@youtubeShadowBan free market ideology is based on right-libertarian ideas like Ayn Rand's Objectivism. Libertarianism used to be another name for anarchism, but it was largely co-opted by the new wave of right wing anarchists, who believe in no state to restrict the market. For what happens next, play Bioshock.
Intellectual property is a tool of enslavement. It's not conceived to help inventors. It's conceived to make someone with money owns inventions which they can't create on their own. Without IP law, inventors will be funded in a different which will make technology open and free to be modified and improve. IP laws enrich bankers. Not inventors.
@youtubeShadowBan You can replicate food and physical objects actually, the first one is called gardening and the second one is what happens when you dont violently enforce hoarding of technology that gets people killed who cant afford their medication and prevents people from building technology that would save lives if it were legal to replicate it
@@pipsantos6278 the most annoying thing is when people say "but people wont invent stuff if they cant get rich off of it" Like maybe we dont need more plastic infomercial kitchen gadgets anyway, and if we actually NEED something someone will invent it for its own sake.
He is wrong about Anarchists following 'DIRECT DEMOCRACY". Rather, they follow VOLUNTARYISM. In an anarchy, no one is forced to do anything they don't want to do. Democracies force the minority to comply with what the majority wants. What works the best is consensus and letting those that want to do something do it without forcing others to do so if they'd rather not. Check out Larken Rose author of THE MOST DANGEROUS SUPERSTITION and other books and many videos for the definitive explanation of anarchism.
Emily BH This is a very new conception of anarchism invented in the last 50 years by Murray Rothbard. The older (and better) version of anarchism focuses on removing hierarchy, not coercion
@@mr.goldfish1530 Anarchy= No rulers or without rulers; Monarchy=one ruler; Oligarchy=a few rulers. That is it. End of story. Just remember what your prefixes mean. "A" means "without" or "away". It doesn't mean craziness or chaos.People need to remember their Latin and Greek. @Drew Genel
Anarchism is literally the next step to human evolution, in some distant future we will look upon this current system and ask ourselves how could we live in such twisted modern day slavery
@John Smith you are so right I agree with you completely. Disregard the rest of my comment. Bro ain't nobody here talking about leading nations. It's precisely the opposite; to NOT have political leaders at all.
Some Ted Talks are sorely disappointing; this is a good one. I wish Anarchism was better known around the world, as there's an awful lot of disinformation about it, and this disinformation is wanted, planned and even well funded...
Well then, How about we go around and spread our ideals of a world where Power and Hierarchy serves the common man, not the other way around? Nobody will know until we speak.
Too bad he described the political system of an anarchy wrong. it technically is not a democracy at all. It is strictly voluntary ruled by consensus. People do only what they volunteer to do and are not forced to do anything by the majority as is the case in any democracy.
@@emilybh6255 That's not really true, it strives to reach as much consensus as possible. Anarchists generally understand that large communities will still have informal guidelines or rules towards social conduct. Anarchists will also accept ostracism or excommunication for people consistently freeloading off the labour of the community without contributing their own.
@@emilybh6255 anarchy isn't necessarily the total elimination of all heirarchy all the time, if you're on a boat in a storm it could be helpful since the participants are under a good deal of duress and making a decision while doing work and panicking about the storm would be unhelpful. However, that structure would indeed need to be voluntary and justified. However for any form of policy that requires national action, a democratic assembley would probably be needed so as to both reach a decision for the nation or other form of group and give people a say in how that solution should work.
I am an anarchist since I can recall. I had a small phase of a year in which I almost got convinced I was naive and would "grow up", but after having experienced capitalist and misogynistic violence directly I am now more convinced and comfortable with the ideas I always thought were the future would prove to be right, not perfect, but striving for the end of opression and exploitation of humans and other beings in the world. Anarchism is happening naturally step by step. Violence is not needed for Anarchism to exist, it's capitalism or totalitarian socialism those that are forced and based on the power of a few imposed on the many.
@Comrade Iggy If your don't like private property than you are a state, by definition. It non sense to say youbare an anarchist qnd acts like a state, giving orders about what someone should do with their property.
@Comrade Iggy You say that but when anarchism arises, the ancoms will be wondering why they are killing each other to dominate their hierarchy and starving to death. While ancaps will be well fed, secure and specialising in productive and meaningful work for others. You're just a communist, wearing an anti statist mask.
@@Anarcaeful And you're just an edgy conservative who thinks capitalism can be separated from the state, it cannot. Capitalism without the state is literally just feudalism, or something comparable to it.
Anarchism is how ancient humans lived, no authority no money, no laws. Just a community working for themselves and each other. The most simple yet the most efficient way, and our generation is living proof of its efficiency.
Kropotkin did reject communism, he believed that it would ultimately lead to tyranny and very successfully predicted what happened in the Soviet Union. He believed that communism brought equality but not liberty, but anarchist communism, which eliminates the state, would provide both.
@@woofdog464 Communism doesn't mean automatically an "Authorian System" like Stalinism and Leninism. That's the reason why Lenin was despised by western communists and people like Kropotkin or Bakunin.
Excellent introduction to some of the basic assumptions and practices of anarchism. The Democratic Federal System of Northern Syria (Rojava) is a model for the world to take seriously and build upon, it is based on the practice of Democratic Confederalism and the work of Murray Bookchin and Abdullah Ocalan. Get reading...
How do you suppose we spread this type of thing? I don't have FB now, but apparently they have some extreme filters for 'fake news' now. It seems to me that the only barrier to real positive change/revolution is dissemination. I think most working class people (and others?) would likely be joining the cause if they just had the information. In a way, it's the only problem that needs to be solved so that change can be unleashed. There are obviously intentional and unintentional barriers to the dissemination of this information, and we have to work around/through them in some way(s.) We can't expect to turn to traditional/mainstream journalists or the media, since more than 90% of it (TV, radio, newspapers, and periodicals,) are now owned by just six corporations (6 billionaires.) The answer(s) to this may be the key?
I know my subscribers went up a lot when TH-cam started re-routing people away from important active ideas and solutions. I like having more subscribers but... I make anime music videos that isn't really equal to politics or even dialogue about anime.
Power dislikes these ideas. In S-pain you can go to prison for being anarchist (having an anarchist flag at home is considered terrorism with the right wind government law). I just shared it, I hope to not end up in prison.
o mucho me equivoco, o me temo que la idea de España en si es fascista. Desde sus orígenes con ese nombre lo ha sido (Reyes Católicos) hasta su nacionalismo moderno. Mucho tendría que cambiar la cosa para verlo de otro modo.
¿Avanzar al frente de qué? ¿De la ocupación de casas? ¿De la pereza institucionalizada? ¿De la colectivización de la pobreza? ¿De la glorificación del subdesarrollo? ¿De la épica inane de ideologías caducas? ¿Qué país me pones como ejemplo de esa vanguardia antifascista? No, gracias. Prefiero la aburrida UE.
Had a bit of an anarchism love affair at one point 5 years ago. Reading some books and whatnot. Life is complicated and I was led away into other things. However, seeing the recent celebration of state violence, I’m reminded of my time with anarchism. People begging for, and supporting the monopoly the state has on violence. “How dare you, expect the state to be held accountable for unjust violence against citizens. Oh, you want to meet and protest this violence and lack of responsibility? How about some more violence? We will not tolerate this.” People often ask, “If anarchism was successful, then why don’t we see more of it today?” Well, in my country, the Native American tribes were anarchist, and they were wiped out. The anarchist movement was growing as the industrial revolution took off. These people were crushed by the heads of industry, often employing the use of the National Guard or private agencies to massacre workers and their families who were tired of selling themselves.
Your last paragraph makes a very interesting point. Any given society does not live in a vacuum. Some Native American tribes did live in a mutualist/anarchist format. But they were obliterated by decisive, brutal action of a centralized group. The anarchism of these communities clearly worked as these communities existed for a very long time, but it failed to protect them when confronted with the onslaught of industrialized westerners. Obviously technological differences played a big role, but would the fight have been different if the tribes had been a single, centralized, organized society? In many ways I think the world is slowly moving to a landscape that is more conducive to true anarcho-mutualism. I don't believe Anarchism is something that can be forced. I believe Pierre-Joseph Proudhon was correct in his vision that ultimately people will lose trust and faith in government, start ignoring it, and begin acting locally, ultimately developing an anarcho-mutualist structure. I think he was probably a few hundred years off on his timeline though. Sooner or later we will all come to the conclusion that all these self important knobs are completely incompetent and incapable of fixing the world's problems and we'll just do what we can ourselves.
@@evelcustom9864 To clarify, one of the major reasons that the native americans were killed off was actually because of disease brought by colonizers. I read an interesting essay I while back that essentially hypothesized that disease was one of the main reasons why they lost to the colonizers, not industrial technology. I agree with the rest of your statement though.
@@urbaneblobfish that is a valid point, though I don't know the exact numbers when it comes to deaths of native Americans from European plagues. However, I was not just referring to Westerners when I said "decisive brutal action by a centralized group". I was also referring to other tribes, who were more militaristic, bigger and more organized. This seems to be more pronounced further south where Aztec, Inca, Maya, and other civilizations were built through warfare and conquest.
native american tribes were most definitely not anarchist. they operated in small hierarchical tribal structures. Anarchism is a joke, you can't organize a society with anarchism, anarchism doesn't allow the widespread effort to advance the species as a whole. Humans will always be human and will always exploit whatever system they're in and their greed will always negatively affect others. All anarchism would do is take away consequences for your actions. It's like the people who like anarchism never spent the time to research and understand why we have government in the first place. Tribal systems can be construed as anarchistic but they're really not, they have their own laws and leaders and hierarchy. But even still, some argue that society should look more tribal with no government or body to organize their society except local leaders. That works with a few dozen, maybe a few hundred people, but not with a few hundred million people. You'd have chaos everywhere.
@@avgvstvs96 I think you are operating from a very superficial, or even incorrect definition of Anarchism. There are some fringe types out there that claim Anarchism but are really isolationist individualists, aka Doomsday preppers, that is absolutely not Anarchism. The primary focus of Anarchism is the elimination of structural violence upon people by those in power. In fact, an-archism does not mean 'no government' it means no rulers. In general though, Anarchists do tend to believe in small community structures, not unlike native American tribes. There is nothing among their beliefs that is against hierarchical structure as long as it serves a good for the society.
It's worth mentioning that anarchism doesn't reject communism, in fact anarcho-communism was probably the largest section of the historical anarchist movement and it's the ideology that I personally hold to. Also Peter Kropotkin, who he mentions in the video was an anarcho-communist, in fact Kropotkin is probably the most influential ancom in history. It's true that anarchists reject the model of the Soviet Union, just as we reject capitalism, but anarchists don't inherently communism because communism is a stateless, classless, moneyless society in which the means of production are held in common and distribution of goods and services and contributions to society and others are done voluntarily on the basis of "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need." This does not contradict anarchism in any way and the model of the Soviet Union contradicts anarchism because it suggests using hierarchical power structures to create a non-hierachical, egalitarian society and those methods are not effective at creating that kind of a society because hierarchies exist to reinforce and perpetuate themselves, typically by any means necessary, including violence, which is also one of the problems with capitalism. The Soviet Union was not a communist society, even though they claimed that they hoped one day they would achieve a communist society, it was functionally a state-capitalist society. This is simply some additional information which I felt was worth bringing up.
Yep since I was 6yrs old. I knew Anarchism is the plain and simple way to bring equity, logic, and intelligence. I am an Anarcho Syndaclist. I am a self reliant human that has zero need for any form of hierarchy.
