot of work, but it's nearing completion.
@@Anark can you please do a video on the Anarchist syndicalist system and how it would function and which branches would accomplish which function? If that's your brand of Anarchism of course.
@@killjoy-3-5-89 I have produced a video which may answer many of your questions called "After the Revolution"! Go give it a watch and see if it's what you're looking for. If not, tell me where it's lacking, because I may very well do a part 2 one day.
@@Anark C"onstructing the Revolution" is better.
highly well written, good job sir
Back again to watch this great video!
Appreciate this content.
Nailed it
I don't know where to reach you so I'll just try here: Do you accept subtitles somewhere? If so, I'd like to create Hungarian translations for your The State is Counter-Revolutionary series. I can't promise a fast turn-out, though I hope that's okay.
That sounds great! Contact me at baryonpipeline@gmail.com
great video duderino
Vaush's chat brought me here, you should engage with him, I'd love to see you two discuss strategies for the left going forward. Spread the theory comrade!
ALGORITHM
Great video, watched all of it.
When I first watched this series of videos, I knew anarchism was the philosophy for me.
Very cool!
thankyou so much for making this.
amazing work
where did you get the photo at 8:27?
Just google "capitalist pyramid"
Amazing video!
I appreciate it!
More people must see this!
Sent by Vaush Gang
Liberal
This earned a sub for sure
great introductory video
lovely!
Thanks Ella!
Comment for the comment overlord
I suggest anyone who wants to deepen their education to read "Pedagogy of the Oppressed" by Paulo Freire
Fantastic viewing, how it's only got 5k views is absolutely beyond me
Help spread the content, more people need to see this stuff especially considering all the idiot asshole MLs on twitter and their followings because people (Americans) don't know how to read anymore (ever).
11:42 Can you clarify what you mean by the "latent power of the people"?
Watching my video Power will probably clarify.
great video
so true bestie
Somebody's gotta tell em
This is great work.
Thank you!
Love the music 😌😌😌
Nice !
Nice Video Mate
Thanks much!
Just leaving a comment for the algorithm, but it is really informative. Thanks.
any pointers on where one might find the quibbles mentioned at 07:55?
Kropotkin develops his distinctions in The State: Its Historic Role, I believe. Malatesta does so at the beginning of Anarchy.
@@Anark thanks : )
You should release these as podcasts so we can listen to them without video
I will probably do just this. Trying to decide where to host them.
Boosting the channel
Again, I'm amazed by your content and I've just had like 4 mind Blowing moments that my intuition direct my thoughts to draw that conclusion but never did until now! I would like to spread your videos but the city I live in is EXTREMELY neoliberal and even using the word "anti-capitalism" would have some backlashes. But great work nonetheless
brilliant
Ua merci bro ets tope simpàtic
Nice video Imma let a comment for more people to see this masterpiece and go on to the next one
I can die a happy man knowing that I have limitedly helped daniel along this path going back to when we met during OWS.
I've read a bit about platformism as a major anarchist ideology, and to me it sounds quite similar to vanguardism. Can anybody explain the differences?
Hi, I'll give it a go.
Firstly I think espesephismo is a better articulation and development of the principles.
The platform is a document that serves to define points of unity in order for anarchists to act coherently.
Makno came to valued unity after his experience in the revolution. The platform was a way to produce that unity.
Both vangards and platformist groups are relatively small groups who see them selves as having understandings which are advanced in some ways to people more generally.
Both have a requirement of ideological purity and both practices a kind of discipline.
However a platformist group is not trying to seize power on behalf of the people. They are not the representatives of the people or the incarnation of the will of the people, they are a group of partisans, and unlike the vangardist they regard themselves as such. They are trying to aid in the development of mechanisms by which the people rules themselves.
I'm contrast the vanguard gaining power is the same as the people gaining power because the vanguard is the real political will of the people. Thus the vanguard using the state to discipline the populous is simply the more conscious aspect of the people waking the less conscious.
To an anarchist, even when unified by a platform, the only way for the people to gain power is if the mechanisms of disciplining the populous by a minority faction of any completion is dismantled.
For a vangardist, the vanguard is the personification of true political will of the people, so when they cease power, the people have ceased power.
In summary: the platform is a way of coordinating groups of anarchists for the purpose of supporting a revolution so that people may rule themselves.
The vanguard is a (self) description of a group as the personification of the correct political will of the people. Such that if the vanguard ceased power then the people will have ceased power.
Although I'm an anti-social, it's a very informative video.
