in an anarchistic society there is no public nor private property. Thereis no property. Just land and all the goods it povides. And having an army is not a bad idea 'cause maybe another capitalistic country might want to attack you.
¡ Radubuntu ! anarchy isn't wealth equality, it is moral equality. anarchy can and more likely be a capitalist society since no authority would manage to accomplish a collective system.
the green man dances with us, along our journey, wailing caterwauls of grace like the waterfalls, we are singing, speaking like the tides, to the waters, where the surf revives the truth, everything has always been anarchy, yet we've gotten on well enough the love inside us we found was stronger, when we gave up and thrust all to the winds, the love inside us gave us wings, we flew again,
@FuCuMao The wheat is mass produced and sent to factories where it is broken down and mixed with ingredients from many other locations. The bread is then shipped to various locations, passes quality control, is packed/labeled and finally arrives at the store. This complex interaction would be impossible without leadership on many levels.
Cool. Interesting that you see it as an intermediary while I always envisioned it as an eventual goal. Like the light at the end of a tunnel. Two questions: 1) What do you see on the other side of the "inter period"? 2) There are many flavors of anarchism being proposed (primarily differences in economic theory). What interests you? I like that you admit imperfection. I think a lot of the people arguing just get hung up on absolutes.
It all depends on whether it is justifiable or not. How did you acquire these means of production, and how does this production affect other members of society? Private ownership is primarily concerned with private profit, often at the expense of large segments of the community, whereas communal ownership obviously has different priorities.
"As far as I understand it, the word actually has the same root as the word polite. It is the art of conveying information in a politic way, in a way that will be discrete and diplomatic and will offend the least people. And basically we’re talking about spin. Rather than being purely a late 20th, early 21st century term, it’s obvious that politics have always been nothing but spin" Alan Moore
You can't distinguish between private, and personal property. I've yet to meet a left anarchist who can. Generally the argument is that means of production should be owned communally, but then how do you define a means of production? Aside from obvious examples like 3D printers. A toaster produces toast. A car produces transportation. A house produces shelter, and comfort. Who draws the line? The problem is that whoever draws the line between personal, and private property becomes the state.
Thank you for the very informative video. And your English isn't bad at all! But, as you had stated in your video, right now is not a good time for anarchy. When would there be a good time for anarchy? How would this become an appropriate solution? I'd love to hear your opinion, because I'm so unsure myself! Thanks, and have a wonderful day.
The problem of the anarchist model you show is it could easily just be a localised and syndicated form of capitalism with localised class structures and divisions still existing (unless everyone had commodities of equal worth) . Anarchism relies too heavily on arch liberal ideas of a fixed human nature, maybe one in an inverted form presented in Adam Smith's 'Wealth of Nations", but that has an ahistorical almost religious basis.
Interesting topic but I have a few questions if the viewer(s) may allow me. 1). So no form of government would also include rules? 2). What about if an individual does a crime? how would anarchy handle this situation? 3). And what about currencies and external trades? P.S. Greetings and Salutations.
So correct me if I'm getting this wrong: The video proposes getting rid of a big territorial monopolist on violence and replacing it with a lot of small ones? That's not anarchy. Yes, it's miles better than what we have now, but it's still statism on a smaller scale. Why won't you allow for competing law enforcement agencies and arbiters that need to be contracted? There is no conceivable way these entities could wage war, but there are tons of examples of states, however small, doing it.
Trying to get a self-sufficient household is always a good idea, even if you don't really want society to change. Fact is: Society will most probably change sometime, and if you aren't dependent of it, you'll sleep much better, when/if the shit hits the fan. The smiley face is an anarchistic symbol? I didn't know that. Oo
Hayek doesn't speak for all Austrians economists. Murray Rothbard was the first openly anarchistic Austrian economist. Are you familiar at all with fraternal societies? They were also called friendly societies in the UK. They were in effect crowd funded insurance companies for the less fortunate, and historically they worked beautifully until they were bullied out of the market by state social programs. When the people have less disposable income due to taxation, they donate less to charity.
Another important distinction between statism and what I'm arguing is that the state prosecutes crime in the legal context (because a piece of paper says "______ is against the law"), so there's no basis for what is or isn't a crime (and in the statist's eyes, what is or isn't moral) other than what a group of politicians motivated by self-interest want. In an anarchist society should address crime in the moral context only, and that the "harm principle" should be the basis for what is criminal
The problem with this description of anarchy is that it keeps in mind society. If you have communities, rulership is inevitable. The farthest that society should extend is family within the shortest direct lineage; no more than father, mother and children. That is true anarchy.
@thewulfone You're missing the point. Anarcho-Communism/Socialism aren't attempts to take communism and socialism and simply add them to an anarchic system, they're attempts to take the class equality in socialist or communist system and change them into stateless systems. (Anarcho-communism is also known as free communism.) It takes the guiding ideas of direct democracy and people's councils and charges them with aiding the natural equal distribution of wealth.
“But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.” -Lysander Spooner
The video doesn't touch on the organization structure of the communities in question. I imagine they're voluntary though, i.e. individuals aren't forced to do anything, and these "councils" simply represent the collective voice of those who support them, i.e. if 10,000 people want to say something it doesn't make sense for them all to speak.
Please clarify my doubts on one thing. As there is no policeman or law in the state, how are criminals treated there? How can petty thieves be handled in such a state? Will the community councils decide what needs to be done to such people? Will there be punishments/prisons/death sentences in such a state?
