Vaush vs Zoe Baker (anarchopac) on electoral politics
Вставка
- Опубліковано 26 вер 2024
- My brief article on the anarchist critique of state socialism theanarchistli...
Good collection of modern critiques of electoral politics - blackrosefed.o...
Support me on patreon / anarchozoe
If you'd like to make a one time donation ko-fi.com/anar...
Follow me on social media:
/ anarchozoe
/ anarchopac
Buy my book Means and Ends: The Revolutionary Practice of Anarchism in Europe and the United States:
US shipping - www.akpress.or...
UK shipping - www.akuk.com/m...
audiobook - tantor.com/mea...
Check out my other videos:
anarchism and democracy • Anarchism and Democracy
anarchists are not naive about human nature • Anarchists Are Not Nai...
anarchism as a way of life • Anarchism as a way of ...
anarchist counter culture in Spain • Anarchist Counter Cult...
the best feminist you've never heard of: He-Yin Zhen • The Best Feminist You'...
My review of the discussion with Vaush: I think I did a good job explaining the anarchist critique of state socialism but could have done much better at explaining the anarchist alternative of winning reforms via direct action. Was difficult to remember everything whilst extremely anxious. There were a number of things Vaush said that I massively disagreed with but given the time constraints I was trying to pick my battles and only focus on certain points. I plan to make a video responding to some of his arguments in more detail.
you should be a recurring guest on his stream
great arguments.
couldnt agree more
Definitely
I subscribed because of the conversation Zoe had with Vaush. I'm still on the fence on whether electoral politics is "completely" useless to bringing positive changes for our people, however Zoe was very persuasive and I'm willing to look at this perspective as well.
yeah I agree. I certainly enjoyed having her on and I think the rest of chat found it to be a really interesting discussion. I love Vaush but it's nice to get someone on who has actually studied theory
@@oliverseddon7950imho, her knowing anarchist history is as important knowing anarchist theory, and you can't know if the theoretical can explain what happened or predict what will happen until you compare it to the empirical, to what really happened and is happening.
I think I have detected a double standard in Vaush's reasoning: when he talks about Bernie Sanders' electoral campaign, he presents it as successful because it pushed the Overton window to the left on social security issues and radicalised millions of people, despite a lack of actual policy change. But when he talks about the Black Lives Matter movement, he describes it as a failure because it had no effect on policy, despite its radicalising effect on millions of people on the matter of police brutality and systemic racism. The BLM movement even popularised ideas like police defunding and even police abolition that had been frowned upon hitherto.
Vaush's goal seems to switch from radicalisation to policy change and vice versa depending on which movement is discussed. He moved the goal post.
twitter.com/high_define/status/1295162665443131397?s=20
twitter.com/high_define/status/1322470340623241216?s=20
To be fair he's generally pro BLM so it was odd phrasing; I'm pretty sure if you presented what you said to him as such he'd agree
@@retailradiotv884 His previous stance on BLM is irrelevant, because the issue at hand was the efficiency of direct action vs. electoral strategies, not the legitimacy of BLM (which Vaush did acknowledge). BLM was an example he used to show the inefficency of direct action. Downplaying its effects fit perfectly in his logical demonstration and helped him reach his conclusion (that electoral strategies are superior). Are you really trying to convince me that he accidentally used the perfect (albeit dishonest) rhetorical tool to suit his purpose?
@@jeangrondin921 I'm somewhat sus of Vaush's consequentialism - it strikes me as something that can very easily lead to "ends justifying the means" thinking and then a lot of resultant dishonesty to his audience. And here we have an example of that with his rhetorical use of BLM.
It is quite unreal to see Zoe engage in a dialogue, I am used to her in monologue.
I think Vaush should make more videos promoting and researching leftist organizing and direct action. And maybe divert more people toward your way :)
I stay in people's comments talkin about the legend of Zoe Baker or the anarchist formerly known as anarchopac.
@@tigerstyle4505 I don't think he's going to do that, because direct action currently doesn't have the spectacle, mass media hype, and therefore the quick dopamine hit, of electoralism. He says he supports direct action, but he barely talks about it because he's more concerned with growing his platform (which he probably then justifies by saying growing his platform through talking primarily about electoralism will move more people to the left; but that's pure speculation on my behalf). Personally, I like Vaush, but I think he's of very limited use to leftists (in terms of education) and leftism (in terms of recruitment and how far left he actually moves the recruited).
true !
@@dunningdunning4711 feel the same way, but that is kinda what happens whenever a media personality gets popular, it starts being just as much about them as the ideas they're promoting
@@dunningdunning4711 fair point, but people have to understand that vaush is not here to make leftists more leftist, or atleast, thats not where he is most effective. He attributes a lot more to deradicalization of alt-right folks.
More Zoe on the Vaush channel please. This conversation is absolutely necessary, is nowhere near finished and we would all benefit if it were to continue. Maybe Zoe hour once every couple of weeks?
This ^
Yeeeeeeeeeeeeees
oh no poor zoe, that would be incredibly stressful
This is Zoe’s channel, why would there be a Zoe hour on her own channel?
so vaush can lazily continue his shitty lazy content and exploit my zoe to teach a bunch of vaushites actual shit.