John Stockwell Major Smedley Butler You rely upon the market for food, a house you didn't make, law enforced by a state you deny the achievements of, water from a subterranean resevoir you don't own and internet from an ISP you would be happy to speak up against yet you've the audacity to say that.
Mortar & Pestle. We rely on farmers and butchers for food, a house built by construction workers and architects but “owned” by banks, clean water regulated by workers that all people need to survive but is treated like a privilege by private companies, and use the internet with the ~permission~ of ISPs with the knowledge that they can censor us if they want, to access websites built by programmers and technical workers. Workers give you everything you have, capitalists force you to pay *them* to use others’ creations and keep the value of that labor as “profit”.
I typed this out so i could take it on board: " What is Anarchism? ...First of all, Anarchism doesn't tell us that things will be alright in the end. Both Communism and Capitalism have in common this idea that it's all going to be okay if we keep doing it, we go through the pain now , eventually it is going to be good for everybody. Anarchism doesn't pretend that. It doesn't offer a blueprint for a utopian society (which, by the way, is inherently fascistic). Anarchism is a process. It is action. It is colloboration with people, without people having power over one another. Colloboration as equals. Everyone included in decision-making. It is work....unlike voting. Although i am sure you will agree that our current political system with politicians trading simplistic vulgar slogans about what to do about the world , and electoral politics and partisanship that seems to be more successfully dividing us than uniting us. The political system that we have today is more part of the problem than the solution. Anarchists propose direct democracy. This means everybody involved in the decisions that affect them. "
There are two serious critiques to this theory; first is the thought that when all employees of an enterprise are equally considered in business, that the business will make correct decisions, in a timely manner. Democracy in the true sense is rife with internal bickering, and generally 49% of your constituents will be upset at the outcome of any decision. Not to mention that in any democratic endeavor, a singular voice must coalesce into the many, and impart power among soft objectionalists that do not see eye to eye with the singular voice. Thus pure democracy can only result in the subjugation of the minority in favor of the majority. Power is never dissolved. The other aspect would pertain to worker involvement in businesses in general, and it’s affect on innovation. In our current system, when somebody decides to start a company, especially in manufacturing, the purchase of capital goods in the form of machines is necessary to make a product. When the owner of this business/machines brings workers to the business, your claim should be that they have an equal right to the profits of this business. But how could that be? Although these employees provide important labor to the company, they are not financially vested to this business. They can join and leave as they please, and are not subject to the loan payments, etc. created by the company. In this light why should they bear the raw fruit of this endeavor, while simultaneously bearing no cost? Anarchism by theory works well under the guise that the capitalist economy has created everything needed for humanity, and that now we only need to regulate it fairly. But that ignores the invite possibilities of innovation that are still to come. Things that will continue to improve our human condition. Only the true anarchy of capitalism can adapt to the changing world of innovation. If all decisions are left to majority rule, only the comfortably safe decisions by majority rule will remain, and innovation will suffer There can be only one system that utilizes the infinite wisdom of each and every member of society, and it can only be realized when the sovereignty of the individual is maximized. The recourse for how the sovereign individual interacts with the greater populace is still a subject of debate, and it is unclear whether it will ever be settled. But one thing is undeniable; humans are most happy when they are the majority or sole owners of their own destiny. Any less to them is a form of tyranny upon their souls
@@kylepratt1217 If the authority is justified and willingly bestowed, all your problems are solved for the most part. It's generally how larger cooperatives function. Chomsky says it best when he says anarchism is simply either the valid justification of authority or dissolution of it.
god, its wild to me that people think humans are capable of "collaboration as equals". What you describe is altruistic not anarchistic, humanity would destroy itself if it were truly anarchist. "everyone included in decision making" can be achieved several way and anarchism is definitely not the way. Your heart may be full of love and you might be governed by a strong moral compass but some people just aren't and these are the people who win in an anarchist system. its just wild to me. you guys have to learn more about human society and how organizational structures like governments aid in societal development. A simple way to see it is this - most governmental systems over the course of human history have been cruel authoritarian regimes. However, the benefits of an organizational structure outweighed the cons of loss of personal freedom for thousands and thousands of years. Such are the benefits an organizational structure brings to society. Humans have always been our own biggest threat. It's gonna be a LONG time before that changes, and forcing it through a "process" of anarchism is not gonna end well, the worst people will do everything they have to to fulfill their greed and lust for power. In an anarchist system, how are those who lust for power prevented from achieving it? One can theorize that there are systems in place, people who oversee things, but they are all only people. People can easily be corrupted or persuaded. Or killed. In a system with no codified rules and no organized enforcement, anything is possible.
...I think this was a great talk. As in the current state of affairs we need change, & positive change from the bottom up. I like how he was able to give good solid examples of where these systems are being utilized & where & how they are working.
I came to Anarchism the same way. It was a series of tests for the ideologies that were thrust upon me, until I came to ask the questions of whether they worked or even whether they should work. And from that resolution, I became an anarchist.
Captain Voluntaryist, The Statist Slayer I don’t want any kind of capitalism whatsoever. So, yes I am an anarchist, not the kind of anarchist you are. If that makes you happy, great.
Actually Lao Tzu already knew this 2000 years ago, he state it in the Dao De Jing, 無為而治, literally it means means “don’t do anything and things will be ordered” , basically it means if people can feel the existence of a government, it’s same as a person feeling his lungs when he’s breathing, which is a bad thing.
That makes sense, for me ideologies begin to sound recycled the more you hear about them, even when they shouldn’t exist by the historical knowledge where everything comes back after 100 years.
I've been an Anarchist for about 30yrs , the greatest power in the world today is corporate power . States are weak and do the bidding of corporations , I'm not against a state that provides services like education and healthcare , but I am against an ever growing police state . Fascism is the arch enemy of Anarchism , and fascism is the perfect marriage between states and corporations . Sounds like the world we live in , theirs no way that the people in power will let real change happen . If you call yourself an Anarchist , you'll just be ridiculed as some lunatic fringe some left wing thug that breaks bank window .
Point taken. It looks like Walmart just jumped into the political arena here in the US by lobbying the state for tighter gun control laws. They have also joined forces with Everytown for gun violence or whatever that organization is called, creating a new group of corporations who are all calling for tighter gun control laws. The money they can spend will not be ignored as politicians aim to increase their war chests. My prediction is that the corporations will lower their liability for not providing security in their buildings while at the same time helping (as they see it, anyway) to stabilize communities, which in turn helps to increase their profits.
@@emilybh6255 , evidently there are some anarchists who didn't get the memo. Well, more like socialists or communists who didn't get the whole "No Rulers" part.
@@frontporchanarchast No kidding. It isn't Rocket Science though. They should be able to figure it out on their own. It just shows how BRAINWASHED most people are. They couldn't think outside the box if their life depended on it. Obviously you aren't free as long as there are rulers stealing from you and telling you what you can and can't do.
Maybe we now stand a chance, as the world wide germ crisis reveals how useless and resistant our current government and politics are when it comes to the actual needs of the people. When they take matters into their own hand...anarchism is a valid model! Thank you for the inspiring talk!
ah yes, so people taking it into their own hands would've done a better job than governments even though individuals have no structures to organize aid and recovery efforts. Not to mention no vaccines would be developed in an anarchist society 🤣
For the good of the comments, when you hear his definition of communism he’s talking about the Soviet model. He praises communism as a stateless moneyless and classless society throughout the video. If anything, by doing this he appeals to a larger audience, who have experienced non stop red scare propaganda.
Yes dude exactly! These comment sections made me realize just how many people are uninformed or barely scratched the tip of the surface on anarchists schools of thought and anarchist history. Whether we like it or not globally the term communism has become synonymous with Marxism- Leninism, Bolshevism, & Stalinism. Extremely unlikely if you ask a random citizen in any country to define communism that they’ll describe anarcho-communism. Communism now means Stalinism and Marxism- Leninism, both of which anarchist do oppose so the orator is not wrong. Clearly differentiating anarcho-communism with the global modern interpretation of communism is very important Bolshevism (state communist) and anarcho-communist are in no way allies, so distancing ourselves from marxist- Leninist is strategically intelligent. My guess is that the orator knew this topic was more complex and decided to just mention the main point being that we are opposed to state communism & Bolshevism. No way that audience would easily digest all the nuances and specifics, you have to know how to appeal to non politically savvy people.
What sucks is when most people think of anarchism they think of people destroying stuff, arsonists, looters etc. but only a very tiny percent actually want that. Real anarchists just want less government control, and more individual freedoms. There are many flavours of anarchism that most people don't even realise are anarchist (for example I'm personally a democratic socialist) and I just wish people actually understood political ideology a bit more
agreed comrade - after all, they didn't teach me philosophy, politics or economics in school (where I come from they didn't anyway) and teachers who might try teaching, or even expressing an opinion, risk the professional equivalent of suicide by hemlock as punishment. In any case, would anything really be that much better if they did? What do you think?
I got a stroke when I heared 19th century anarchists would've rejected communism just seconds after mentioning Pjotr Kropotkin the originator of anarcho-communism. 😢 Why are we still in this "communism is when the government does stuff" thing. It's so sad...
@youtubeShadowBan its also destroying the planet, promoting wars, promotes MASSIVE inequality, 1% owns more than half the worlds wealth , democracy is non existent everything of importance is shaped by the whims of capital. Not sure what there is to celebrate it? The world is crumbling and completely alienating
@youtubeShadowBan A bunch of guys kept changing the definiton of poverty to make you think that capitalism lifted people out of poverty. Poverty is not having less than $2 a day, you need minimally $5-6 a day to live over the actual line extreme poverty (which means basic needs covered to possibly live 70 years), and more and more people are getting under that line over the years. Capitalism doesn't work
@youtubeShadowBan None of them exist. Well Socialist countries, that is (Socialism is Direct Democratic Control of the workplace, not State Capitalism. Or is Ancient Egypt socialist?)
@youtubeShadowBan Thats a big lie, And an old traditional mentality, in fact thats what the American dream says. Also i am a anarchist, and i want to end the government once and for all, So people are finally break the chains they have been holding to.
B.T. Peterson Yes that was an unfortunate way to put it, but Communism covers a lot of ground, and Kropotkin would have taken up arms against Stalin. By modern standards, Kropotkin was much more an anarchist than a soviet style communist.
Whether we like it or not globally the term communism has become synonymous with Marxism- Leninism, Bolshevism, & Stalinism. Extremely unlikely if you ask a random citizen in any country to define communism that they’ll describe anarcho-communism. Communism now means Stalinism and Marxism- Leninism, both of which anarchist do oppose so the orator is not wrong. Clearly differentiating anarcho-communism with the global modern interpretation of communism is very important Bolshevism (state communist) and anarcho-communist are in no way allies, so distancing ourselves from marxist- Leninist is strategically intelligent. My guess is that the orator knew this topic was more complex and decided to just mention the main point being that we are opposed to state communism & Bolshevism. No way that audience would easily digest all the nuances, you have to know how to appeal to non politically savvy people.
@@nevermind342 You make a good point, but I still think it could be worded a bit differently. Honestly, it made me a bit upset, since Kropotkin, for example, was 'as communist as it gets'. This co-optation of the terms in propaganda - libertarianism now being associated with ultra-individualistic ultracapitalists and communism now being associated with the Bolsheviks, or even worse, with Stalinism - is deeply saddening.