Fire departments could be like most ambulance services are now. Private companies that bill insurance. They could operate out of the same firehouses, with the same brave selfless firefighters, just owned by a business instead of a city. They wouldn't be subject to dreaded city budget cuts. They could also be completely volunteer community services, like many small towns currently have, with fundraising to pay for equipment and fuel. There are lots of options.
The thing is that in an anarchist society no one would be able to dictate "We shall have communism." or "We shall have capitalism." These systems can only come about through the net effect of human action. I imagine nations that have historically had state communism will have anarcho communism. Whereas nations that have historically had state capitalism, or corproatism will have anarcho capitalism. People will use whatever economic theory they know best.
Yes, it happened, but always only for a limited time. That's the whole catch at it: Wait long enough and it desolves from the inside or someone from the outside forces it to stop, even if it once worked great.
In the words of the wise Taoist Sage, Lao Tzu ""There has been such a thing as letting mankind alone; there has never been such a thing as governing mankind with success"
Anarchy doesn't mean without rules in Ancient Greek.ΑνΑρχία comes from αν which means "Not,Without" and Αρχή which means authority.So Anarchy means "Without Authority".
You didn't mention the event in which C becomes allies with the other 'councils', and they become unstoppable. Which is how nations are born and anarchy doesn't survive.
Sure, there would be a few giant chain schools. They would probably offer a wide selection of coursework, extracurricular options, and low prices. There would also be little neighborhood schools, elite specialty schools, more opportunities for home schools, super affordable charity schools, traveling private tutors, etc. This would be a great opportunity for non-profit organizations. And the lack of regulation would put control back in the hands of parents and teachers. It would be great!
No, voluntary hierarchies (modern definition) can still exist in anarchy. For example: If you,and 10 of your friends decide that Bob should decide something for your group that's perfectly acceptable since it's the net result of the free will of every individual in the group.
"Private property" is a concept of Anarcho-capitalism, which isn't Anarchism at all. Property implies that one can own something like a factory , and use it to exploit the workers, when the "Owner" of the factory gets profit off of the backs of the workers, he himself does nothing. There would however, be processions such as your house, TVs, Cars, etc. Other than that pretty good.
very realist interpretation, an anarchist society would not know the concept of ownership which thus makes trade and war impossible. Anyways, I am sorry cant take this vid serious, its really depthless. By the way, is your name Werner Herzog?
You suggested that the means of production would be publicly owned, which lends its self to the idea that goods would no longer allocated by the laws of supply and demand; this would not happen in absence of a body to enforce it. Regulation of the free market needs to be centralized in order to be effective, whilst a lack of accountable government institutions and law enforcement and leave a power vacuum anyone could fill, most likely those with the greatest wealth.
The video mistakenly notes that "private property" would exist in an anarchistic society. In fact, while "personal property" would of course remain, the claim of "private property" from an anarchist perspective is invalid. For instance, private control of energy production, infrastructure, telecommunications, factories...in an anarchist society an overwhelming majority would see all these as illegitimate. They would argue that the legitimate owners are not the bosses, but the workers themselves!
Thank you for bringing this to us. I am quite surprised to see all the "hum this is not possible right now, we need rules to be able to live in society" and it reminds me of the phrase "any society that is willing to abandon a little bit of its freedom to gain security will loose both". I am a bit dissapointed that your description doesn't mention once the term "oppression". Oppression is the natural result of any non-anarchic society. Oppression is what anarchists fight against.
We should also not forget that an important principle in anarchy os the one of solidarity. Trade is important of course but if community A needs a new road community B would want to co-operate with them to build that road as they would feel that both them and community A are members of a higher community and would of course expect reciprocity at a later stage
I like the idea of everyone leaving each other alone in peace. If you want to help out you can, if not you are not foreced to. Don't want to pay taxes, don't. Don't want to work, don't.
@xXThePanzerXx Oh no, i think we all care about life. Sometimes we even think of same things but with different names. I don't know how to call mine if it isn't called "Arnachy". And can you share a little bit about your political view? Which is the best?
In theory, some people would form councils and discuss what to do. That would not be anarchy then. Anarchy only works under direct democracy. And this version is in line with some anarchistic ideas but quite misunderstood.
So these anarchist regimes used councils to rule itself. Doesn't that make it not an anarchist state? The council creates a state-like hierarchy. Now I am not opposed to hierarchy, but only state hierarchy as it is achieved through violence. And when the private property is limited, how is it to be limited? Can it not only be limited through force? And I will certainly look up the documentary you mentioned. Sounds very interesting.
What if they already have tractors, and machines? What incentive do they have to give their food that they produce away? What's to prevent another city from paying the farmers for more food?
It's important to note that when you say, "this would happen," or "that would happen," you are just expressing possibilities. The truth is that, under anarchy, everyone would do what they thought best, and no one can predict exactly what that would look like. It's still useful to suggest possibilities, though, because most people can't begin to imagine life without a parasitic ruling class.
Personally, I think that questions of individual and/or collective security are the most pressing ones anarchists have to address. I think in an anarchy, individuals need to organize themselves from the ground up for their common defence, both physically and "spiritually" (ie, the "spirit", moral or character of the new society) - certainly NOT in the framework of a state, but there are non-hierarchical alternatives that have been practiced in history, such as the Durruti Column in Spain.
Anarchy simply means no rulers. An employer is not a ruler, your choice to trade your labor with one employer or another, or to be self employed is your choice alone. All human interactions are hierarchical; the question isn't whether an interaction is hierarchical, it's whether it's voluntary, or coercive.