You did great! Fundamentally, I think you gave him a bit of a reminder of what it means to be libertarian and that he's gotten a bit too tangled in the electoral weeds of their recent election and those leftists who were staunchly against voting for Biden or even Bernie in the primaries.
Ugh! He glazed over your point that all unions are not the same. So important! I am in one of the largest bureaucratic unions in America and you were spot on. They squash any radical movement and side more with keeping the company running, with small concessions to its workers. We can’t even strike! -A concession given away after our last famous strike in 1970(probably just gave myself away). -I think this lends to why Americans look sideways and won’t throw their weight behind unions.Yes, he’s right, unions in America are at their weakest point, but he broad brushes over the fact that all unions are not the same. They are not only weak or non-existent, but have been co-opted at their highest levels. I would’ve love to hear this point teased out more. How do we strengthen our existing unions to lead to more unionization?
This was -probably- much more civil then *any* of the discussions Marx and Bakunin had
I think you’d be safe in removing the “probably” from your sentence lmao
IMO your biggest mistake was you didn't emphasize community-building enough. Vaush is very focused on radicalizing people (which makes sense, since the left desperately needs to grow if we want to achieve anything), so the direct action stuff didn't sway him because you didn't explain how direct action can also serve to radicalize people.
Vaush thinks we might be able to achieve policy changes through electoralism, sure, but the main reason he supports it is its capacity to radicalize people (see for example the huge wave of radicalization that happened after Bernie Sanders's primary run in 2016). But if someone could explain to him how community-building can be a viable alternative to electoralism for building a left coalition, I think he'd be on board.
When so many americans think that "socialism is when government does stuff" I think that there needs to be shown an alternative to neoliberalism.
I am so happy you’ve had this discussion. Solidarity to you comrade, and I hope you’re doing well.
I'm so happy you got to talk to vaush he needs your influence
He needs to go away
@@Glaaki13 Definitely not
@@Glaaki13 let's hear some anti-Vaush arguments that aren't based on out of context clips.... we're all waiting
@@jimallinx okay Sargon
@@BUDGETBALLER sure he is
I saw this during Vaush’s live. I was very impressed by you. What a treat the discussion was. ✌️❤️
I'm a fan of Vaush even though I consider myself more radical than him, and I have to say this was by far one of the best conversations he's had on stream, in fact I tried to have a similar discussion with him once but yours went much better.
Anyway the point is I hope you feel encouraged to keep reaching out to larger audiences because what you have to say is very valuable! And I'm sure you'd be welcome back on his stream, he needs more leftist acquaintances who don't hate him lmao
I found you through Vaush's stream went to sub immediately after the talk. Really liking the content so far! :)
Actual title: Emma Goldman beats up a supporter of Kautsky outside the conference of the 2nd International.
Yolo
Colourised.
I love this title.
You have not read Kautsky if you think Kautsky and Vaush are in agreement at all...
@@tomthatguy123, do you have links where I could read more about this? 🥰🏴🚩
Vaush: I have mixed opinions about this. Zoe: Well I have examples...
Facts and logic ftw 😂
The way he wrote off direct action as" just handing out food to unhoused people" was really reductive and dismissive. I found that frustrating.
No kidding, direct action is also the assembly of relationships, and therefore power to act.
Throughout the stream Vaush seems to do that. My jaw dropped when he amounted the Nazi takeover to “some complicated stuff a lot of people contributed to” especially since it is a glaring example disproving what he was just saying before that. He just minimizes things he doesn’t understand to support what he does understand.
@@Fartucuss227AA he did this with chazz. Chazz was really and answer to police brutally and lawlessness. People gathered and protected each other and he dismissed it as larpers trying to do revolution and would bother Biden supporters. This sounded so tankie.
It's one of the reasons why I find him most irritating and that his ideas are antithetical to what anarchism is. He's too worried about looking good and gaining favor of the sock dems in power because all that it amounts to is making too many compromises which dilutes the socialist movement as a whole.
And on top of it he has to be such an asshole about dying on this hill of sucking sock Dems Cocks so that maybe just maybe left us might have a little more influence.
@@darksight1000 In America there’s an incredible amount of resistance to the most milquetoast of leftist ideas. I don’t know how to get around that without paying a disproportionately large amount of attention to optics. Autonomous zones are beautiful and good and they help to radicalize everyone who can realize that. But that realization is impossible for like at best 3/4 of Americans, as much as I hate that that’s true. And as long as it’s true, autonomous zones need to have pretty good optics in order to have a more unambiguous net positive effect on the progress of the American left. I don’t remember what Vaush said, but if he just dismissed CHAZ as a bunch of larpers then that’s stupid and pretty reactionary of him. But he probably wasn’t wrong about it harming the public opinion of BLM and of anarchy in the eyes of the vast majority of Americans, and that probably makes things harder for us.
I would like to be convinced otherwise about this though, there’s a ton I don’t know and haven’t read.
I wasn't aware of your content prior to seeing you on this stream, I found it really interesting and easy to follow, thanks for going on :)
this is amazing
Good ole LLR, hope you're doing well :)
I think the biggest issue with vaush is that he forms his opinions on what sounds the most logical, instead of reading theory and seeing what was tried and what has failed in the past.