This is also very similar to Gandhi's blueprint of Panchayat Raj. He went from village to village making the villagers elect 5 people from their village to form a cabinet who decided how the village should be run.
i think BlockChain as a technology is establishing anarchy by firstly decentralizing the financial system and as a concept people are adopting decentralization which is pure anarchy...
Unfortunately most involved in the block chain technology are statists and are ok with the regulations and state control being instituted on this technology. It is becoming just another form of corporatism.
I too believe in the possibility to wrestle power from the institutions by way of BlockChain type technologies. But there will be a big fight to get there.
@@blueknight8700 if you don't believe in currency how do you accumulate capital to make big investments, like big industry? Or everyone in your region is going to be a farmer? Please explain me.
@@reinaldoeliasdesouzajunior2688 This is a good question, however it takes a lot of effort to answear, because it would require a long description of an anarchist society and it would vary based on which form of anarchism we are talking about. Fortunetely, there are a lot of written material on the topic that can help you, I could cite "An Anarchist FAQ" item I.4.8, which you can find easily on the internet. Also, I remind you that money is just a human construct used as means of exchange, there is no natural law that prohibits stuff being build without a means of exchange like money, if a sufficient number of people agree on the basic rules of a society that doesn't require money and has the means to channel resources into big projects, than it would be possible.
Anarchism is the answer. What he proposes however isn't anarchsim as he immediately defines it as a governmental structure. He is correct in his analysis of The State, but his prescription is simply another form of the same problem.
In an anarchy, the order comes from people letting each other live their lives without interfering with each other and by getting things done by volunteering to participate in an endeavor that brings about a reward. The key is VOLUNTARY. Everything is voluntary and done by consensus - not by direct democracy like the speaker said. Larken Rose has the definitive explanation of anarchy in his books including THE MOST DANGEROUS SUPERSTITION. He also has several videos that everyone that cares about being free should check out.
worth noting that what he is describing is how the original bible early church and christ operated! it didnt matter to them what the "system" did, as they knew they were empowered, individually, and community-wise.
Overall when you think about it, there is no such thing as a deliberate Anarchist. No one adopts Anarchist view points knowingly until someone points it out to them instead they adopt the views based on what they have seen from oppressive hierarchies. However this particular person used to be a diplomat, so it truly is amazing how this individual became an Anarchist. Besides that, the only deliberate "Anarchist" that I can think of, is a liberal or conservative who enjoys Anarchist tattoos, but that's not a real Anarchist.
The Lucas Plan showed the ability of workers to run things themselves, but the ability to self-manage and the reality remained distant. Self-management within a capitalist economy, while it can point towards a break with existing property relations, does not overcome those relations. Even the workers who did expropriate their bosses and run factories themselves still had to deal with the realities of capital and the commodity form, such as those at the Lip watch factory in the early '70s or in Argentina from 2001. Self-management in industry, without questioning the nature of the firm as an entity, commodity production as such, or destroying political power (as opposed to the Corbynist project of assuming it) has run up against these limits over and over again.
different dictionaries say different things. Usually they start with chaos etc and have the greek meaning, the only meaning as a small foot note at the bottom.
It's good to think of Anarchism in a practical and academic way. It really shows the positives to it, without all the politicized bullshit and the stigma. I've seen more interest in Anarchism than I ever have before, it seems people are moving past the stigma ingrained in us from a young age and are embracing it as a legitimate school of thought. Hopefully this trend will continue, if Antifa doesn't ruin it, first.
Their strategy of 'Black Bloc,' direct physical confrontation, is self-defeating. For the first time in close to a century, general disenfranchisement in the political process is causing an exploration of previously overlooked schools of thought, Anarchism being one of them. For too long has the entire ethos been reduced to violent aspiring revolutionaries assassinating people and planning bombings. That's been the general perception of it, but lately people are 'rediscovering' those philosophies and updating them, expanding on them. Antifa takes it back to that base, which will only work to sully Anarchism once again in the public's perception, and public perception DOES matter. In fact, public perception in any social/political Movement is the difference between success and failure. Anarchism is NOT just running around in all black and getting into fist fights, as fun as that may be, it's a legitimate school of thought that shouldn't need *indiscriminate* violence to stand up to scrutiny. People such as Murray Bookchin and Noam Chomsky have done a lot in moving Anarchism out of the 'Dark Ages' of the early 20th Century, Antifa has the capabilities to put it back there. In fact, I'd say it's one crackdown/Media smear campaign from that happening.
Keep in mind, I'm speaking purely about US Antifa, as that is all of the experience with the Movement that I have, and in particular, Antifa's relation to Anarchism (most of the groups I've operated with label themselves 'Anarcho-Communist, I'm not going to attempt to speak of its impact with other Radical Leftist ethos, because Anarchism is my 'thing' so to speak, that's what I'm primarily concerned with.) That said, I stick by my stance on violent resistance (though to me some strategic violence is definitely handy). Direct doesn't have to equate to immediate violence. Some of the problems I've seen Antifa ops encounter is related to this misconception. The riots in Berkeley, for example, are not comparable to the Spanish Civil War. They aren't even in the same ballpark. One was a military (however irregular) conflict, that carries a totally different goal as compared to this current phase of activism in the US (only speaking for the US). Not only that, but what we have here is a war of ideology. In that sort of conflict it's not how much ground is won or how many heads are smashed, it's how many people you win to your cause and I have seen nothing but people pushed away by the jump to violence. There are better, proven, ways that not only limit risk but maximize results. There was a story of some Anarchists (specifically Anarchist, though maybe affiliated with an Antifa) that went around Portland filling potholes. Doing it themselves because their local seat wouldn't. THAT is effective in getting the message out there and winning people over to the cause. It got exposure, maybe not quite as much exposure as Berkeley but it made the rounds on the news. That sort of community outreach kills Fascism dead, because it provides an alternative and there's no way to 'scare' the already Right-leaning into joining the ranks of the Fascists if anything, it makes the Right-Moderates question their own beliefs. With the violence, I have noticed distinct blow-back. For one, the recurring street violence in Berkeley was conducted with the aim of denying the Fascists the platform to speak and get their views out into the ether, however, those same Fascists (some of whom were teetering on the brink of irrelevancy) were on National news programs doing that exact same thing BECAUSE of the street violence. Because of that particular Antifa's actions. THAT is blowback when it doesn't have to be. That plays right into the hands of the Fascists. It makes the Radical Left an enemy of both the State and the relatively marginalized(in the US) 'Alt-right'. In our modern world more is done with a computer than a molotov, all I've encountered (and I've journeyed through a bunch of these groups looking for a 'niche' to fill) are people wanting to play revolutionary instead of actually BE revolutionary. People who can't see the forest for the trees and even though, like you said, Antifa is not about Anarchism, it will definitely blow back on it. As it will with all of the Radical Leftwing ideals that only so recently became accessible to the desires of the average person here in my country. They are pissed off and disenfranchised and they want something besides the Fake Progressives and the Corrupt Liars and if the Radical Left can't provides them a vehicle for their outrage than the Reactionary Right will, but instead of directing that Ire at the establishment it's being directed at a bunch of wannabe Fascists who, if it weren't for the contrast between the two groups, would have a minuscule following. I kid you not, people look at Black Bloc, and they join the Fascists, claiming we're the *real* Fascists. Non-violent (or rather, selective violent) Resistance is statistically more effective than violence. I knew a few awesome books proving this, I wish I could remember the titles because before reading them I was violently militant, as well, but they really changed my mind and taught me that one can be non-violent, but still be militant and be even more effective at combating societies ills.
As someone who has been involved with Antifa for years both in the states and Scotland. I can say that this view is very skewed and slightly despotic. I've been in "riots" and physical demonstrations, and also most of the time like 99% of the time Antifa don't go out in black bloc to start fights, we're there to defend the rights of the peaceful protesters when they've been shooed away unfairly, undemocratically and most importantly with no diplomacy at all. Most rallies ive been to which are in the hundreds now, and i have been an organiser for such, are organised like this: [Peaceful Protesters] - [Antifa and Insurrectionary Anarchists] - [ Peaceful protesters] and so on dependent on the size of the protest. Antifa make up a small part of the protest, and most of the time the anger and violence is brought on by the police, not us. For example at the J20 Riots in accordance to what many testimonies by comrades have said: The first hour of the protest no windows were broken, no cars vandalised, it was actually really tame, then the police started spraying us with tear gas and pepper spray out of the blue. Or another example, going off of what a comrade has mentioned to me at one he was at in Atlanta i believe, he and his Antifa group were not on their own, there were more unmasked peaceful protesters than his group, again in the formation i just mentioned. They were walking down the street, holding banners and flags like the peaceful lot, actually some of the antifa group were unmasked at the start, the police kettled them and told them to disperse, and they were bickering back and forth then the police started spraying the peaceful lot, that's when antifa kicked off and done what they do. Also this "in-discriminant violence" is also heavily skewed, again use the J20 Riots as an example it wasn't in-discriminant, buildings whose windows were smashed and burned were companies that don't pay taxes and are famed for not doing so Eg Starbucks and most corporate banks, don't believe me? Look at the footage its readily available on here. I myself am an Anarcho-communist, have been for years, been with Afed, IWW and other groups from the start and i've never seen nor heard of Black Bloc's killing civillians unlike rallies done by far-right groups.
Thinking about how he says at the start about needing something big to incite this sort of change and shift in society. I wonder how many people turned to anarchism after how poorly the world governments reacted throughout the pandemic? Not just that, but the countless scandals that have been leaked about government corruption in the uk over the last couple of years? Personally I began learning about anarchism and drifting towards this thought process over the last year or so, I’d be interested how many others have had a similar experience
I believe technically yeah. The philosophical tools that the schools of anarchism provide us are the greatest intellectual social achievement we have. Encountering this via a friend, I am honestly baffled that this wasn't presented to me. It is because anarchism is a philosophy about action and community. Achieving what is locally needed and avoiding overarching problems. It is only dangerous in the sense to those who have everything to lose from enough people adopting it and having the world benefit from it. I don't think it's rational to say that we will find an agreeable solution but there is a way to grow the school of thought. And that is to teach others through engagement. Without a doubt, we have to teach others about this. Bring educated people who are sick of corruption and advocate for peaceful, collective reform. Those who demand the power to be centralized are also those who wish to be in power. Power was never actually vested in a metaphysical social construct where the few rules from above; everything begins at the same place and that is from the ground up.
I'm a proud anarcho-communist and Ted talk was really great! I would just like to make one correction though, Peter kropotkin and Emma Goldman weren't against communism, they were against Authoritarian communism. Peter kropotkin is considered the father of modern anarcho-communism, his book the conquest of bread is the foundational and introductory book for most ancoms. And as for Emma Goldman, she disliked the Soviet union's model of governance and she was was very much an ancom till her dying breath. Anarchism and communism aren't Mutually exclusive.
He seems like a very moderate anarchist. In theory most anarchist thinkers propose the absolute abolishment of any government and democratic system. Even the majority does not have power. As far as I can tell Anarchists also want to abolish the concept of wage labor. Everyone contributes to society and everyone takes from society.
Some anarchists want to abolish the need to work for others in return for compensation. Call that wage labor or whatever you want. But no matter if you are working in a factory for the owner or owners, or if you are part owner of it yourself, or if you are homesteading one acre of ground, or if you are selling bottles of water on the corner, you are still going to have to do some sort of labor in order to eat. I can propose the absolute abolishment of any government and democratic system and choose to work for another man in exchange for compensation. If anarchism is dependent upon everyone contributing, we can hang up the idea right now. Plenty will latch onto the "everyone takes" part of the philosophy, but without the contributors, anarchism would never fly. Instead, I see anarchy as meaning that my neighbor cannot cage me or kill me or send agents of the state to do one or the other or both for not complying with some rule that he and one of his friends cooked up.