"councils" = govt. who gets to be on these councils? how are they picked? if i disagree with the council what happens? coming up with a fair way of answering these questions leads us to some form of democracy.
Exactly. The question of all social and political movements is, how are these legal bodies framed? In statism (liberalism, conservatism, Marxism), they are framed hierarchically because statists say people cannot be trusted to effectively deal with the problems themselves, and the result of that structure is oppression, exploitation and corruption. I argue that in anarchy, the people themselves should organize non-hierarchically and act as the legal body which addresses moral criminality.
technically speaking, a government is an entity that has the power to control human behavior within a specified geographical area. So institutions or individuals, like the "councils" mentioned in the video, could exist, but they wouldn't have any authority over the people in the area.
Exactly. I'd one day like to get my friends together, whom I with share a common vision of freedom, and just travel somewhere as a band of free people. On another thought, if the world was filled with anarchy, how would space missions be possible?
Anarchy seems fine when you think of it in best-case scenario with everyone wanting to help out, no one taking advantage of others, but when one community makes alliances with other communities and decides to want more power, then you're all the way back to a ruler. Seems like a fun idea until you realize the realistic human desire for power.
There is this notion in my head I kept thinking for years, and it only was conceptualized awhile ago. Its that Anarchy really begins at home. haha First we sustain ourselves, then we support our neighbors to sustain themselves, until we promote self-management and common sharing for everyone. Anarchism is not only that banner that the CNT-FAI used (the black and white), but also that iconic smiley that Harvey Ball designed. right? =)
@glamedrehl Also, I should have said that in an anarchy it's very difficult to START a war (not just prosecute one). Since there is no authority or centralized power structure, no one has the ability to "declare" war on everyone's behalf. There is no way to draft soldiers. There is no way to force thousands of people to leave their homes and go kill other people. Also in anarchy you wouldn't have nations, so all conflicts would be hyper-local, say, stealing resources, then leaving (ie., raids).
In anarchy, a "council" doesn't exist. Roads would be built by those with resources, and the need to have roads. Not that it would matter in this age, if a gov't dissolves into anarchy, the roads already exist, and would be repaired by those (business or other private party) that want/need/desire them to be fixed and have the ability to do so.
@Atalay, thanks for your reply. I agree that many of today's crimes are because of capitalist system. But my point is, for example, if there are petty crimes like stealing or robbing or if there is a serious crime like someone kills someone for personal reasons, such crimes are going to be there pretty much what kind of system we have, how can such situations be handled, if we don't have law in the state? In the absence of law what will be our basis to try such people?
Let me put it like this, for you and Tsukae too: Not even in an anarchistic society would all people share the same toothbrush. Private property to some degree is necessary. Without your own possesions in a modern society you wouldn't have privacy. And privacy is one of the cornerstones of real freedom. That's what I think at least. If you differ in oppinion, that's your perogative of course.
@BiggsDarkstar : this video does not go in-depth enough and leaves out a lot of questions to be answered,but you have to understand that the emphasis on non-hierarchical structures and on education as well will strongly influence community values. small communities working together relies on direct democratic forms of decision making, that'll be done thru consensus. It puts you in control of your life and your living conditions. there's more to be said, but not enough room here.
Teched, I think there's an issue of miscommunication here. I did not say that you deemed anything unacceptable - I meant that I agree with the statement that deeming something unacceptable isn't enough on its own. One has to act on it, too. Also, I never once said that issues of an individual's security in an anarchistic society should be grounds not to pursue anarchy. Solutions to the concerns of individual security and the security of the "revolution" should be PART of that pursuit.
The basis for needing a system of justice and civil defence is more than 5000 years of collective human history that says we must organize ourselves to create a fair and free society. We won't end violent coersion or economic exploitation unless we as a community deem it to be unacceptable, NOT by deeming it to be outside the community's concern. As for why we need a self-organized civil defence, I think Paris, Catalonia, Kronstadt, and Ukraine answer that for me.
@Houshalter "Prevent teens from working."?Where I live teens work .They did when I was a teen,when my son was a teen and now my teen grand-daughter`s contempories do.Where do you live that doesn`t permit them?The laws aren`t targeted at teens,they are for the protection of younger children.No fast food chains/teen clothing stores where you live-if yes,who`s behind the counter?
I suggested the means of production be owned by the producers (i.e. laborers). Ownership of the means of production by any other person or group creates a situation in which exploitation and coercion are inevitable. Basically, you end up with the wage system wherein laborers are forced to rent themselves to owners (private investors) in order to survive.
i agree with everything in the video, but i'd add to the bit where you were explaining what it is at the start some thing like one of the definitions on wikipedia. "Acting without waiting for instructions or official permission... The root of anarchism is the single impulse to do it yourself: everything else follows from this."
@thewulfone Added to that, the main principles of socialism do not include a state, they simply refer to the popular control of the means of production. That can be seen in the light of many means, one of which was the government control. Communism is even more wide-ranging than that, encompassing everything from council-systems to the Leninist system of political control. Don't attempt to judge such complex political systems based on a few examples.
i have many times referred to the native american tribes, so its good to hear i am not alone, but what i meant was that you said that every person can make his own choices without hurting anyone else, but he still hurt them. they are dead, gone, what could be done to stop this before it happens? certainly not a sort of governing, not the state police, not the local posse, so what can we do? the question stands, even with your complex reply.
@fonkytommy I think there could be, but a consumer society with as much different brands as we have today wouldn't be practical, I think. But in exchange I think you would have much more regional specialities, like every town has its own beer or such. But that wouldn't be a brand, but just referring to the place where the product was made.