Have you seen him attempt to read theory? Sadly, I dont think thats going to help him.
ua-cam.com/video/NX9_kXYMSck/v-deo.html
Yeah Vaush is a theorylet who has been called out for trying to misrepresent it.
@@Dreggz1312 based hakimposter
@@Dreggz1312 Too tankie for my taste.
Vaush comes off as too rationalist for his own good sometimes, and you cannot do dense, nuanced theory any meaningful justice in the often emotionally charged contexts of his streams
I would argue that Vaush is wrong to credit the broadening of political imagination in the US to politicians like Sanders. I think without grassroots organizers in movements like Occupy, there's no Sanders in 2016. I think electoral politics distracts people, it leads them to put their hopes in who can't give them what they need. Better to spread the actual truth that we're better off relying on each other, surely??
Anyway love to listen to a guy who calls people low IQ.
He needs to indulge in great man theory. Bernie Sanders is just a product of past leftist agitation.
@@raz1616 Exactly there is a lot of baggage that capitalist society places into our head that we need to unload
This perfectly described me becoming a SocDem in 2015 thanks to Sanders...wasted hundreds in donations too
I think Sanders can get some credit for providing a political "alternative" in a country with significant disengagement from politics. He also should I think get some credit for exposing people to specific movements like Sunrise, BLM, Fight for 15, etc. However, Sanders wouldn't have received nearly as much attention if America wasn't facing severe income inequality, stagnating wages, police brutality, etc. Otherwise he would be like Dennis Kucinich. And of course, movements like BLM , Fight for 15, Sunrise, etc. also engaged people and likely exposed them to Sanders where perhaps they wouldn't have considered him otherwise. I would agree though that electoral politics largely serves as a distraction and Vaush leaned too heavily on it during election season. The Civil rights movement for example shows that the impetus for change will come from the streets.
imagine calling people low IQ when you are literally Vaush sksksksksks
I think I can see the perspective of both sides on the matter of electoralism with vaush thinking that a new leftists or at least more left leaning base needs to be build within the USA before a great amount of direct action can sufficiently bring change and shake the system.
In contrast zoe mostly spoke from an historically educated position about reformist Parties having been corrupted by the political movement and since he described a very reformist like approach to the revolution he wants in his video "how i want to build socialism"
The worries of history repeating itself Especially from an anarchist perspective is quite reasonable.
I think i agree with both sides to agree seeing the need for electoralism rn in order to establish a left leaning base but also i hesitate to relly on electoralism in the future.
I think using electoralism to a degree to build the left leaning platform and then diverging into more direct action and organizations independent of the electoral system would be the best way to find a solid foundation on which socialism can be achieved one day
Thats just my opinion though who i admit to that is neither an American nor even nearly as well educated on anything i think like zoe
Thing is, what are the odds of a lot of people getting involved on build the electoral side of things, working really hard on that, winning enough concessions on the way, all the while paying little or at most secondary attention to direct action and THEN do a 180º and not only start working on direct action but also convince other people to do so? It just sounds like a really unlikely scenario, and I would say that's a big part of the reason for the historic experience to be what it is.
If whatever we want to be doing in the future needs to be learned and nurture though experience, as is the case with direct action, than we have be doing it now, not later.
Not to mention there seems to me to be a necessary degree of dishonesty with "the public" involved in such a strategy. How is that supposed to harbor an openness to direct action later?
Unless your plan is basically to become a softer enemy, but I'm not such a martyr : p
@@user-sl6gn1ss8p i mean I believe that the more radical parts of that then existing leftists platform will have to lead the way when it comes to direct action however I don't think it is necessarily that hard to move a movement which got to taste leftist reform to then go even further because in my experience once people have become like socdems trying to convince them to become socialists of some kind won't be to hard and thats the main problem to me.
Rn even getting reforms which lead to socdems becoming more popular and maybe even taking over as the dominant wing of the democrats in the US/by some way a multi party system actually becomes viable (unlikely honestly).
I believe that the then more left leaning population will start seeing further reforms fail to be brought through and out of Frustration Turn to large scale direct action.
Now i dont think that direct action rn is bad quite the contrary but i just don't think that without the limited use of electoralism it will be able to radicalize enough people to the left rn.
@@user-sl6gn1ss8p The people against electoralism make it seem like its some monumental task that either can't work with, or even works against, direct action. Electoral participation really just boils down to taking 5 mins to fill out a ballot. However, the way you get there is by people being aware of candidates that represent their interest (or at least work against it less) and, most essentially, helping them find out what those interests are. Almost all of the "work" is concentrated in simply getting people politically active with a very small percentage being devoted to actually DOING the electoralism and voting. That being the case, why should you go through all of the work to get someone sympathetic to socialist policy and then actively stop them from voting?
@@menkaragamble8175 Voting is only one part of electoralism. I have nothing against voting for damage control. The other parts of electoralism are things like campaigning, funding, canvassing - and a lot of that is done by volunteers. So the question with electoralism isn't just voting, but leftists putting all their time and energy into electoralism and legitimising it as a useful strategy.
33:58
ImAgInE mY ShOcK, watching this in 2023, after AOC voted to break the rail strike
Girl, I liked you, you are fun and smart. Great job.