This talk is pretty good, but I wouldn't describe Porto Alegre, Mondragon or John Lewis as anarchist. From what I hear Mondragon is a corporation that treats it's workers badly, as no doubt does John Lewis (which I'm sure has long ceased being a co-op). Co-ops tend to be absorbed by the capitalist system and just become corporations adjusting to 'realities of the market'. Porto Alegre purported to have some participation from the public regarding budgeting but my understanding is that it is governed by a state and nowhere in what I've read about Porto Alegre is it obviously anarchist in any way, and I don't think allowing General Motors to operate there can be said to be anarchist. I mean, if someone can provide me with evidence that I'm wrong and tell me about the successful anti-capitalist revolution that occurred in Porto Alegre that swept away the power of the ruling class, I'd love to hear about it- but until then I'm not convinced.
This is a great video, I just take issue with the "anarchists reject communism" part. This isn't true, in fact communism is integral to anarchism. Communism is concerned with a better distribution of wealth, anarchism with a better distribution of power, therefore they go hand in hand. But otherwise I agree, and it's great to bring attention to topics like these, because both of these theories are insanely misunderstood and vilified in modern society.
No, Communism has nothing to do with anarchism because anarchists rule by consensus. In other words. People participate in causes that they WANT to on a VOLUNTARY basis. No one is forced to do anything. Look up Larken Rose and his book THE MOST DANGEROUS SUPERSTITION. Watch, read, listen to anything by him or interviews by others with him.
@@emilybh6255 that isn't mutually exclusive, communism is a system of organising economy, while anarchy deals with the state, you're probably thinking of marxism-lenninism
@@tamarabencikova5986 no "systems" need be used. In an anarchy there is no "state" as there are no rulers. People just happily co-exist and work together on project if they so choose - voluntarily - which is the opposite of communism.
@@emilybh6255 What? :D I'm pretty sure you have the wrong definition of communism, it isn't about forcing anyone to do what they don't want to do- in fact quite the opposite. communism is just a form of economy where workers own the means of production, which means no one can get rich off of your labour.
@@emilybh6255 Besides I'm having a very hard time imagining and anarchist society that isn't communist, since capitalism requires the state to sustain it
I’m currently doing an essay in my college class. If any of you can help me out with answering this simple question. Why do you believe in anarchism as a good philosophy to follow for countries? Any responses will greatly help me out. Thank you
Yes, he said Kropotkin rejected Communism, and no, Kropotkin loved Communism, but why are you all whining about this?! Do you think he could explain why the Soviet Union and other's weren't communist systems in less than three sentences? When all these boomers hear Communism, they think of Stalin and Pol Pot and so on. So why not pointing out that Anarchism is the exact opposite?
Whether we like it or not globally the term communism has become synonymous with Marxism- Leninism, Bolshevism, & Stalinism. Extremely unlikely if you ask a random citizen in any country to define communism that they’ll describe anarcho-communism. Communism now means Stalinism and Marxism- Leninism, both of which anarchist do oppose so the orator is not wrong. Clearly differentiating anarcho-communism with the global modern interpretation of communism is very important Bolshevism and anarcho-communist are in no way allies, so distancing ourselves from marxist- Leninist is strategically intelligent. My guess is that the orator knew this topic was more complex and decided to just mention the main point being that we are opposed to state communism & Bolshevism he was correct.
@@nevermind342 Right. But it's also a matter of how to handle a changed meaning of any given word. I don't want Communism to be corrupted by fascist criminals like Stalin or Mao, anything else but following the original meaning will take us directly into a world like 1984 where it can mean this today, and the exact opposite tomorrow.
@@spiritualeco-syndicalisthe207 the west but more specifically the United States have spent decades propagandizing the word communist and socialist to the point that both are considered very bad words to the American public and are used as insults by republican media everyday. The west and the US have actively tried to (and succeeded) in associating communism specifically to the Soviet Union and Stalinism since they can therefor say “look that’s what communism is, it brings famine and authoritarian rule.” So in that sense you already live in a world similar to 1984 you’re in it right now. Reversing decades of propaganda about particular words will be hard. You can go ahead and try to take back the single word communism if you want, you won’t have any luck in most western nations. But specifying the type of communism you support is a better chance In my opinion. Instead of saying “I’m a communist” I think it’s strategically and practically wiser to specify and say “I’m an anarcho-communist” for example. Also mentioning your opposition and disdain for Stalin or mao would be very helpful but that just goes back to my point of specificity being the key here. if someone was to ask me are you communist? I’d say “not in the way you know it as, I’m anarcho-communist, completely different from the Soviet Union” even tho I’m actually not an anarcho-communist it was just an example
It seems that the speaker blurs the line between participatory democracy and direct democracy. Direct democracy is not participation. Direct democracy is giving the reigns of society to commoners to control and plan their own political, economic, judicial affairs and ecology.
It bothers me when people don't use words properly, but in this case, the ship sailed more than a hundred years ago. There is no consensus on the difference between communism and socialism. Marx certainly didn't try to keep the terms separate, calling his plans alternately communism or scientific socialism. Lenin seemed to think that communism was what a socialist country was working towards. Today, they are just vaguely leftist words with no particular meaning, other than the workers owning the means of production in some fashion. Or for the wingnuts, it means anyone who wants to treat people well.
@@ernststravoblofeld it makes it literally impossible to talk about any leftist ideas when people think socialism is when the government does stuff and communism is akin to government totalitarianism.
Kropotkin did reject communism, he believed that it would ultimately lead to tyranny and very successfully predicted what happened in the Soviet Union. He believed that communism brought equality but not liberty, but anarchist communism, which eliminates the state, would provide both.
The Arab Spring was created through rapidly rising food prices and inaccesibilty to goods and food. It was social action by the people over instability rather than fueled by any deep political conviction.
@@rezinrussell1689 they become that way through centralized authority...when "authority" is limited to the individual...regulations don't exist...business ethics or ostracism does though.
I keep seeing comments saying this, soi just want to point out w should be obvious: When he refers to communism in this video, he's clearly talking about Soviet communism.
@@jmn1723 Individual anarchism is still present there. You don't lose your individuality by cooperating with someone, so yes, you can be an indidualist and live with society.
>anarchist reject communism >Peter Kropotkin The reason I disliked, he needs to get his definitions correct. Communism is not authoriarian, it is antithetical to it. also >applel mac
But considering the breadth of propaganda that the average American swims through (especially with regards to terms such as 'socialism' and 'communism',) everyone should try to be a little more nuanced when this comes up I think>
David A Coherence doesn't agree with you. History is as reliable as politics and its propaganda; it isn't. "Authoritarian communism" is the equivalence of "2 + 2 = 5" which is also the equivalence of "United Socialist Soviet Republic". Utter nonsense.
Carne's proposal is clearly an evolutionary step, but we must recognise that it requires a degree of healthy self regulation that has been bred out of most through decades of authoritarianism. Our challenge is the transition from here to there....as I write, the choice to evolve has been thrown into stark relief, as the plandemic engulfing the world is the machine we've created, showing us the end point of it's control mechanism....so those of us who can see this must very quickly learn how to take responsibility for our lives and livelihoods, if we are to avoid disappearing into trans-humanism....
I think there are elements of direct democracy that are overlooked in his ideal. What about majority sentiments that actively exclude, or even oppress a minority group within the population. In times of crisis there are individuals who are very effective at rallying and motivating whole groups of people. Sometimes they motivate them to do terrible things. There is also a problem of scale with classical Anarchism. At some point the population reaches a critical mass where above that number decision making becomes very difficult and inefficient.
![ละลาย (LALALYE) - DAOU PITTAYA ต้าห์อู๋ พิทยา [OFFICIAL MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/wo6r9TgausI/mqdefault.jpg)
Anarchism is not just misunderstood, it’s a concept that has been slandered to serve the institutions of authority and the status quo of capitalism.
For real.....we're living through Red Scare 3.1 right at this very moment
Anarchism is also very successful in open source software. So successful that software is often considered better when open sourced.
You should say FOSS for Free and Open Source Software. That's all
@youtubeShadowBan free market ideology is based on right-libertarian ideas like Ayn Rand's Objectivism. Libertarianism used to be another name for anarchism, but it was largely co-opted by the new wave of right wing anarchists, who believe in no state to restrict the market. For what happens next, play Bioshock.
Intellectual property is a tool of enslavement. It's not conceived to help inventors. It's conceived to make someone with money owns inventions which they can't create on their own. Without IP law, inventors will be funded in a different which will make technology open and free to be modified and improve. IP laws enrich bankers. Not inventors.
@youtubeShadowBan You can replicate food and physical objects actually, the first one is called gardening and the second one is what happens when you dont violently enforce hoarding of technology that gets people killed who cant afford their medication and prevents people from building technology that would save lives if it were legal to replicate it
@@pipsantos6278 the most annoying thing is when people say "but people wont invent stuff if they cant get rich off of it" Like maybe we dont need more plastic infomercial kitchen gadgets anyway, and if we actually NEED something someone will invent it for its own sake.
This great! We need more open anarchists in our everyday life!
He is wrong about Anarchists following 'DIRECT DEMOCRACY". Rather, they follow VOLUNTARYISM. In an anarchy, no one is forced to do anything they don't want to do. Democracies force the minority to comply with what the majority wants. What works the best is consensus and letting those that want to do something do it without forcing others to do so if they'd rather not. Check out Larken Rose author of THE MOST DANGEROUS SUPERSTITION and other books and many videos for the definitive explanation of anarchism.
Emily BH This is a very new conception of anarchism invented in the last 50 years by Murray Rothbard. The older (and better) version of anarchism focuses on removing hierarchy, not coercion
@@emilybh6255 That's not anarchism, that's anarcho-capitalism.
@@mr.goldfish1530 Anarchy= No rulers or without rulers; Monarchy=one ruler; Oligarchy=a few rulers. That is it. End of story. Just remember what your prefixes mean. "A" means "without" or "away". It doesn't mean craziness or chaos.People need to remember their Latin and Greek. @Drew Genel
@@emilybh6255 Capitalism necessitates and enforces rulers.
Anarchism is literally the next step to human evolution, in some distant future we will look upon this current system and ask ourselves how could we live in such twisted modern day slavery
@John Smith you are so right I agree with you completely. Disregard the rest of my comment. do you actually believe that?
@John Smith you are so right I agree with you completely. Disregard the rest of my comment.
Bro ain't nobody here talking about leading nations. It's precisely the opposite; to NOT have political leaders at all.
Captain Voluntaryist, The Statist Slayer Are you an ancap?
@@carolebeni30
Yes sir!
>implying this species has a future
Anarchism is so misunderstood.
especially anarcho capitalism
@@noilick do you mean feudalism?
as I said before ... ancap is so misunderstood...
@@noilick we understand it. That's why we abhor it.
@@noilick Yes, it's misunderstood by its proponents who believe that unrestricted human greed will create a fair system.
Some Ted Talks are sorely disappointing; this is a good one. I wish Anarchism was better known around the world, as there's an awful lot of disinformation about it, and this disinformation is wanted, planned and even well funded...
Well then, How about we go around and spread our ideals of a world where Power and Hierarchy serves the common man, not the other way around? Nobody will know until we speak.
Too bad he described the political system of an anarchy wrong. it technically is not a democracy at all. It is strictly voluntary ruled by consensus. People do only what they volunteer to do and are not forced to do anything by the majority as is the case in any democracy.