You know..I never understood it..But now i think i got the basic idea..And i actually like it. Small communities, looking out for one another, without anybody else to rule over. That sounds better than anything else in this world! Thank you for educating me! -JD
I agree that privacy is a cornerstone of real freedom. I'm not saying share toothbrushes, I'm saying that there is no need for private individuals to claim ownership of resources that everyone needs, as this creates rich and poor. If everyone has access to free toothbrushes, then who would bother to claim 'this is MY toothbrush', when it would simply be 'the toothbrush that I currently use'. No-one else would want it, and it doesn't need to be privately owned.
@SlipAllCityToy Don't take it seriously about what I wrote . I don't think that anarchy should work very well in a country.I believe that if a government is centralized , the society will be more organized . Another thing is that the state is beneficial for the people because it can provide social security , education , health and sometimes housing for FREE. On the other hand , anarchy state which is decentralized has many malfunctions such as the fragile defence from the ''enemy'' countries .
@eltotoloco69 You can always gold/silver, the stuff that has been currency longer than a fiat dollar system which couldn't exist in an anarchy. Also you never know what may turn up to be a currency, I played a video game called Fallout 3 and it takes place in a world where there was nuclear winter, so Anarchy all across the world. The currency of the game are bottlecaps, so in theory there could be a currency system that a community could enstate such as bottelcaps and it could catch on.
Things unused by anyone are property of the community, but if someone builds a house f.e. on an unused slice of land, that becomes his. He made it not only with his own hands, no he required it by using it. If someone else wants to live there "You can always build another house, if I take this!" is not a valid argument. And think of children: "Give me your teddy, and get another one!" just wont work. So I think things become private property, when they are in use by anyone.
I agree... the ultimate new era of absolute freedom, where man can govern themselves, where we can roam free, the people of many come together, and turn our backs on the people of few... but these people have few have created so much division.. so many teachers... more teachers means more systems, more systems means more division... "Teacher! Leave us kids alone!" --pink floyd
Well the victim could get away, and want to get back at their would be murderer, but no I meant: "defense, and/or retaliation from the victim, or their family *respectively*" For example the family of a murder victim could hire a detective to find the murderer, or it could be part of the agreement with the victim's insurance company. Regardless the insurance company would want to catch the murderer before they strike again to avoid having to potentially pay out another life insurance claim.
Your confusion likely stems from the word hierarchy. Translated from Greek hierarchy means "holy ruler." There are no holy rulers in capitalism. In modern English hierarchy simply means an organization structure. Hierarchies can even be horizontal. There are a number of peaceful, voluntary hierarchies in the world: Doctor - Patient. Parent - Child. Mentor - Student. Experienced - Inexperienced. Employer - Employee. The list goes on.
Those of misunderstanding can find a great deal of intellectual relief in "The Peoples History of the United States". It's a grueling read if your really paying attention but Zinn is a great and clear writer. You may come to realize anarchy is the only solution to the corruption and greed of what is now absolute power. Those who do not understand history are doomed to repete it.
no no, its not that any one can take anything from anyone, its that nobody can take anything from anybody. that small change does make the difference, in the fact that objects arent everyones, nothing is anybodies. i know, its confusing.
@BiggsDarkstar "If Community C invades B, are all the other communities going to join in and stop them? What if F decides that they will be better off if C wins? Then F helps C instead of fighting against them." Still not enough. You need at least 50% of other places around to even have the possibility that F and C would dominate.
(sorry for my bad english) I have a little question to do: if a community doesn't have nothing to barter (maybe it is a poor and arid land) how can it survive?
to be honest with you, I liked the video. However, at this point of time the system that exists in the world is pretty much perfect from the perspective point of view. People are used at their best, and the more they used the more they like to be used. The advanced society feeds by the developing and 3d world countries. Of course there are some issues with that. BUT, let us think, what do we do maintain the society? Thanx for the video ;)
Anarchy (Αναρχία) is a greek word and the analyzation of the word is the prefix a (in greek when it is in front of a word a means without) and the word "αρχή" = rule So, there it comes αναρχία = anarchy
in an anarchistic society there is no public nor private property. Thereis no property. Just land and all the goods it povides. And having an army is not a bad idea 'cause maybe another capitalistic country might want to attack you.
anarchy is simply the lack of a government in a territory, it could be capitalist as well.
MrSharko12 no it cant. it is a lack of rulers. Capitalism is dependant on hierachy and rulers.
Anon Chub capitalism is a free market economic system, it can be done in an anarchy
MrSharko12 no, it cant exist capitalim without hierarchy
¡ Radubuntu ! anarchy isn't wealth equality, it is moral equality.
anarchy can and more likely be a capitalist society since no authority would manage to accomplish a collective system.
I am an Anarchist and wish to thank you for attempting to show people that we are not all violent and chaotic.
the green man dances with us, along our journey, wailing caterwauls of grace
like the waterfalls, we are singing, speaking like the tides, to the waters, where the surf revives
the truth, everything has always been anarchy, yet we've gotten on well enough
the love inside us we found was stronger, when we gave up and thrust all to the winds,
the love inside us gave us wings, we flew again,
@FuCuMao The wheat is mass produced and sent to factories where it is broken down and mixed with ingredients from many other locations. The bread is then shipped to various locations, passes quality control, is packed/labeled and finally arrives at the store. This complex interaction would be impossible without leadership on many levels.