I’m a Brasilian, and our on-line left is basically composed to doctors and masters in human sciences, and I was missing the presence of academics in the US online left.
Flaking off of Vaush's subscriber base to boost Zoe's numbers. Algorithm's be praised, bless this channel with growth.
I'm glad to see you went on Vaush's stream ! I understand how hard it must be to think of all the right talking points to focus on on the spot, but I think it's important to incite Vaush to talk about direct action more. Would love to see a more laid-back video addressing some of the points more in-depth
Fan of you both! Really enjoyed this crossover, though I do think Vaush interrupted you on a few occasions when it wasn’t justified
Vaush has no idea but even "European Social Democracy" was a hard fought battle in which electoral politics only had a concrete impact because of social movements (which went up to armed struggles). Else, Bismarckian style of politics (including social security among other thing) were concrete anti-working class policies. He really needs to pick his battle.
can you elaborate on the history?
@@JohnDoe-mp1yn Anything specific?
@@RiotForLiberty i wanna hear about the militancy to even get basic social democratic policies. you could just tell me what to look up and that's fine.
@@JohnDoe-mp1yn I think the history of the 8 hours day (or more simply, the reduction of working time) is the most documented around the world so I would start with that.
In Europe the histories of welfare and social security might be documented in English too. For two examples on one hand the Bismark Model www.smithsonianmag.com/history/bismarck-tried-end-socialisms-grip-offering-government-healthcare-180964064/ and on the other the French social security en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_security_in_France#History_of_social_protection (to continue on the later see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambroise_Croizat)
Hope that opens some doors.
@@RiotForLiberty thanks for the info
wow Zoe can't wait to watch more of your vids and learn more from ya
Great discussion! Thanks Zoe for explaining it really well, learned a lot about history through this discussion. Hope to learn more :)
Pog it's the person who defends Vaush on twitter.
@@Debre. it's the "vaush has done more for black people than you ever will" person lmaoo
@@ConfucianToussaint Based & Vaushpilled. 😎
@@ConfucianToussaint lmao. that’s terrible
I subbed after listening to you on Vaush. I like and respect both of you. Good discussion.
One of the most important discussions vaush has had
loved everything i heard from you via vaush and i´m looking forward to hearing more and getting involved in direct action!
As a fan of both your channels, it was nice to see a pleasant discussion between you two. I know a lot of lefties like to hate on Vaush, but it's undeniable that his channel has pushed tens--if not hundreds--of thousands of socdems, libs, and conservatives towards leftism. Even if we don't agree with everything he says, radicalizing that many people is a net gain for leftists and I wish people would stop hating on his platform.
Exactly. It's alright to discuss and debate about strategy and ideas, but way too often I see just petty hatred or other bad faith shit thrown at other leftists because of a disagreement here or there. Also all of the "they're not even a real leftist, they're just a liberal!" posturing is not helpful.
We're not enemies even if we disagree on something. Let's be a bit nicer to each other 🙂
@@d-5037 even if what vaush is, is a liberal, I'd say hes miles away from eing anywhere close even to Bernie. The left just has way too much infighting because we obsess over details. The right is fucking stupid and doesn't have these problems. As long as you say "mmhhm minority baaaad, Mexican steal job baasf drug dealer" theyre good with it.
@@painterQjensen I was a politically lazy liberal before I started watching breadtubers like Vaush. I consider myself a socialist today. I bet there are a lot of people like me. Most of Vaush's influence is that he gets people interested and brings people leftwards. I really don't get it why this angers some leftists so much.
Ah yes, a bunch a still-right-wing fanboy dweebs defending vaushs racist and transohobic comments while spamming 'vaush bad' doing no organizing but running around the internet calling every real leftist with actual revolutionary politics a 'larper' is such a gain for the left.
Step 1: vote democrat
Step 2: ?
Step 3: socialism !
@@Dreggz1312 which racist and transphobic comments did Vaush Make?
Do you people get off to losing?
I'm a semi-regular Vaush viewer, but I decided to come watch this debate on your channel to help boost your stats for the all-powerul algorithm. You're clearly really intelligent and knowing what it's like to have to make arguments while very anxious, you seemed really well spoken here. Excited to check out more of your content! ☺
imagine thinking we have 10 years to wait for "reform to radicalize"
Someone should tell him that there were actually bad republican presidents in the past also, and they were followed by bad democrat presidents, and that it didn't radicalize the liberals.
@@Dreggz1312 no one said that it would. i'm really concerned about your listening comprehension.
Vaushs argument is literally that liberals think trump is solely to blame for the ill effects of capitalism and that having a bad democratic president, biden, will somehow cause liberals to realize the problem wasnt trump, but faults inherent to capitalism, and that this will somehow radicalize the liberals.
Its a stupid argument and somebody should tell him that we have been in this situation before, it never led to radicalization then and it wont now.
@@Dreggz1312 Except it has. Obama was a bad democratic president that caused some liberals to realize the problem wasn't Bush, but faults inherent to capitalism. And that led to the radicalization of liberals who now scream for medicare for all, a living wage, and people who actively call themselves socialists.
@@junamboqcg2369 we had the 2008 meltdown and the neoliberal policies started to become an unbearable force. After clinton came Bush and after your example came Trump. Is not the president is the political and economical context.