@@emilybh6255 That's not really true, it strives to reach as much consensus as possible. Anarchists generally understand that large communities will still have informal guidelines or rules towards social conduct. Anarchists will also accept ostracism or excommunication for people consistently freeloading off the labour of the community without contributing their own.
@@ImperialistKing Dont argue with her. She is a capitalist brainwashed.
@@emilybh6255 anarchy isn't necessarily the total elimination of all heirarchy all the time, if you're on a boat in a storm it could be helpful since the participants are under a good deal of duress and making a decision while doing work and panicking about the storm would be unhelpful. However, that structure would indeed need to be voluntary and justified. However for any form of policy that requires national action, a democratic assembley would probably be needed so as to both reach a decision for the nation or other form of group and give people a say in how that solution should work.
I am an anarchist since I can recall. I had a small phase of a year in which I almost got convinced I was naive and would "grow up", but after having experienced capitalist and misogynistic violence directly I am now more convinced and comfortable with the ideas I always thought were the future would prove to be right, not perfect, but striving for the end of opression and exploitation of humans and other beings in the world. Anarchism is happening naturally step by step. Violence is not needed for Anarchism to exist, it's capitalism or totalitarian socialism those that are forced and based on the power of a few imposed on the many.
Same here, comrade. Ben watching Thought Slime on the regular and feeling less alone in the world.
Are you against private property? Because I am an anarchist that likes private property.
@Comrade Iggy If your don't like private property than you are a state, by definition. It non sense to say youbare an anarchist qnd acts like a state, giving orders about what someone should do with their property.
@Comrade Iggy You say that but when anarchism arises, the ancoms will be wondering why they are killing each other to dominate their hierarchy and starving to death. While ancaps will be well fed, secure and specialising in productive and meaningful work for others. You're just a communist, wearing an anti statist mask.
@@Anarcaeful And you're just an edgy conservative who thinks capitalism can be separated from the state, it cannot. Capitalism without the state is literally just feudalism, or something comparable to it.
I strongly relate to the "accidental deduction into anarchism" it just came together more and more the more I read.
The more you learn, the more difficult it becomes to accept the legitimacy of power structures.
Anarchism is how ancient humans lived, no authority no money, no laws.
Just a community working for themselves and each other.
The most simple yet the most efficient way, and our generation is living proof of its efficiency.
"they rejected communism"
Me reeeing on the inside because kropotkin was an ancom
Kropotkin did reject communism, he believed that it would ultimately lead to tyranny and very successfully predicted what happened in the Soviet Union. He believed that communism brought equality but not liberty, but anarchist communism, which eliminates the state, would provide both.
@@avsusky kropotkin was literally a communist dude
@@avsusky He rejected Marxism, he advocated communism.
@@woofdog464 Communism doesn't mean automatically an "Authorian System" like Stalinism and Leninism.
That's the reason why Lenin was despised by western communists and people like Kropotkin or Bakunin.
@@mr.goldfish1530 That's not really true, especially because Marxism is a "Methodic" at first, while Communism is a political ideology based on it...
Excellent introduction to some of the basic assumptions and practices of anarchism. The Democratic Federal System of Northern Syria (Rojava) is a model for the world to take seriously and build upon, it is based on the practice of Democratic Confederalism and the work of Murray Bookchin and Abdullah Ocalan. Get reading...
Biji Kurdistan
EZLN
Interesting that this Talk only has a little over a thousand views while the recommended video about sexless marriage has nearly 4 million
Jake Alvarez bread and circuses
couldn't agree more...
How do you suppose we spread this type of thing? I don't have FB now, but apparently they have some extreme filters for 'fake news' now.
It seems to me that the only barrier to real positive change/revolution is dissemination. I think most working class people (and others?) would likely be joining the cause if they just had the information. In a way, it's the only problem that needs to be solved so that change can be unleashed. There are obviously intentional and unintentional barriers to the dissemination of this information, and we have to work around/through them in some way(s.) We can't expect to turn to traditional/mainstream journalists or the media, since more than 90% of it (TV, radio, newspapers, and periodicals,) are now owned by just six corporations (6 billionaires.)
The answer(s) to this may be the key?
Capitalist society spreads the myth that anarchy is wild disorder. So seeing anarcist in the title puts off many people.
I know my subscribers went up a lot when TH-cam started re-routing people away from important active ideas and solutions. I like having more subscribers but...
I make anime music videos that isn't really equal to politics or even dialogue about anime.
Power dislikes these ideas. In S-pain you can go to prison for being anarchist (having an anarchist flag at home is considered terrorism with the right wind government law).
I just shared it, I hope to not end up in prison.
España necesita otra una revolución para limpiar los fascistas de mierda y avanzar al frente
o mucho me equivoco, o me temo que la idea de España en si es fascista. Desde sus orígenes con ese nombre lo ha sido (Reyes Católicos) hasta su nacionalismo moderno. Mucho tendría que cambiar la cosa para verlo de otro modo.
¿Avanzar al frente de qué? ¿De la ocupación de casas? ¿De la pereza institucionalizada? ¿De la colectivización de la pobreza? ¿De la glorificación del subdesarrollo? ¿De la épica inane de ideologías caducas? ¿Qué país me pones como ejemplo de esa vanguardia antifascista? No, gracias. Prefiero la aburrida UE.
I dont speak Spanish but I think you've pissed off quite a few Spaniards
Long live the visionary goal of revolutionary Catalonia!
Solidarity from America
Ⓐ
I love another Proudhon's quote.
Property is theft
Aisir Nah, any property that isn’t private is stolen land.
@@aisir3725
From whom?
@@captainvoluntaryistthestat3207 from everybody else
@@aisir3725
How?
Had a bit of an anarchism love affair at one point 5 years ago. Reading some books and whatnot. Life is complicated and I was led away into other things. However, seeing the recent celebration of state violence, I’m reminded of my time with anarchism. People begging for, and supporting the monopoly the state has on violence. “How dare you, expect the state to be held accountable for unjust violence against citizens. Oh, you want to meet and protest this violence and lack of responsibility? How about some more violence? We will not tolerate this.”
People often ask, “If anarchism was successful, then why don’t we see more of it today?” Well, in my country, the Native American tribes were anarchist, and they were wiped out. The anarchist movement was growing as the industrial revolution took off. These people were crushed by the heads of industry, often employing the use of the National Guard or private agencies to massacre workers and their families who were tired of selling themselves.
Your last paragraph makes a very interesting point. Any given society does not live in a vacuum. Some Native American tribes did live in a mutualist/anarchist format. But they were obliterated by decisive, brutal action of a centralized group. The anarchism of these communities clearly worked as these communities existed for a very long time, but it failed to protect them when confronted with the onslaught of industrialized westerners. Obviously technological differences played a big role, but would the fight have been different if the tribes had been a single, centralized, organized society?
In many ways I think the world is slowly moving to a landscape that is more conducive to true anarcho-mutualism. I don't believe Anarchism is something that can be forced. I believe Pierre-Joseph Proudhon was correct in his vision that ultimately people will lose trust and faith in government, start ignoring it, and begin acting locally, ultimately developing an anarcho-mutualist structure. I think he was probably a few hundred years off on his timeline though. Sooner or later we will all come to the conclusion that all these self important knobs are completely incompetent and incapable of fixing the world's problems and we'll just do what we can ourselves.
@@evelcustom9864 To clarify, one of the major reasons that the native americans were killed off was actually because of disease brought by colonizers. I read an interesting essay I while back that essentially hypothesized that disease was one of the main reasons why they lost to the colonizers, not industrial technology. I agree with the rest of your statement though.
@@urbaneblobfish that is a valid point, though I don't know the exact numbers when it comes to deaths of native Americans from European plagues. However, I was not just referring to Westerners when I said "decisive brutal action by a centralized group". I was also referring to other tribes, who were more militaristic, bigger and more organized. This seems to be more pronounced further south where Aztec, Inca, Maya, and other civilizations were built through warfare and conquest.
native american tribes were most definitely not anarchist. they operated in small hierarchical tribal structures. Anarchism is a joke, you can't organize a society with anarchism, anarchism doesn't allow the widespread effort to advance the species as a whole. Humans will always be human and will always exploit whatever system they're in and their greed will always negatively affect others. All anarchism would do is take away consequences for your actions. It's like the people who like anarchism never spent the time to research and understand why we have government in the first place. Tribal systems can be construed as anarchistic but they're really not, they have their own laws and leaders and hierarchy. But even still, some argue that society should look more tribal with no government or body to organize their society except local leaders. That works with a few dozen, maybe a few hundred people, but not with a few hundred million people. You'd have chaos everywhere.
@@avgvstvs96 I think you are operating from a very superficial, or even incorrect definition of Anarchism. There are some fringe types out there that claim Anarchism but are really isolationist individualists, aka Doomsday preppers, that is absolutely not Anarchism. The primary focus of Anarchism is the elimination of structural violence upon people by those in power. In fact, an-archism does not mean 'no government' it means no rulers. In general though, Anarchists do tend to believe in small community structures, not unlike native American tribes. There is nothing among their beliefs that is against hierarchical structure as long as it serves a good for the society.
Waiting on my copy of Conquest of Bread to come in the mail
It's worth mentioning that anarchism doesn't reject communism, in fact anarcho-communism was probably the largest section of the historical anarchist movement and it's the ideology that I personally hold to. Also Peter Kropotkin, who he mentions in the video was an anarcho-communist, in fact Kropotkin is probably the most influential ancom in history. It's true that anarchists reject the model of the Soviet Union, just as we reject capitalism, but anarchists don't inherently communism because communism is a stateless, classless, moneyless society in which the means of production are held in common and distribution of goods and services and contributions to society and others are done voluntarily on the basis of "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need." This does not contradict anarchism in any way and the model of the Soviet Union contradicts anarchism because it suggests using hierarchical power structures to create a non-hierachical, egalitarian society and those methods are not effective at creating that kind of a society because hierarchies exist to reinforce and perpetuate themselves, typically by any means necessary, including violence, which is also one of the problems with capitalism. The Soviet Union was not a communist society, even though they claimed that they hoped one day they would achieve a communist society, it was functionally a state-capitalist society. This is simply some additional information which I felt was worth bringing up.
a better statement would have been that it rejects most forms of Marxism
Yep!
Yep since I was 6yrs old. I knew Anarchism is the plain and simple way to bring equity, logic, and intelligence.
I am an Anarcho Syndaclist. I am a self reliant human that has zero need for any form of hierarchy.
John Stockwell Major Smedley Butler You rely upon the market for food, a house you didn't make, law enforced by a state you deny the achievements of, water from a subterranean resevoir you don't own and internet from an ISP you would be happy to speak up against yet you've the audacity to say that.
Nice, now say that to some person who lives in venezuela, ''DUH THE GOVERMENT GIVE YOU THE FOOD WHO YOU HAVE AN THE INTERNET''
One can be self reliant and not need a heirachy, and still be a member of a society.
Anarcho-communist here
Mortar & Pestle. We rely on farmers and butchers for food, a house built by construction workers and architects but “owned” by banks, clean water regulated by workers that all people need to survive but is treated like a privilege by private companies, and use the internet with the ~permission~ of ISPs with the knowledge that they can censor us if they want, to access websites built by programmers and technical workers. Workers give you everything you have, capitalists force you to pay *them* to use others’ creations and keep the value of that labor as “profit”.