Cool. Interesting that you see it as an intermediary while I always envisioned it as an eventual goal. Like the light at the end of a tunnel. Two questions: 1) What do you see on the other side of the "inter period"? 2) There are many flavors of anarchism being proposed (primarily differences in economic theory). What interests you?
I like that you admit imperfection. I think a lot of the people arguing just get hung up on absolutes.
It all depends on whether it is justifiable or not. How did you acquire these means of production, and how does this production affect other members of society?
Private ownership is primarily concerned with private profit, often at the expense of large segments of the community, whereas communal ownership obviously has different priorities.
"As far as I understand it, the word actually has the same root as the word polite. It is the art of conveying information in a politic way, in a way that will be discrete and diplomatic and will offend the least people. And basically we’re talking about spin. Rather than being purely a late 20th, early 21st century term, it’s obvious that politics have always been nothing but spin"
Alan Moore
You can't distinguish between private, and personal property. I've yet to meet a left anarchist who can. Generally the argument is that means of production should be owned communally, but then how do you define a means of production? Aside from obvious examples like 3D printers. A toaster produces toast. A car produces transportation. A house produces shelter, and comfort. Who draws the line? The problem is that whoever draws the line between personal, and private property becomes the state.
Thank you for the very informative video. And your English isn't bad at all! But, as you had stated in your video, right now is not a good time for anarchy. When would there be a good time for anarchy? How would this become an appropriate solution? I'd love to hear your opinion, because I'm so unsure myself! Thanks, and have a wonderful day.
Dude, I love your voice.
bruh
The problem of the anarchist model you show is it could easily just be a localised and syndicated form of capitalism with localised class structures and divisions still existing (unless everyone had commodities of equal worth) . Anarchism relies too heavily on arch liberal ideas of a fixed human nature, maybe one in an inverted form presented in Adam Smith's 'Wealth of Nations", but that has an ahistorical almost religious basis.
as an anarchist i found your video to be very good and your explanation was spot on
Interesting topic but I have a few questions if the viewer(s) may allow me.
1). So no form of government would also include rules?
2). What about if an individual does a crime? how would anarchy handle this situation?
3). And what about currencies and external trades?
P.S. Greetings and Salutations.
So correct me if I'm getting this wrong: The video proposes getting rid of a big territorial monopolist on violence and replacing it with a lot of small ones? That's not anarchy. Yes, it's miles better than what we have now, but it's still statism on a smaller scale.
Why won't you allow for competing law enforcement agencies and arbiters that need to be contracted? There is no conceivable way these entities could wage war, but there are tons of examples of states, however small, doing it.
Trying to get a self-sufficient household is always a good idea, even if you don't really want society to change. Fact is: Society will most probably change sometime, and if you aren't dependent of it, you'll sleep much better, when/if the shit hits the fan.
The smiley face is an anarchistic symbol? I didn't know that. Oo
Hayek doesn't speak for all Austrians economists. Murray Rothbard was the first openly anarchistic Austrian economist.
Are you familiar at all with fraternal societies? They were also called friendly societies in the UK. They were in effect crowd funded insurance companies for the less fortunate, and historically they worked beautifully until they were bullied out of the market by state social programs. When the people have less disposable income due to taxation, they donate less to charity.
Another important distinction between statism and what I'm arguing is that the state prosecutes crime in the legal context (because a piece of paper says "______ is against the law"), so there's no basis for what is or isn't a crime (and in the statist's eyes, what is or isn't moral) other than what a group of politicians motivated by self-interest want.
In an anarchist society should address crime in the moral context only, and that the "harm principle" should be the basis for what is criminal
The problem with this description of anarchy is that it keeps in mind society. If you have communities, rulership is inevitable. The farthest that society should extend is family within the shortest direct lineage; no more than father, mother and children. That is true anarchy.
@thewulfone You're missing the point. Anarcho-Communism/Socialism aren't attempts to take communism and socialism and simply add them to an anarchic system, they're attempts to take the class equality in socialist or communist system and change them into stateless systems. (Anarcho-communism is also known as free communism.)
It takes the guiding ideas of direct democracy and people's councils and charges them with aiding the natural equal distribution of wealth.
@takenpie No- Oligarchy means that few people rule over many people. The example "that he offered" shows many people all ruling themselves.
“But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.”
-Lysander Spooner
That entirely depends on which anarchist perspective you're coming from. There's validity in each instance.
The video doesn't touch on the organization structure of the communities in question. I imagine they're voluntary though, i.e. individuals aren't forced to do anything, and these "councils" simply represent the collective voice of those who support them, i.e. if 10,000 people want to say something it doesn't make sense for them all to speak.
an important thing to take into consideration is the greed factor.
we have to eliminate what causes greed .. which is scarcity.
Please clarify my doubts on one thing. As there is no policeman or law in the state, how are criminals treated there? How can petty thieves be handled in such a state? Will the community councils decide what needs to be done to such people? Will there be punishments/prisons/death sentences in such a state?
You're English is good enough to get thew idea across in under 5 minutes. Thank you for this video, the people need it.
Fire departments could be like most ambulance services are now. Private companies that bill insurance. They could operate out of the same firehouses, with the same brave selfless firefighters, just owned by a business instead of a city. They wouldn't be subject to dreaded city budget cuts. They could also be completely volunteer community services, like many small towns currently have, with fundraising to pay for equipment and fuel. There are lots of options.
LOL I liked it! I didn't really know what anarchists talk about until I saw your video.
wow you simplified it so much I cant believe it Great job man!