Huh it's interesting hearing Vaush say unions are dead in this country and his predictions around 27:30 where he says no one in America will risk their life or livelihood to fight for unionization -- kind of wild how much has changed in the past two years with the massive wave of strikes and unionization at Amazon, Starbucks, railway workers (which the Squad voted to break btw, thanks electoral politics), etc. Encouraging signs from the people!
I'd honestly be really interested to see another debate with the two of you based on the current state of affairs!
My hero. I always learn so much everytime I tune in. Thank you so much.
You've got a subscriber here, watches this debate as a Vaush fan, now I'm following you.
we need more conversations like that !
this was excellent
I really wish he would have let you talk more.
This ^
this reminded me of when my boyfriend was trying to explain to me why being a tankie is wrong and me being so ignorant to that idea because i didn’t want to admit i was wrong. then 🌈anarchism🌈 and my life was changed
What was the turning point though?
@@inxiveneoy Life and Ideas by Malatesta 😛
I’ve just come here to say, this is most probably one of the channels that most influenced my descent into leftist philosophy, truly great content. You and hakim (regardless of him being an ML he does highlight the fundamental flaws of capitalism) have both been great influences on me. Thank you for this channel and keep up the good work!
Sanders didn’t radicalize people, he and his campaign put out slightly more radical language to increase their electoral support for very mild (and admittedly needed) social reform to the existing capitalist system.
What a bomb of a convo. Cheers.
Vaush is bad about pretending to know what a guest is talking about and you can almost see on the reflection of his glasses him googling the subject, and bam immediate expert. It's pretty funny
Big fan of both you and Vaush!
@@jehuheinrich8694 Imagine 22st Leftist arguing over which 21st theorist was better.
I’m so glad I got to find you through Vaush.
The problem with participation in the state in anachism is the idea of means and ends. If you advocate for state participation the workers that are hearing and inserted in the context will reproduce the idea that participation and institutional Unions are the way to go.
I think that what Vaush defends here is, with all respect, reformism. Here in Latin America we have the example of Salvador Allende in Chile, when the socialists started to do major changes to the social structure of the country, like redistribution of land and such, the ruling class with the help of the military instituted a coup d'etat. Bringing with them one of history's most vicious dictators (Pinochet).
I agree that it's much easier to organize workers in a Social Democracy than in a Ditactorship, and so does Bakunin if i recall correctly. But i disagree completelly with the point that Vaush makes that any political action dwarves any direct action from the social movements, if y look at history rarelly politicians made changes without the direct pressure of social movements(Unions and such). Normally what happens, are changes that focus on dismobilising the working class and pleasing the ruling class. In Brazil, most of the workers rights were accomplished by workers pressuring the Vargas Regime.
To say that Vargas have a merit for conceding is to spit at the grave of people who actually died fighting for it.
The strategy of mass movement is meant to teach people how to organize and fight, there is power in the numbers because at the end what we want as anarchists is ALL POWER TO THE PEOPLE or POPULAR POWER.
Other aspect of the strategy of mass movement is the idea of constant pressure, inside the social movements we estabilish short term and mid term objectives as a way to teach people how to organize and fight. At the same time this aspect makes that short term and mid term demands are carry out, making the life of the workers better.
The power to change the state is at the hands of the ruling class and normally they dont like to share! That is why there is a police or military.
I think that what Zoe defends here is the cultivation of the Popular Power and the creation of social structures independent from the state power, so that people could struggle!
Other thing that bugs me is that Vaush thinks that this direct action movements would be isolated, that is a naive argument. If you have a revolutionary organization going inside this social-movements, radicalizing people and conecting this movements, at some point we will have what we call solidarity between the working class.
It's the work and Strengthening of the social movements that can bring about the changes.
Yeah, it's a struggle and violence is the norm. Fear of it will not change the fact that the ruling class, using the state, will always defend their position in the hierarchy. One socialist in a state will make little to none against the whole of the ruling class, that is why people like Marighella went to advocate for armed struggle.
The state always operate in the idea of class conciliation, so any one that participate will inevitably have to pratice that and doing so they only will get approve to do changes that please the ruling class and that they deem necessary for the Maintenance of their state power.
I hope my english is not to abysmal and that i got my point throught
Cheers from a Brazilian Especifista! o/
Great work Zoe and Vaush!
As a Vaush enjoyer: really nice job! New sub from me.
I think both perspectives are important to keep in mind, ie that creating a favorable electoral environment while reinforcing the idea that all elected representatives will at some point become corrupted and building power among the people may be a good way forward.
I think Vaush was very nervous too, he was getting pretty defensive haha.
You did great here!!! It's very frustrating to watch a lot of this go over Vaush's head, though. His repetition of "but I want to WIN" really drives home the very flaws with electoralism that you'd just pointed out- that the desire for victory or securing one's power eventually supersedes the principles and desires that lead one to seek power within existing systems in the first place! Of course we want to win, but victory, independent of principle is not virtuous or desirable in and of itself. We can "win" all the minor reforms that we want, but without replacing existing institutions, those victories are fragile and often ineffective in the long term.