I typed this out so i could take it on board: " What is Anarchism? ...First of all, Anarchism doesn't tell us that things will be alright in the end. Both Communism and Capitalism have in common this idea that it's all going to be okay if we keep doing it, we go through the pain now , eventually it is going to be good for everybody. Anarchism doesn't pretend that. It doesn't offer a blueprint for a utopian society (which, by the way, is inherently fascistic). Anarchism is a process. It is action. It is colloboration with people, without people having power over one another. Colloboration as equals. Everyone included in decision-making. It is work....unlike voting. Although i am sure you will agree that our current political system with politicians trading simplistic vulgar slogans about what to do about the world , and electoral politics and partisanship that seems to be more successfully dividing us than uniting us. The political system that we have today is more part of the problem than the solution. Anarchists propose direct democracy. This means everybody involved in the decisions that affect them. "
I think someone said, anarchy is just democracy taken seriously.
i mean saying communism like that instills the wrong thought as well since communism itself is inherently anarchist by deffinition
There are two serious critiques to this theory;
first is the thought that when all employees of an enterprise are equally considered in business, that the business will make correct decisions, in a timely manner. Democracy in the true sense is rife with internal bickering, and generally 49% of your constituents will be upset at the outcome of any decision. Not to mention that in any democratic endeavor, a singular voice must coalesce into the many, and impart power among soft objectionalists that do not see eye to eye with the singular voice. Thus pure democracy can only result in the subjugation of the minority in favor of the majority. Power is never dissolved.
The other aspect would pertain to worker involvement in businesses in general, and it’s affect on innovation. In our current system, when somebody decides to start a company, especially in manufacturing, the purchase of capital goods in the form of machines is necessary to make a product. When the owner of this business/machines brings workers to the business, your claim should be that they have an equal right to the profits of this business. But how could that be? Although these employees provide important labor to the company, they are not financially vested to this business. They can join and leave as they please, and are not subject to the loan payments, etc. created by the company. In this light why should they bear the raw fruit of this endeavor, while simultaneously bearing no cost?
Anarchism by theory works well under the guise that the capitalist economy has created everything needed for humanity, and that now we only need to regulate it fairly. But that ignores the invite possibilities of innovation that are still to come. Things that will continue to improve our human condition. Only the true anarchy of capitalism can adapt to the changing world of innovation. If all decisions are left to majority rule, only the comfortably safe decisions by majority rule will remain, and innovation will suffer
There can be only one system that utilizes the infinite wisdom of each and every member of society, and it can only be realized when the sovereignty of the individual is maximized.
The recourse for how the sovereign individual interacts with the greater populace is still a subject of debate, and it is unclear whether it will ever be settled. But one thing is undeniable; humans are most happy when they are the majority or sole owners of their own destiny. Any less to them is a form of tyranny upon their souls
@@kylepratt1217 If the authority is justified and willingly bestowed, all your problems are solved for the most part. It's generally how larger cooperatives function. Chomsky says it best when he says anarchism is simply either the valid justification of authority or dissolution of it.
god, its wild to me that people think humans are capable of "collaboration as equals". What you describe is altruistic not anarchistic, humanity would destroy itself if it were truly anarchist. "everyone included in decision making" can be achieved several way and anarchism is definitely not the way. Your heart may be full of love and you might be governed by a strong moral compass but some people just aren't and these are the people who win in an anarchist system. its just wild to me. you guys have to learn more about human society and how organizational structures like governments aid in societal development. A simple way to see it is this - most governmental systems over the course of human history have been cruel authoritarian regimes. However, the benefits of an organizational structure outweighed the cons of loss of personal freedom for thousands and thousands of years. Such are the benefits an organizational structure brings to society. Humans have always been our own biggest threat. It's gonna be a LONG time before that changes, and forcing it through a "process" of anarchism is not gonna end well, the worst people will do everything they have to to fulfill their greed and lust for power. In an anarchist system, how are those who lust for power prevented from achieving it? One can theorize that there are systems in place, people who oversee things, but they are all only people. People can easily be corrupted or persuaded. Or killed. In a system with no codified rules and no organized enforcement, anything is possible.
"Anarchism has become a guide on how to live."
I couldn't have said it better myself.
...I think this was a great talk. As in the current state of affairs we need change, & positive change from the bottom up. I like how he was able to give good solid examples of where these systems are being utilized & where & how they are working.
so brave to talk about this, I would be even more nervous than him
Anarchism is the only reasonable conclusion after truly embracing morality and the immutable truth that freedom is more valuable than one's own life.
Is this a quote you found or a profound thought from your own enlightenment??
I came to Anarchism the same way. It was a series of tests for the ideologies that were thrust upon me, until I came to ask the questions of whether they worked or even whether they should work. And from that resolution, I became an anarchist.
Great. The final question is
are you an anarcho-capitalist?
Captain Voluntaryist, The Statist Slayer No.
@@Jordan-uz9me
I see
so you're not anarchist yet.
Captain Voluntaryist, The Statist Slayer I don’t want any kind of capitalism whatsoever. So, yes I am an anarchist, not the kind of anarchist you are.
If that makes you happy, great.
@@Jordan-uz9me not a real anarchist
Actually Lao Tzu already knew this 2000 years ago, he state it in the Dao De Jing, 無為而治, literally it means means “don’t do anything and things will be ordered” , basically it means if people can feel the existence of a government, it’s same as a person feeling his lungs when he’s breathing, which is a bad thing.
That makes sense, for me ideologies begin to sound recycled the more you hear about them, even when they shouldn’t exist by the historical knowledge where everything comes back after 100 years.
Anarchism is the very opposite of not doing anything.
@Marcelli Basilio Ah, so a state of nature? That still isn't what anarchism is usually about.
I've been an Anarchist for about 30yrs , the greatest power in the world today is corporate power . States are weak and do the bidding of corporations , I'm not against a state that provides services like education and healthcare , but I am against an ever growing police state . Fascism is the arch enemy of Anarchism , and fascism is the perfect marriage between states and corporations . Sounds like the world we live in , theirs no way that the people in power will let real change happen . If you call yourself an Anarchist , you'll just be ridiculed as some lunatic fringe some left wing thug that breaks bank window .
Point taken. It looks like Walmart just jumped into the political arena here in the US by lobbying the state for tighter gun control laws. They have also joined forces with Everytown for gun violence or whatever that organization is called, creating a new group of corporations who are all calling for tighter gun control laws. The money they can spend will not be ignored as politicians aim to increase their war chests. My prediction is that the corporations will lower their liability for not providing security in their buildings while at the same time helping (as they see it, anyway) to stabilize communities, which in turn helps to increase their profits.
You can't be an anarchist and a statist. Anarchists think that education should be provided and paid for by only those that want it.
@@emilybh6255 , evidently there are some anarchists who didn't get the memo. Well, more like socialists or communists who didn't get the whole "No Rulers" part.
@@frontporchanarchast No kidding. It isn't Rocket Science though. They should be able to figure it out on their own. It just shows how BRAINWASHED most people are. They couldn't think outside the box if their life depended on it. Obviously you aren't free as long as there are rulers stealing from you and telling you what you can and can't do.
Reading a comment from 2 years ago that feels like it was written today 😓
hello *comrades*
This is outstanding! Probably the best ted talk yet!
We started as anarchic tribes and we will end as anarchic communities.
One of the best Ted talks ever.
Glad I finally found a comment section full of people I agree with
Very inspiring. I am still unsure about some aspects of this but I intend to look deeper. Thank you.
inspiring, brilliant, educational, life-changing
Philosopher, author & videographer - Larken Rose, has been a fantastic spokesman for the principles of anarchy.
Maybe we now stand a chance, as the world wide germ crisis reveals how useless and resistant our current government and politics are when it comes to the actual needs of the people. When they take matters into their own hand...anarchism is a valid model! Thank you for the inspiring talk!
ah yes, so people taking it into their own hands would've done a better job than governments even though individuals have no structures to organize aid and recovery efforts. Not to mention no vaccines would be developed in an anarchist society 🤣
Us anarchist never disappeared, we’ve just be weakened for so long
I can't believe he came to anarchy like this. Gives me hope :)
Watching this in 2020 be wild
>kropotkin
>rejected communism
lol
Ancom lol
Ancap lol
@@liberemur6555 a political position i disagree with lol
@@tamerlane9889Timurids lol
no he didnt. Kropotkin actually called anarchism communism on numerous occasions.
Guy speaks the truth.
Hierarchy must be abolished.
For the good of the comments, when you hear his definition of communism he’s talking about the Soviet model. He praises communism as a stateless moneyless and classless society throughout the video. If anything, by doing this he appeals to a larger audience, who have experienced non stop red scare propaganda.
Yes dude exactly! These comment sections made me realize just how many people are uninformed or barely scratched the tip of the surface on anarchists schools of thought and anarchist history. Whether we like it or not globally the term communism has become synonymous with Marxism- Leninism, Bolshevism, & Stalinism. Extremely unlikely if you ask a random citizen in any country to define communism that they’ll describe anarcho-communism. Communism now means Stalinism and Marxism- Leninism, both of which anarchist do oppose so the orator is not wrong. Clearly differentiating anarcho-communism with the global modern interpretation of communism is very important Bolshevism (state communist) and anarcho-communist are in no way allies, so distancing ourselves from marxist- Leninist is strategically intelligent. My guess is that the orator knew this topic was more complex and decided to just mention the main point being that we are opposed to state communism & Bolshevism. No way that audience would easily digest all the nuances and specifics, you have to know how to appeal to non politically savvy people.
Add spanish and other languages subtitles, please. Thank you and great talk.
What sucks is when most people think of anarchism they think of people destroying stuff, arsonists, looters etc. but only a very tiny percent actually want that. Real anarchists just want less government control, and more individual freedoms. There are many flavours of anarchism that most people don't even realise are anarchist (for example I'm personally a democratic socialist) and I just wish people actually understood political ideology a bit more
"less government control" no we want to abolish government lol.
Democratic socialists aren't anarchists lmao
@@cruelothers It can mean the same thing, abolition is just more precise
agreed comrade - after all, they didn't teach me philosophy, politics or economics in school (where I come from they didn't anyway) and teachers who might try teaching, or even expressing an opinion, risk the professional equivalent of suicide by hemlock as punishment. In any case, would anything really be that much better if they did? What do you think?
Well put, sir. There is so much evidence to support this model.
Anarhcy is the highest sense of order.
I got a stroke when I heared 19th century anarchists would've rejected communism just seconds after mentioning Pjotr Kropotkin the originator of anarcho-communism. 😢
Why are we still in this "communism is when the government does stuff" thing. It's so sad...
I wish people can realize the truth
@youtubeShadowBan But why are they poor in the first place? 🤔
Also, [citation needed]
@youtubeShadowBan its also destroying the planet, promoting wars, promotes MASSIVE inequality, 1% owns more than half the worlds wealth , democracy is non existent everything of importance is shaped by the whims of capital. Not sure what there is to celebrate it? The world is crumbling and completely alienating
@youtubeShadowBan A bunch of guys kept changing the definiton of poverty to make you think that capitalism lifted people out of poverty. Poverty is not having less than $2 a day, you need minimally $5-6 a day to live over the actual line extreme poverty (which means basic needs covered to possibly live 70 years), and more and more people are getting under that line over the years. Capitalism doesn't work
@youtubeShadowBan None of them exist. Well Socialist countries, that is (Socialism is Direct Democratic Control of the workplace, not State Capitalism. Or is Ancient Egypt socialist?)
@youtubeShadowBan Thats a big lie, And an old traditional mentality, in fact thats what the American dream says. Also i am a anarchist, and i want to end the government once and for all, So people are finally break the chains they have been holding to.