The thing is that in an anarchist society no one would be able to dictate "We shall have communism." or "We shall have capitalism." These systems can only come about through the net effect of human action. I imagine nations that have historically had state communism will have anarcho communism. Whereas nations that have historically had state capitalism, or corproatism will have anarcho capitalism. People will use whatever economic theory they know best.
Yes, it happened, but always only for a limited time. That's the whole catch at it: Wait long enough and it desolves from the inside or someone from the outside forces it to stop, even if it once worked great.
In the words of the wise Taoist Sage, Lao Tzu ""There has been such a thing as letting mankind alone; there has never been such a thing as governing mankind with success"
i like the fact that he took a completely unbiased stance on the "IDEAS" of anarchy and an anachronistic society i tip my hat you you sir
Anarchy doesn't mean without rules in Ancient Greek.ΑνΑρχία comes from αν which means "Not,Without" and Αρχή which means authority.So Anarchy means "Without Authority".
You didn't mention the event in which C becomes allies with the other 'councils', and they become unstoppable. Which is how nations are born and anarchy doesn't survive.
Sure, there would be a few giant chain schools. They would probably offer a wide selection of coursework, extracurricular options, and low prices. There would also be little neighborhood schools, elite specialty schools, more opportunities for home schools, super affordable charity schools, traveling private tutors, etc. This would be a great opportunity for non-profit organizations. And the lack of regulation would put control back in the hands of parents and teachers. It would be great!
No, voluntary hierarchies (modern definition) can still exist in anarchy. For example: If you,and 10 of your friends decide that Bob should decide something for your group that's perfectly acceptable since it's the net result of the free will of every individual in the group.
"Private property" is a concept of Anarcho-capitalism, which isn't Anarchism at all. Property implies that one can own something like a factory , and use it to exploit the workers, when the "Owner" of the factory gets profit off of the backs of the workers, he himself does nothing. There would however, be processions such as your house, TVs, Cars, etc. Other than that pretty good.
very realist interpretation, an anarchist society would not know the concept of ownership which thus makes trade and war impossible. Anyways, I am sorry cant take this vid serious, its really depthless. By the way, is your name Werner Herzog?
You suggested that the means of production would be publicly owned, which lends its self to the idea that goods would no longer allocated by the laws of supply and demand; this would not happen in absence of a body to enforce it. Regulation of the free market needs to be centralized in order to be effective, whilst a lack of accountable government institutions and law enforcement and leave a power vacuum anyone could fill, most likely those with the greatest wealth.
The video mistakenly notes that "private property" would exist in an anarchistic society. In fact, while "personal property" would of course remain, the claim of "private property" from an anarchist perspective is invalid. For instance, private control of energy production, infrastructure, telecommunications, factories...in an anarchist society an overwhelming majority would see all these as illegitimate. They would argue that the legitimate owners are not the bosses, but the workers themselves!
Thank you for bringing this to us.
I am quite surprised to see all the "hum this is not possible right now, we need rules to be able to live in society" and it reminds me of the phrase "any society that is willing to abandon a little bit of its freedom to gain security will loose both".
I am a bit dissapointed that your description doesn't mention once the term "oppression". Oppression is the natural result of any non-anarchic society.
Oppression is what anarchists fight against.
We should also not forget that an important principle in anarchy os the one of solidarity. Trade is important of course but if community A needs a new road community B would want to co-operate with them to build that road as they would feel that both them and community A are members of a higher community and would of course expect reciprocity at a later stage
@thewulfone Alrighty.
Thanks for taking the time to debate with me as you did.
I like the idea of everyone leaving each other alone in peace. If you want to help out you can, if not you are not foreced to. Don't want to pay taxes, don't. Don't want to work, don't.
@xXThePanzerXx Oh no, i think we all care about life. Sometimes we even think of same things but with different names. I don't know how to call mine if it isn't called "Arnachy". And can you share a little bit about your political view? Which is the best?
In theory, some people would form councils and discuss what to do. That would not be anarchy then. Anarchy only works under direct democracy. And this version is in line with some anarchistic ideas but quite misunderstood.
"An anarchist is anyone who doesn't need a cop to tell him what to do."
"Anarchy" is to be against "archy". "Archy" is whatever you don't like. What one calls a "power relationship" is opinion.
So these anarchist regimes used councils to rule itself. Doesn't that make it not an anarchist state? The council creates a state-like hierarchy. Now I am not opposed to hierarchy, but only state hierarchy as it is achieved through violence.
And when the private property is limited, how is it to be limited? Can it not only be limited through force?
And I will certainly look up the documentary you mentioned. Sounds very interesting.
I is not going to read all comments. But, this be probably the best/easiest explanation of anarchy I have ever read or seen.
What if they already have tractors, and machines? What incentive do they have to give their food that they produce away? What's to prevent another city from paying the farmers for more food?
It's important to note that when you say, "this would happen," or "that would happen," you are just expressing possibilities. The truth is that, under anarchy, everyone would do what they thought best, and no one can predict exactly what that would look like. It's still useful to suggest possibilities, though, because most people can't begin to imagine life without a parasitic ruling class.
Personally, I think that questions of individual and/or collective security are the most pressing ones anarchists have to address. I think in an anarchy, individuals need to organize themselves from the ground up for their common defence, both physically and "spiritually" (ie, the "spirit", moral or character of the new society) - certainly NOT in the framework of a state, but there are non-hierarchical alternatives that have been practiced in history, such as the Durruti Column in Spain.