I also think that here, he vastly overstates the impact that individuals have on policy and dismisses out of hand the class antagonism and popular pressure that, in reality, is responsible for the growing influence of their ideas. It's also quite frustrating how quickly he waves away your provided examples of real-world success from direct action, claiming that he can empirically prove that politicians can do more direct good, but then fails to do so. Anyone can claim whatever they like and defend their claim with anecdotal evidence, "common sense", etc., whether their claim is actually correct or not. He has no real evidence, instead leaning on a common perception as "proof".
Anyway, I greatly appreciate you and what you do.
Pog, based and big brained. I like Vowsh's humour and general political dispositions but I'm not gonna pretend he's some intellectual titan. This is probably top 3 Voosh conversations (my fave being the one with that other anarchist PhD student with on how such societies can defend themselves). Hopefully Roosh V can learn something from this, I certainly did. Great performance, Zoe.
Roosh LMAO
Can you please provide a link/help me find that discussion with 'that other anarchist' ???
@@lladimirvenin7473 Here Da Linkly ua-cam.com/video/uM0WlpWLyFE/v-deo.html
Vaush's focus on unions is the wrong focus, and Zoe calls this out. It is a union that needs to be formed, not many, but one aspect of solidarity.
I would love for Vaush to support his thesis with some actual evidence. There seems to be a tremendous amount of evidence that Liberal political actions do not move progress meaningful forward, without direct action. It seems like Vaush advocates for a form of "Trickle-Down Politics" where the Great People of Electoral Politics lead the marginalised to the promised land. The view I get from Zoe is that the change has to come from the bottom-up, and historically that is where the most lasting victories for the working class have been gained.
If possible it would be fantastic to get Zoe's thoughts on "The Apprentice Sorcerer: Liberal Tradition and Fascism" by Ishay Landa
Subscribed to you from vaush!
I've followed your channel for years now, I was so surprised to hear you on a Vaush live-stream :)
I think bringing up some of the arguments made by Peter Gelderloos in How Nonviolence Protects the State would demonstrate to Vaush better some of the deeper trouble with his position
Love this crossover 💝
The last point was the most important one. Sure establishing socialism step by step sounds nice, but what happens if the majority of the public becomes comfortable with liberalism and are unwilling to go further? They can also become cynical and view every party as the same, even hard libertarian socialist ones who actually want to bring change
how can you assume anyone would in any way feel comfortable under capitalist exploitation ?
@@pizzapourtous upper and middle class disillusioned socialists turned centrist apoliticals and right wingers exist
Well, it's way harder to push people to the left when socialism is still a pretty fringe ideology. It's way easier to convince a lib that socialism is good, but rn you have 70 million people who are right wing extremists basically, you'll have a hard time turning them around, especially with the current policies for worker unions.
@@gionatavassena801i personally think that turning right wing extremists around isn't as much of a priority as turning liberals socialist. Sure, it helps but it's just so difficult especially if we are talking hardcore fascists here.
@@torcaace well, most people are somewhere in the center, if you manage to shift the Overton window even just to soft soc dem ideas, the right will have a harder time recruiting and thereby their numbers will drop. When you then have a big population of at leat left sympathizing people, yiu can work on actually overturning the government and setting up direct democracy and such things.
Came from Vaush and I’m here to give this vid a boost. Btw, Zoe thanks for being my gateway to the left.
Just listened to this on Spotify, GREAT conversation! I'm still somewhere between the two positions so I'd definitely like to see more of this
You crushed in this argument! It was deeply frustrating watching Vaush strawman your side, not understand your arguments, and then weirdly contradict himself in the end. You're patience and lack of rage (at least in appearance) was amazing, I would have been visibly frustrated and angry in your spot. .
While I do tend to agree with Vaush in terms of American politics, I certainly understand where you're coming from. For example, Nester Makhno trusted that he would be best off working with the state against a reactionary enemy and was ultimately betrayed. I think that in America, electoralism is useless in implementing change but is necessary to participate in in choosing which enemy you would rather face. Liberalism, or fascism. And it would be far more advantageous to work through means of arguing against liberalism than fighting a loosing war against a reactionary opponent. But please talk with him again! It was at the very least a very productive conversation!
I find it so funny that he said that unions are dead as they've ever been literally a year before the writer's and actor's strike
He admits he was wayyyy the fuck off
_"I care about winning so let's rewind the clock to the 1940s, and see how well socdem policies turns out _*_this_*_ time"._ The American labour movement that made those socdem policies possible did not have liberal roots, but rather radical anarchist/communist ones. Bernie Sanders ran on a platform to the right of Eisenhower, to "push America leftward". Sorry if I am not convinced by this "winning strategy".
I was a student during the 2012 student strikes in Québec and it is very surprising to me that these protests were mentioned as a success story.
The raise of university tuition was not abandoned by the government due to the popular pressure/direct action, but because the Liberal Party of Quebec was just slightly beaten in the following election. Given the fact that it was one of the most corrupt and right leaning government of Quebec's history, this slight election victory was actually very depressing. Additionally, the new government from the Parti Quebecois did not follow on their electoral promise of tuition freeze but the tuition fees were increased following the inflation. Maybe I am too pessimistic, but I do consider the 2021 student protest a big loss on almost all front.