"Anarchists reject communism."
"Peter Kropotkin"
Okay, totally not like he was a communist 🤔
B.T. Peterson Yes that was an unfortunate way to put it, but Communism covers a lot of ground, and Kropotkin would have taken up arms against Stalin. By modern standards, Kropotkin was much more an anarchist than a soviet style communist.
As a former anarchist turned Left-Com, i was very irritated when he said "anarchist reject communism"
Sokami Mashibe I'm a little forgiving on that when I know they mean centralized soviet style communism.
Reject authoritarian communism to be clear
I was just about to make that point. Jeez...
Kropotkin didn’t reject communism he just rejected a bureaucratic state
Whether we like it or not globally the term communism has become synonymous with Marxism- Leninism, Bolshevism, & Stalinism. Extremely unlikely if you ask a random citizen in any country to define communism that they’ll describe anarcho-communism. Communism now means Stalinism and Marxism- Leninism, both of which anarchist do oppose so the orator is not wrong. Clearly differentiating anarcho-communism with the global modern interpretation of communism is very important Bolshevism (state communist) and anarcho-communist are in no way allies, so distancing ourselves from marxist- Leninist is strategically intelligent. My guess is that the orator knew this topic was more complex and decided to just mention the main point being that we are opposed to state communism & Bolshevism. No way that audience would easily digest all the nuances, you have to know how to appeal to non politically savvy people.
@@nevermind342 You make a good point, but I still think it could be worded a bit differently. Honestly, it made me a bit upset, since Kropotkin, for example, was 'as communist as it gets'.
This co-optation of the terms in propaganda - libertarianism now being associated with ultra-individualistic ultracapitalists and communism now being associated with the Bolsheviks, or even worse, with Stalinism - is deeply saddening.
This is also very similar to Gandhi's blueprint of Panchayat Raj. He went from village to village making the villagers elect 5 people from their village to form a cabinet who decided how the village should be run.
Hope since 2017 he moved from "Accidental" to at least "Intermediate" anarchist.
thanks for spreading these ideas
Best TED talk yet c:
Yes, crisis is necessary for change.
i think BlockChain as a technology is establishing anarchy by firstly decentralizing the financial system and as a concept people are adopting decentralization which is pure anarchy...
Unfortunately most involved in the block chain technology are statists and are ok with the regulations and state control being instituted on this technology. It is becoming just another form of corporatism.
Most anarchists, and I stress *most*, do not believe in currency
I too believe in the possibility to wrestle power from the institutions by way of BlockChain type technologies. But there will be a big fight to get there.
@@blueknight8700 if you don't believe in currency how do you accumulate capital to make big investments, like big industry? Or everyone in your region is going to be a farmer? Please explain me.
@@reinaldoeliasdesouzajunior2688 This is a good question, however it takes a lot of effort to answear, because it would require a long description of an anarchist society and it would vary based on which form of anarchism we are talking about. Fortunetely, there are a lot of written material on the topic that can help you, I could cite "An Anarchist FAQ" item I.4.8, which you can find easily on the internet. Also, I remind you that money is just a human construct used as means of exchange, there is no natural law that prohibits stuff being build without a means of exchange like money, if a sufficient number of people agree on the basic rules of a society that doesn't require money and has the means to channel resources into big projects, than it would be possible.
Anarchism is the answer. What he proposes however isn't anarchsim as he immediately defines it as a governmental structure.
He is correct in his analysis of The State, but his prescription is simply another form of the same problem.
anarchy IS order
In an anarchy, the order comes from people letting each other live their lives without interfering with each other and by getting things done by volunteering to participate in an endeavor that brings about a reward. The key is VOLUNTARY. Everything is voluntary and done by consensus - not by direct democracy like the speaker said. Larken Rose has the definitive explanation of anarchy in his books including THE MOST DANGEROUS SUPERSTITION. He also has several videos that everyone that cares about being free should check out.
God is the supreme eclectic anarchist. He favors outliers, deep artists and the uber-authentic.
worth noting that what he is describing is how the original bible early church and christ operated!
it didnt matter to them what the "system" did, as they knew they were empowered, individually, and community-wise.
Quite sad how the church became one of the most authoritarian organizations in history afterwards
I: What an important talk to have been published. More people, way more people, need to see this.
Overall when you think about it, there is no such thing as a deliberate Anarchist. No one adopts Anarchist view points knowingly until someone points it out to them instead they adopt the views based on what they have seen from oppressive hierarchies. However this particular person used to be a diplomat, so it truly is amazing how this individual became an Anarchist. Besides that, the only deliberate "Anarchist" that I can think of, is a liberal or conservative who enjoys Anarchist tattoos, but that's not a real Anarchist.
every journey begins with the first step. first, revolution
The Lucas Plan showed the ability of workers to run things themselves, but the ability to self-manage and the reality remained distant. Self-management within a capitalist economy, while it can point towards a break with existing property relations, does not overcome those relations.
Even the workers who did expropriate their bosses and run factories themselves still had to deal with the realities of capital and the commodity form, such as those at the Lip watch factory in the early '70s or in Argentina from 2001. Self-management in industry, without questioning the nature of the firm as an entity, commodity production as such, or destroying political power (as opposed to the Corbynist project of assuming it) has run up against these limits over and over again.
The dictionary still defines anarchy as chaos with no government. That's got to change
different dictionaries say different things.
Usually they start with chaos etc and have the greek meaning, the only meaning as a small foot note at the bottom.
@@Dimitris_Half exactly. Thank you my friend. Have a great day
It's good to think of Anarchism in a practical and academic way. It really shows the positives to it, without all the politicized bullshit and the stigma. I've seen more interest in Anarchism than I ever have before, it seems people are moving past the stigma ingrained in us from a young age and are embracing it as a legitimate school of thought. Hopefully this trend will continue, if Antifa doesn't ruin it, first.
... it always come down to antifa, doesn't it?.. how are antifa "ruining" anarchism?
Their strategy of 'Black Bloc,' direct physical confrontation, is self-defeating. For the first time in close to a century, general disenfranchisement in the political process is causing an exploration of previously overlooked schools of thought, Anarchism being one of them. For too long has the entire ethos been reduced to violent aspiring revolutionaries assassinating people and planning bombings. That's been the general perception of it, but lately people are 'rediscovering' those philosophies and updating them, expanding on them. Antifa takes it back to that base, which will only work to sully Anarchism once again in the public's perception, and public perception DOES matter. In fact, public perception in any social/political Movement is the difference between success and failure.
Anarchism is NOT just running around in all black and getting into fist fights, as fun as that may be, it's a legitimate school of thought that shouldn't need *indiscriminate* violence to stand up to scrutiny. People such as Murray Bookchin and Noam Chomsky have done a lot in moving Anarchism out of the 'Dark Ages' of the early 20th Century, Antifa has the capabilities to put it back there. In fact, I'd say it's one crackdown/Media smear campaign from that happening.
Keep in mind, I'm speaking purely about US Antifa, as that is all of the experience with the Movement that I have, and in particular, Antifa's relation to Anarchism (most of the groups I've operated with label themselves 'Anarcho-Communist, I'm not going to attempt to speak of its impact with other Radical Leftist ethos, because Anarchism is my 'thing' so to speak, that's what I'm primarily concerned with.) That said, I stick by my stance on violent resistance (though to me some strategic violence is definitely handy).
Direct doesn't have to equate to immediate violence. Some of the problems I've seen Antifa ops encounter is related to this misconception. The riots in Berkeley, for example, are not comparable to the Spanish Civil War. They aren't even in the same ballpark. One was a military (however irregular) conflict, that carries a totally different goal as compared to this current phase of activism in the US (only speaking for the US). Not only that, but what we have here is a war of ideology. In that sort of conflict it's not how much ground is won or how many heads are smashed, it's how many people you win to your cause and I have seen nothing but people pushed away by the jump to violence. There are better, proven, ways that not only limit risk but maximize results.
There was a story of some Anarchists (specifically Anarchist, though maybe affiliated with an Antifa) that went around Portland filling potholes. Doing it themselves because their local seat wouldn't. THAT is effective in getting the message out there and winning people over to the cause. It got exposure, maybe not quite as much exposure as Berkeley but it made the rounds on the news. That sort of community outreach kills Fascism dead, because it provides an alternative and there's no way to 'scare' the already Right-leaning into joining the ranks of the Fascists if anything, it makes the Right-Moderates question their own beliefs.
With the violence, I have noticed distinct blow-back. For one, the recurring street violence in Berkeley was conducted with the aim of denying the Fascists the platform to speak and get their views out into the ether, however, those same Fascists (some of whom were teetering on the brink of irrelevancy) were on National news programs doing that exact same thing BECAUSE of the street violence. Because of that particular Antifa's actions. THAT is blowback when it doesn't have to be. That plays right into the hands of the Fascists. It makes the Radical Left an enemy of both the State and the relatively marginalized(in the US) 'Alt-right'.
In our modern world more is done with a computer than a molotov, all I've encountered (and I've journeyed through a bunch of these groups looking for a 'niche' to fill) are people wanting to play revolutionary instead of actually BE revolutionary. People who can't see the forest for the trees and even though, like you said, Antifa is not about Anarchism, it will definitely blow back on it. As it will with all of the Radical Leftwing ideals that only so recently became accessible to the desires of the average person here in my country. They are pissed off and disenfranchised and they want something besides the Fake Progressives and the Corrupt Liars and if the Radical Left can't provides them a vehicle for their outrage than the Reactionary Right will, but instead of directing that Ire at the establishment it's being directed at a bunch of wannabe Fascists who, if it weren't for the contrast between the two groups, would have a minuscule following. I kid you not, people look at Black Bloc, and they join the Fascists, claiming we're the *real* Fascists.
Non-violent (or rather, selective violent) Resistance is statistically more effective than violence. I knew a few awesome books proving this, I wish I could remember the titles because before reading them I was violently militant, as well, but they really changed my mind and taught me that one can be non-violent, but still be militant and be even more effective at combating societies ills.
As someone who has been involved with Antifa for years both in the states and Scotland. I can say that this view is very skewed and slightly despotic. I've been in "riots" and physical demonstrations, and also most of the time like 99% of the time Antifa don't go out in black bloc to start fights, we're there to defend the rights of the peaceful protesters when they've been shooed away unfairly, undemocratically and most importantly with no diplomacy at all. Most rallies ive been to which are in the hundreds now, and i have been an organiser for such, are organised like this:
[Peaceful Protesters] - [Antifa and Insurrectionary Anarchists] - [ Peaceful protesters] and so on dependent on the size of the protest.
Antifa make up a small part of the protest, and most of the time the anger and violence is brought on by the police, not us. For example at the J20 Riots in accordance to what many testimonies by comrades have said: The first hour of the protest no windows were broken, no cars vandalised, it was actually really tame, then the police started spraying us with tear gas and pepper spray out of the blue. Or another example, going off of what a comrade has mentioned to me at one he was at in Atlanta i believe, he and his Antifa group were not on their own, there were more unmasked peaceful protesters than his group, again in the formation i just mentioned. They were walking down the street, holding banners and flags like the peaceful lot, actually some of the antifa group were unmasked at the start, the police kettled them and told them to disperse, and they were bickering back and forth then the police started spraying the peaceful lot, that's when antifa kicked off and done what they do. Also this "in-discriminant violence" is also heavily skewed, again use the J20 Riots as an example it wasn't in-discriminant, buildings whose windows were smashed and burned were companies that don't pay taxes and are famed for not doing so Eg Starbucks and most corporate banks, don't believe me? Look at the footage its readily available on here.