Anarchy simply means no rulers. An employer is not a ruler, your choice to trade your labor with one employer or another, or to be self employed is your choice alone. All human interactions are hierarchical; the question isn't whether an interaction is hierarchical, it's whether it's voluntary, or coercive.
Didnt mention one thing. WHO is gonna take the potential materials the area C has? I dont think there can be a fair divide of uncountable things...
"councils" = govt.
who gets to be on these councils? how are they picked? if i disagree with the council what happens? coming up with a fair way of answering these questions leads us to some form of democracy.
@dlstb Can you tell me why it stop at nation-level. Why it doesn't go further to world - level or galaxy-level or even universal??
Exactly. The question of all social and political movements is, how are these legal bodies framed? In statism (liberalism, conservatism, Marxism), they are framed hierarchically because statists say people cannot be trusted to effectively deal with the problems themselves, and the result of that structure is oppression, exploitation and corruption.
I argue that in anarchy, the people themselves should organize non-hierarchically and act as the legal body which addresses moral criminality.
technically speaking, a government is an entity that has the power to control human behavior within a specified geographical area. So institutions or individuals, like the "councils" mentioned in the video, could exist, but they wouldn't have any authority over the people in the area.
Exactly.
I'd one day like to get my friends together, whom I with share a common vision of freedom, and just travel somewhere as a band of free people.
On another thought, if the world was filled with anarchy, how would space missions be possible?
Anarchy seems fine when you think of it in best-case scenario with everyone wanting to help out, no one taking advantage of others, but when one community makes alliances with other communities and decides to want more power, then you're all the way back to a ruler. Seems like a fun idea until you realize the realistic human desire for power.
There is this notion in my head I kept thinking for years, and it only was conceptualized awhile ago. Its that Anarchy really begins at home. haha
First we sustain ourselves, then we support our neighbors to sustain themselves, until we promote self-management and common sharing for everyone.
Anarchism is not only that banner that the CNT-FAI used (the black and white), but also that iconic smiley that Harvey Ball designed. right? =)
@glamedrehl
Also, I should have said that in an anarchy it's very difficult to START a war (not just prosecute one). Since there is no authority or centralized power structure, no one has the ability to "declare" war on everyone's behalf. There is no way to draft soldiers. There is no way to force thousands of people to leave their homes and go kill other people.
Also in anarchy you wouldn't have nations, so all conflicts would be hyper-local, say, stealing resources, then leaving (ie., raids).
In anarchy, a "council" doesn't exist. Roads would be built by those with resources, and the need to have roads. Not that it would matter in this age, if a gov't dissolves into anarchy, the roads already exist, and would be repaired by those (business or other private party) that want/need/desire them to be fixed and have the ability to do so.
Even if large groups would arise, there would be nothing to stop anybody from leaving. Remember, anarchy is the practice of voluntary interaction.
@Atalay, thanks for your reply.
I agree that many of today's crimes are because of capitalist system.
But my point is, for example, if there are petty crimes like stealing or robbing or if there is a serious crime like someone kills someone for personal reasons, such crimes are going to be there pretty much what kind of system we have, how can such situations be handled, if we don't have law in the state? In the absence of law what will be our basis to try such people?
Let me put it like this, for you and Tsukae too: Not even in an anarchistic society would all people share the same toothbrush. Private property to some degree is necessary. Without your own possesions in a modern society you wouldn't have privacy. And privacy is one of the cornerstones of real freedom.
That's what I think at least. If you differ in oppinion, that's your perogative of course.
@BiggsDarkstar : this video does not go in-depth enough and leaves out a lot of questions to be answered,but you have to understand that the emphasis on non-hierarchical structures and on education as well will strongly influence community values. small communities working together relies on direct democratic forms of decision making, that'll be done thru consensus. It puts you in control of your life and your living conditions. there's more to be said, but not enough room here.
Teched, I think there's an issue of miscommunication here. I did not say that you deemed anything unacceptable - I meant that I agree with the statement that deeming something unacceptable isn't enough on its own. One has to act on it, too. Also, I never once said that issues of an individual's security in an anarchistic society should be grounds not to pursue anarchy. Solutions to the concerns of individual security and the security of the "revolution" should be PART of that pursuit.
The basis for needing a system of justice and civil defence is more than 5000 years of collective human history that says we must organize ourselves to create a fair and free society. We won't end violent coersion or economic exploitation unless we as a community deem it to be unacceptable, NOT by deeming it to be outside the community's concern. As for why we need a self-organized civil defence, I think Paris, Catalonia, Kronstadt, and Ukraine answer that for me.
@Houshalter "Prevent teens from working."?Where I live teens work .They did when I was a teen,when my son was a teen and now my teen grand-daughter`s contempories do.Where do you live that doesn`t permit them?The laws aren`t targeted at teens,they are for the protection of younger children.No fast food chains/teen clothing stores where you live-if yes,who`s behind the counter?
I suggested the means of production be owned by the producers (i.e. laborers). Ownership of the means of production by any other person or group creates a situation in which exploitation and coercion are inevitable. Basically, you end up with the wage system wherein laborers are forced to rent themselves to owners (private investors) in order to survive.
i agree with everything in the video, but i'd add to the bit where you were explaining what it is at the start some thing like one of the definitions on wikipedia. "Acting without waiting for instructions or official permission... The root of anarchism is the single impulse to do it yourself: everything else follows from this."
@thewulfone Added to that, the main principles of socialism do not include a state, they simply refer to the popular control of the means of production. That can be seen in the light of many means, one of which was the government control.
Communism is even more wide-ranging than that, encompassing everything from council-systems to the Leninist system of political control.