Québec also ressemble a lot more France than the USA. So I'm not sure if giving it as an example for the USA is a good one.
Really loved the discussion and looking forward to your video on this. I've seen the Molyneux call you mention and it was very entertaining as well; you seem to have privated that one tho, right? :/
Lol I love how Vaush literally finishes with "fuck, thank god I got through that, she was smart." 😄
47:25-48:35, Zoe answers the crucial question and makes a very valid point. The whole discussion is being framed in a very narrow way, the answer to building social movements or mass-organizations is through a 'diversity of tactics', but also not throwing all your weight behind electoral means because we should never trust politicians.
But prefigurative politics is definitely key to answering these questions from a far-left perspective.
Frequent vaush viewer here. This was a great convo. Subbed.
Vaush is entirely wrong about trade unions in our current times. Jacobin contributor and union organizer Jane Mcalevey has been successfully organizing unions even during the Trump era. The issue isn’t electoral politics making it impossible to organize, its ineffective organizers and strategies being used. In order for union organizing to be effective you need to shoot for 95-100% membership, otherwise the effort will fail. She has multiple books written in the past few years detailing Union wins in the US since 2016-present as well as effective strategies necessary to win such as structure tests. Claiming laws that have passed are the main issue and claiming that unions effectively don’t exist is not only inaccurate but only demonstrate Vaushs lack of knowledge as to current union operations and strategies.
I’m actually quite shocked at the level of demoralisation from American leftists, to the extent that even communists that are explicitly following a revolutionary ideology are willing to settle for bourgeois electoralism.
This was so informative. I learned so much about anarchism. Thank you both so much!
Honestly same
Edit: and I’m only halfway through
I'm here in a heart beat!
This was amazing, you did a fantastic job Zoe! Please try and get onto more of Vaush's streams, he has a comparatively huge audience that would really benefit from hearing about anarchist ideas
I've never listened to Vaush before, but I don't really care for his style which felt unnecessarily argumentative/debate-y rather than a conversation or interview. Since, listening to both points, it didn't sound like there was any actual disagreement to be had. Vaush just hadn't considered something that Baker was talking about, and it took him close to an hour to realize that.
I know I'm kind of late here, but i wanted to make some comments that could help:
- Around minute 20 Vaush starts talking of Rojava as an example of anarchism. Later he explains that anarchism appears in ravaged places. That's not very true, te EZLN is another example (we need to note that they don't call themselves "anarchists" but they have taken a lot of things from anarchist theory). And it's not like México is a wasteland or something like that.
- Minute 22: Bernie didn't move the democrats to the left, if that was the case, he would've been the democratic candidate and that didn't go well. Bernie has ideas that the american worker like, but they are so afraid of the word "socialism" that democrats would prefer a centrist. Trump even said that he was scared of the idea of running against Sanders, but nonetheless here we are. It's not that Bernie moved the Dems to the left and because of that Biden won. Biden won because the rate of approval of Trump fell to the ground. Democrats in general voted against Trump, not just because they liked Biden (which could've been a good chance to put a more progressive candidate A.K.A Bernie, but they didn't, wonder why).
-About trade unions: Historic examples to check out besides the C.N.T.: I.W.W (Industrial Workers of the World, USA) still active today - F.O.R.A. (Federación Obrera Regional Argentina, ARG) reactivated a decade or two ago. They have all a very rich history on a great variety of topics that could help about praxis.
In general, labor unions appeared even before than leftist parties in clandestine situations, against repression, etc. Waiting for labor unions to be encouraged by the state is a very lazy position. Besides, you can't say that right after you said that republicans and democrats are very anti-union, then what are we waiting for? A miracle? If the idea of creating or giving strength to a labor union is not to simply join and do some real praxis and you wait for the state, then obviously the unions will be dead, because you're waiting for the easy way to reveal itself, the real world doesn't work like that. Sometimes you've got to make propaganda by action, spreading the word through YT or Twitch is cool, but someone not on those platforms is unreacheable to you that way, and besides, you help to the notion that nothing can be done outside of theory because you are doing technically nothing.
Which is funny given the fact that Vaush later states that nobody is trying to push forward with unionizing.
- The idea that you need preconditions to appear is kinda lazy too, given the fact that many uprisings in South America happened after a series of events and the reaction of popular movements to them, which made them gain support from workers in the country, you don't need to work the context before, sometimes it just happens, the difference relies on whether you move and do something or not.
- Opposition to unions isn't that big of a deal, in Australia they (the small amount of people from a combative union) try to find a way around to mobilize and demonstrate, even though it's technically illegal.
On the other hand, a party advocating for unions can go terribly wrong (like in Australia or Argentina). In Argentina, for example, there is a One-Union System, where you enter in a (registered) workplace and you are instantly into a Union (CGT). This Union is technically the pet of the Peronismo/Kirchnerismo (our democrats or socdems if you want to give an aproximation), who will push for high "paritarias" (wage raises to cope with inflation) as low as 7% against a 37% when their party is in office against a 40% when the Macrismo was in offices, that gives the worker the impression that a government gave them more than the other. Besides, they tend to comply with the bosses against the worker's interest to mantain stability between interests, which is always in favour of the boss. This ends up in workers distrusting the role of unions, which is exactly what happenned in Argentina. Vaush decides to speculate with the "what about Bernie" idea instead of looking at the historic evidence of his country an countries abroad. I love the false dicotomy of "the government has to give us concessions so we can strike - do nothing".