Loved it!!❤️
I just love how melodramatic Berkman was, lmao
a comment!
Good content. Although, for me personally the music in the background is very distracting.
i agree with the content of the video, but i have a huge problem with how the theoretical concept of the "state" is framed (in the first half of the video). this framing issue is not obviously a problem here because it occurs in tandem with a correct analysis, but the inveteration of this framing as a habit of thinking, in the telephone game of intellectual activity, (has and) will lead to problems.
specifically, taking for granted the historical and empirical evidence building up to the phenomenon of the state, and instead treating the "state" as its own a-priori, synthetic concept.
this is not only contained in phrases you use like "guaranteed", "inherent", "inner necessity", "doomed", "destined", etc., but also in the argument beginning at [10:00]
as if the critique of the state proceeded from logical deduction, or from "common sense" (scare quotes, not quotation quotes).
this is not a critique of your own personal understanding of the state, but for those in your audience unequipped with adequate intellectual sensitivity to this inversion* of the empirical with the abstract, if they are to teach others in this sort of theory, or come up with theory of their own, they may, as a matter of habit, formulate these things with the aprioristic inversion.
*this inversion is, in the first place, instilled in us by traditional, hierarchical education;
see summary here: anti[hyphen]dialectics[dot]co[dot]uk/Summary_of_Essay_Nine-Part-01.htm#Ruling-Class_Thought_
NB on links to anti[hyphen]dialectics[dot]co[dot]uk:
1. here, they don't take you to the top of the page but the relevant section farther down the page (see "#"s)
2. internal links and footnotes contain elaborations of arguments if you have doubts
3. talks a lot about dialectics and hegel, but (and this is also the intention of the website author) is also applicable to philosophy in general
4. replace brackets (e.g. "[hyphen]", "[dot]") with actual ASCII symbols (resp. "-", ".")
5. links from here to anti-dialectics website may break as the website author edits and adds to their arguments
(interestingly, the author of anti[hyphen]dialectics[dot]co[dot]uk has a counter-interpretation to the (specific) lenin quote at 21:55, see: anti[hyphen]dialectics[dot]co[dot]uk/page%2009_01.htm#Ideas_Introduced_From_The_Outside
but does agree that other revolutionaries do try to "enlighten" the working class, as a general trend)
in fact this aprioristic inversion, it has been argued, actually entrenches the mental-physical division of labor (perpetuating an intellectual elite), which characterises, ironically, the top-down approach of the authoritarians. (said argument summarized here: anti[hyphen]dialectics[dot]co[dot]uk/Rest_of_Summary_of_Twelve.htm#Armchair-Super-Scientists )
of course later in the video, you acknowledge this, and in later videos you do expound on the empirical bases, but those are separate videos from this (i.e. viewers perhaps won't watch the others), and the language you use is problematic in itself (and is not so easily excused by a vague reference to the "[insufficiency of existing in the] realm of ideas").
Further reading: we see this problem in Engels to C. Schmidt In Berlin (London, August 5, 1890): marxists[dot]org/archive/marx/works/1890/letters/90_08_05.htm
4:31
History has shown that Counter-Revolutionary Action is treated as a crime worse than Treason. You see a misguided rebel may be granted clemency to demonstrate the benevolence of the rulers. But for a Counter-Revolutionary not only did they fought against the people as the people are always on the side of who one, but they fought against destiny itself as all successful revolutions were inevitable and destined to be achieved. For a Counter-Revolutionary the lightest sentence one can receive is a self imposed exile for themselves and their families. The harshest sentence, well history has plenty of examples and I'm sure your imagination can come up with worse.
u should have noted that gotha critique was published postmortum as marx was dead by 1891
comment.
Wait, how did that follow? You first mention how the masses are powerful and thus a threat to the state. And then you say in an aside that in addition to following its own interests, the state will also act in the interest of the most powerful agents. You use that for syllogism to say that the state will always betray the workers, but wouldn't the state not do that if large worker institutions were established thus making the class of the workers a powerful agent the state would act in the interests thereof?
The masses are not the state and therefore their power is a threat to the state. Thus they must be suppressed, coerced, or made to enact the will of the state. Only in the last of these are individuals made into agents of the state, but they are also robbed of their power to threaten the state.
The most powerful agents are then the capitalist class under capitalism and the bureaucratic functionaries and leaders of the labor process under state capitalism.
I'm so grateful for this video, and your channel in general. All the communist UA-camrs should watch this video.