Don't attempt to judge such complex political systems based on a few examples.
i have many times referred to the native american tribes, so its good to hear i am not alone, but what i meant was that you said that every person can make his own choices without hurting anyone else, but he still hurt them. they are dead, gone, what could be done to stop this before it happens? certainly not a sort of governing, not the state police, not the local posse, so what can we do? the question stands, even with your complex reply.
@fonkytommy I think there could be, but a consumer society with as much different brands as we have today wouldn't be practical, I think. But in exchange I think you would have much more regional specialities, like every town has its own beer or such. But that wouldn't be a brand, but just referring to the place where the product was made.
You know..I never understood it..But now i think i got the basic idea..And i actually like it.
Small communities, looking out for one another, without anybody else to rule over.
That sounds better than anything else in this world!
Thank you for educating me!
-JD
I agree that privacy is a cornerstone of real freedom. I'm not saying share toothbrushes, I'm saying that there is no need for private individuals to claim ownership of resources that everyone needs, as this creates rich and poor. If everyone has access to free toothbrushes, then who would bother to claim 'this is MY toothbrush', when it would simply be 'the toothbrush that I currently use'. No-one else would want it, and it doesn't need to be privately owned.
@SlipAllCityToy Don't take it seriously about what I wrote . I don't think that anarchy should work very well in a country.I believe that if a government is centralized , the society will be more organized . Another thing is that the state is beneficial for the people because it can provide social security , education , health and sometimes housing for FREE. On the other hand , anarchy state which is decentralized has many malfunctions such as the fragile defence from the ''enemy'' countries .
@HawkBasham well i think that in these cases it would prevale the rule of the strongest, don't you agree with me?
@eltotoloco69 You can always gold/silver, the stuff that has been currency longer than a fiat dollar system which couldn't exist in an anarchy. Also you never know what may turn up to be a currency, I played a video game called Fallout 3 and it takes place in a world where there was nuclear winter, so Anarchy all across the world. The currency of the game are bottlecaps, so in theory there could be a currency system that a community could enstate such as bottelcaps and it could catch on.
@OTM19 Thats cute. Did you make that up yourself or did some "big person" tell you to think that?
Things unused by anyone are property of the community, but if someone builds a house f.e. on an unused slice of land, that becomes his. He made it not only with his own hands, no he required it by using it. If someone else wants to live there "You can always build another house, if I take this!" is not a valid argument.
And think of children: "Give me your teddy, and get another one!" just wont work.
So I think things become private property, when they are in use by anyone.
Bane from the dark knight rises will now teach you the meaning of "Anarchy" pay attention.
I agree... the ultimate new era of absolute freedom, where man can govern themselves, where we can roam free, the people of many come together, and turn our backs on the people of few... but these people have few have created so much division.. so many teachers... more teachers means more systems, more systems means more division... "Teacher! Leave us kids alone!" --pink floyd
Well the victim could get away, and want to get back at their would be murderer, but no I meant:
"defense, and/or retaliation from the victim, or their family *respectively*"
For example the family of a murder victim could hire a detective to find the murderer, or it could be part of the agreement with the victim's insurance company. Regardless the insurance company would want to catch the murderer before they strike again to avoid having to potentially pay out another life insurance claim.
Your confusion likely stems from the word hierarchy. Translated from Greek hierarchy means "holy ruler." There are no holy rulers in capitalism. In modern English hierarchy simply means an organization structure. Hierarchies can even be horizontal. There are a number of peaceful, voluntary hierarchies in the world: Doctor - Patient. Parent - Child. Mentor - Student. Experienced - Inexperienced. Employer - Employee. The list goes on.
Anarchy that doesn't lead to a system with rules leads to chaos.
"When C is stopped, everything goes back to normal."
So... uh.. what happens if C isn't stopped?
If individualism and freedom is anarchy, then I'm proud to call myself an anarchist.
Yes, I am very familiar with it. Did you know that traditional anarchists regard "anarcho-capitalism" to be oxymoronic?
Those of misunderstanding can find a great deal of intellectual relief in "The Peoples History of the United States".
It's a grueling read if your really paying attention but Zinn is a great and clear writer. You may come to realize anarchy is the only solution to the corruption and greed of what is now absolute power. Those who do not understand history are doomed to repete it.
no no, its not that any one can take anything from anyone, its that nobody can take anything from anybody. that small change does make the difference, in the fact that objects arent everyones, nothing is anybodies. i know, its confusing.
@BiggsDarkstar
"If Community C invades B, are all the other communities going to join in and stop them? What if F decides that they will be better off if C wins? Then F helps C instead of fighting against them."
Still not enough. You need at least 50% of other places around to even have the possibility that F and C would dominate.
(sorry for my bad english) I have a little question to do: if a community doesn't have nothing to barter (maybe it is a poor and arid land) how can it survive?
to be honest with you, I liked the video.
However, at this point of time the system that exists in the world is pretty much perfect from the perspective point of view. People are used at their best, and the more they used the more they like to be used.
The advanced society feeds by the developing and 3d world countries. Of course there are some issues with that.
BUT, let us think, what do we do maintain the society?
Thanx for the video ;)
Anarchy (Αναρχία) is a greek word and the analyzation of the word is the prefix a (in greek when it is in front of a word a means without) and the word "αρχή" = rule So, there it comes αναρχία = anarchy
@Synochra Please give me the link to some article about anarchy in Spain, that sounds interesting.
The only reason this doesn't work is because no one is willing to try it, and some that are misunderstand it, resorting to chaos and such.