I only got to minute 40 but damn I'm tired.
Thanks so much for doing this stream , as someone from america i'm kinda tired of people like vaush. i spend a lot of time talking about and arguing for direct action and most people i know get it. some people are still afraid of state repression but they still get it . if we would spend more time actually organizing , as opposed to justifications for liberalism we can start building an infrastructure that can achieve bigger and better things . again i really like this . and would love to hear your responses to some of the things Vaush was saying
Seriously, millions of dollars have been spent on pushing this idea that it can't happen specifically so that it doesn't happen.
I think Vaush is a DeLeonist who doesn't know what DeLeonism is. I hope so bc I'm a DeLeonist and let me tell you, we're a dying breed lol.
Finally another De Leonist!
@@jamesnewport-haas4575 Ayyy!
I am not so sure, because De Leonism seems to have the same understanding of socialism as Marx did. Vaush seems to be going off the more general definition of Socialism as, "workers own the means of production" rather than lower-phase communism. Neither definition is wrong, but it is hard to know what Vaush believes sometimes because he says things that are very Marxist while in the next breath saying things that are very un-Marxist. Which is okay, I like Vaush.
I was absolutely excited after learning about you from your tweet and seeing you on stream so soon.
I would love it as someone who watches Vaush a lot if he'd have you on again in the future.
I for one think you did a wonderful job despite your nervousness and was absolutely enthralled when watching this live.
Zoe. Thank you so much for doing this, I think you did as fantastic job. I like vaush quite a bit and I think (hope) he's introspective enough to take your arguments in stride and reflect them to his audience. You were very clear, which is something you're rather good at, but I agree with your self-crit/analysis. I have nothing more to say, except: Solidarity. And I love you.
Edit: I do actually have more substantive/helpful comments, but I don't think this is the place to make them.
i think discussing dual power & the direct actions involved with building dual power could have countered his thoughts on what is to be done to uphold electoralism.
We use the electoralism to destroy the electoralism.
@@juliannewallo8046 u think dual power is electoralism?
@@eliasaceves9506 No, by participating in electoralism we can show the people the flaws with in it, because most people still believe in it.
@@juliannewallo8046 i think most of the working class has already become disillusioned with voting tho. that’s why most don’t vote anyways
@@eliasaceves9506 Yes that is normally ture in the use around 55% of people vote but because the stakes we had an uptick in voters that reached 70+%
Non-anarchist communist here. Been a HUGE fan of you and Vaush for a long time. REALLY glad you went on, I thought the discussion was really really productive and would love to see more interactions between you both.
how does this guy call himself a syndicalist
I thought you did great, my only critique would be that it would probably be better in this format to frame your points in a more conversational manner just so it doesn't feel like you're lecturing as much. I hope to see you back there!
She is a Phd. That's what they do. Lol
I'm confused. When talking about the pipeline, Vaush says that DA is a fail because it lost, but that Bernie talking ( and ultimately loosing ) is a big win for electoral politics.
i'm sure all those who have struggled to unionise their workplae wuld appreciate Vaush calling their efforts 'useless'.
Hi Zoe, thought this discussion was great, if you go on again you should try to discuss more about his transitional state idea rather than just electoralism in general
uuu thats a nice one. i appreciate vaush way of doing things and somewhat helpfulness for the cause, but exact such points i heavyly disagree with him as well as anarchist, so cool to see you there. hope it was a friendly encounter and more people are swayed (y)our way.
will listen to it though when i find the time. :)
It's frustrating that Vaush doesn't understand that small minor concessions and top down capitalist unions does not lead to revolution. The UK has relatively powerful unions and an part time socdem party that can win elections, but we have little more if not less revolutionary potential despite that.
Means and Ends must be unified to achieve anarchism.
love how the general strike happens just 10 months later lol
I appreciate this video. I believe that it's important to know decenter's opinions and not just some ill-informed fanboy of the state spouting off about things that they cannot/will not understand.
Love to see this and great work. Thanks for debating him.
That was a very informative discussion. Thanks for coming on 🙏
I'm glad that you redirected the discussion to focus on the flimsy nature of electoral "stepping stones." Vaush seems to believe that this method would ensure a greater likelihood of establishing socialism, but it may be more likely to establish an even more resilient form of capitalism.
so I guess at 20:00 vaush admits that he's not an anarchist?
was vaush ever considered an anarchist? i didn't get that from the videos of his i watched
Direct action is going to be more important than ever in the coming future.
I'm from Sweden and the social democrat party here is basically a social liberal party that in the past year has diminished our right to go on strike, is bargaining away our employment protection act and has closed our borders and used xenophobic rhetoric to promote anti-immigration laws. My fear with electoral politics is that it mediates away effective forms of action into voting for a party who is never going to have our interest at heart and is always going to serve the state. If Bernie would have won it could have been the same story as here I think, promises with no weight to them and in the end just more state politics and austerity. I don't think that will lead more people towards anarchism, at least that hasn't happened here. Just thinking out loud btw, not saying don't vote!