I myself am an Anarcho-communist, have been for years, been with Afed, IWW and other groups from the start and i've never seen nor heard of Black Bloc's killing civillians unlike rallies done by far-right groups.
back in the ol' times the "black bloc" tactic you are talking about would be called "propaganda of action".
A very new insight for me!
Anarchy is also the solution if people are all sociopaths. One person can be a serial killer, but without hierarchy no one can commit genocide.
Thinking about how he says at the start about needing something big to incite this sort of change and shift in society. I wonder how many people turned to anarchism after how poorly the world governments reacted throughout the pandemic? Not just that, but the countless scandals that have been leaked about government corruption in the uk over the last couple of years? Personally I began learning about anarchism and drifting towards this thought process over the last year or so, I’d be interested how many others have had a similar experience
Isn’t this Anarcho-Syndicalism?
I believe technically yeah. The philosophical tools that the schools of anarchism provide us are the greatest intellectual social achievement we have. Encountering this via a friend, I am honestly baffled that this wasn't presented to me. It is because anarchism is a philosophy about action and community. Achieving what is locally needed and avoiding overarching problems. It is only dangerous in the sense to those who have everything to lose from enough people adopting it and having the world benefit from it.
I don't think it's rational to say that we will find an agreeable solution but there is a way to grow the school of thought. And that is to teach others through engagement. Without a doubt, we have to teach others about this. Bring educated people who are sick of corruption and advocate for peaceful, collective reform. Those who demand the power to be centralized are also those who wish to be in power.
Power was never actually vested in a metaphysical social construct where the few rules from above; everything begins at the same place and that is from the ground up.
Anarchy is really the only way to go forward sustainably as a society and a species
I'm a proud anarcho-communist and Ted talk was really great! I would just like to make one correction though, Peter kropotkin and Emma Goldman weren't against communism, they were against Authoritarian communism. Peter kropotkin is considered the father of modern anarcho-communism, his book the conquest of bread is the foundational and introductory book for most ancoms. And as for Emma Goldman, she disliked the Soviet union's model of governance and she was was very much an ancom till her dying breath. Anarchism and communism aren't Mutually exclusive.
Good introduction to anarchism.
He seems like a very moderate anarchist. In theory most anarchist thinkers propose the absolute abolishment of any government and democratic system. Even the majority does not have power. As far as I can tell Anarchists also want to abolish the concept of wage labor. Everyone contributes to society and everyone takes from society.
I mean, if you're trying to convince a bunch of capitalists that anarchism is the way forward then it's probably better to pretend to be moderate.
Some anarchists want to abolish the need to work for others in return for compensation. Call that wage labor or whatever you want. But no matter if you are working in a factory for the owner or owners, or if you are part owner of it yourself, or if you are homesteading one acre of ground, or if you are selling bottles of water on the corner, you are still going to have to do some sort of labor in order to eat. I can propose the absolute abolishment of any government and democratic system and choose to work for another man in exchange for compensation. If anarchism is dependent upon everyone contributing, we can hang up the idea right now. Plenty will latch onto the "everyone takes" part of the philosophy, but without the contributors, anarchism would never fly. Instead, I see anarchy as meaning that my neighbor cannot cage me or kill me or send agents of the state to do one or the other or both for not complying with some rule that he and one of his friends cooked up.
Anarchism doesn't reject direct Democracy, it only rejects representative democracy
This talk is pretty good, but I wouldn't describe Porto Alegre, Mondragon or John Lewis as anarchist. From what I hear Mondragon is a corporation that treats it's workers badly, as no doubt does John Lewis (which I'm sure has long ceased being a co-op). Co-ops tend to be absorbed by the capitalist system and just become corporations adjusting to 'realities of the market'.
Porto Alegre purported to have some participation from the public regarding budgeting but my understanding is that it is governed by a state and nowhere in what I've read about Porto Alegre is it obviously anarchist in any way, and I don't think allowing General Motors to operate there can be said to be anarchist. I mean, if someone can provide me with evidence that I'm wrong and tell me about the successful anti-capitalist revolution that occurred in Porto Alegre that swept away the power of the ruling class, I'd love to hear about it- but until then I'm not convinced.
Just seen this on Newsnight..yes yes yes..
11:56 God bless that Man.
Now ...what do we do next?
Yes! 🏳️❤️🧡💛💚💎💙💜🏴
This is a great video, I just take issue with the "anarchists reject communism" part. This isn't true, in fact communism is integral to anarchism. Communism is concerned with a better distribution of wealth, anarchism with a better distribution of power, therefore they go hand in hand. But otherwise I agree, and it's great to bring attention to topics like these, because both of these theories are insanely misunderstood and vilified in modern society.
No, Communism has nothing to do with anarchism because anarchists rule by consensus. In other words. People participate in causes that they WANT to on a VOLUNTARY basis. No one is forced to do anything. Look up Larken Rose and his book THE MOST DANGEROUS SUPERSTITION. Watch, read, listen to anything by him or interviews by others with him.
@@emilybh6255 that isn't mutually exclusive, communism is a system of organising economy, while anarchy deals with the state, you're probably thinking of marxism-lenninism
@@tamarabencikova5986 no "systems" need be used. In an anarchy there is no "state" as there are no rulers. People just happily co-exist and work together on project if they so choose - voluntarily - which is the opposite of communism.
@@emilybh6255 What? :D I'm pretty sure you have the wrong definition of communism, it isn't about forcing anyone to do what they don't want to do- in fact quite the opposite. communism is just a form of economy where workers own the means of production, which means no one can get rich off of your labour.
@@emilybh6255 Besides I'm having a very hard time imagining and anarchist society that isn't communist, since capitalism requires the state to sustain it
I’m currently doing an essay in my college class. If any of you can help me out with answering this simple question. Why do you believe in anarchism as a good philosophy to follow for countries?
Any responses will greatly help me out. Thank you
Yes, he said Kropotkin rejected Communism, and no, Kropotkin loved Communism, but why are you all whining about this?! Do you think he could explain why the Soviet Union and other's weren't communist systems in less than three sentences? When all these boomers hear Communism, they think of Stalin and Pol Pot and so on. So why not pointing out that Anarchism is the exact opposite?
Whether we like it or not globally the term communism has become synonymous with Marxism- Leninism, Bolshevism, & Stalinism. Extremely unlikely if you ask a random citizen in any country to define communism that they’ll describe anarcho-communism. Communism now means Stalinism and Marxism- Leninism, both of which anarchist do oppose so the orator is not wrong. Clearly differentiating anarcho-communism with the global modern interpretation of communism is very important Bolshevism and anarcho-communist are in no way allies, so distancing ourselves from marxist- Leninist is strategically intelligent. My guess is that the orator knew this topic was more complex and decided to just mention the main point being that we are opposed to state communism & Bolshevism he was correct.
@@nevermind342 Right. But it's also a matter of how to handle a changed meaning of any given word. I don't want Communism to be corrupted by fascist criminals like Stalin or Mao, anything else but following the original meaning will take us directly into a world like 1984 where it can mean this today, and the exact opposite tomorrow.
@@spiritualeco-syndicalisthe207 the west but more specifically the United States have spent decades propagandizing the word communist and socialist to the point that both are considered very bad words to the American public and are used as insults by republican media everyday. The west and the US have actively tried to (and succeeded) in associating communism specifically to the Soviet Union and Stalinism since they can therefor say “look that’s what communism is, it brings famine and authoritarian rule.” So in that sense you already live in a world similar to 1984 you’re in it right now. Reversing decades of propaganda about particular words will be hard. You can go ahead and try to take back the single word communism if you want, you won’t have any luck in most western nations. But specifying the type of communism you support is a better chance In my opinion. Instead of saying “I’m a communist” I think it’s strategically and practically wiser to specify and say “I’m an anarcho-communist” for example. Also mentioning your opposition and disdain for Stalin or mao would be very helpful but that just goes back to my point of specificity being the key here. if someone was to ask me are you communist? I’d say “not in the way you know it as, I’m anarcho-communist, completely different from the Soviet Union” even tho I’m actually not an anarcho-communist it was just an example
It seems that the speaker blurs the line between participatory democracy and direct democracy. Direct democracy is not participation. Direct democracy is giving the reigns of society to commoners to control and plan their own political, economic, judicial affairs and ecology.
Funny how he says that Kropotkin opposed communism.
True if he meant state communism.
@@ernststravoblofeld state socialism* or authoritarian states that would call themselves communist.
It bothers me when people don't use words properly, but in this case, the ship sailed more than a hundred years ago. There is no consensus on the difference between communism and socialism. Marx certainly didn't try to keep the terms separate, calling his plans alternately communism or scientific socialism. Lenin seemed to think that communism was what a socialist country was working towards. Today, they are just vaguely leftist words with no particular meaning, other than the workers owning the means of production in some fashion. Or for the wingnuts, it means anyone who wants to treat people well.
@@ernststravoblofeld it makes it literally impossible to talk about any leftist ideas when people think socialism is when the government does stuff and communism is akin to government totalitarianism.
Kropotkin did reject communism, he believed that it would ultimately lead to tyranny and very successfully predicted what happened in the Soviet Union. He believed that communism brought equality but not liberty, but anarchist communism, which eliminates the state, would provide both.
The Arab Spring was created through rapidly rising food prices and inaccesibilty to goods and food. It was social action by the people over instability rather than fueled by any deep political conviction.
Free markets are no "lightly regulated".
I meant "not" regulated.
@@rezinrussell1689 they become that way through centralized authority...when "authority" is limited to the individual...regulations don't exist...business ethics or ostracism does though.
I keep seeing comments saying this, soi just want to point out w should be obvious:
When he refers to communism in this video, he's clearly talking about Soviet communism.
Individual Anarchism is true anarchism
@@jmn1723
Individual anarchism is still present there. You don't lose your individuality by cooperating with someone, so yes, you can be an indidualist and live with society.
It's fundementally necessary.
The name Anarchy is tainted I think we should call this what it actually is “Bottom up direct democracy” to convince more people with ease.
*Nestor Makhno Liked This*
Anarchism for Dummies ? cool.
turgid fungus its more than that. He has some credibility with Liberals because of his work in the Blair govt & his opposition to the Iraq War.
yea i just feel so uninspired by his talks if im honest.
Am I really the only one who never changed his political views since I was 8
>anarchist reject communism
>Peter Kropotkin
The reason I disliked, he needs to get his definitions correct. Communism is not authoriarian, it is antithetical to it.
also
>applel mac
Communism is not incompatible with statism.
I think he's most likely talking about the western definition of communism i.e. soviet style state fascism
But considering the breadth of propaganda that the average American swims through (especially with regards to terms such as 'socialism' and 'communism',) everyone should try to be a little more nuanced when this comes up I think>
INSTALL GENTOO "Communism is not authoritarian"
History doesn't agree with you.
David A
Coherence doesn't agree with you.
History is as reliable as politics and its propaganda; it isn't. "Authoritarian communism" is the equivalence of "2 + 2 = 5" which is also the equivalence of "United Socialist Soviet Republic". Utter nonsense.
_Give us bread, algorhithm!_
Anarkhia, without rulers
Carne's proposal is clearly an evolutionary step, but we must recognise that it requires a degree of healthy self regulation that has been bred out of most through decades of authoritarianism. Our challenge is the transition from here to there....as I write, the choice to evolve has been thrown into stark relief, as the plandemic engulfing the world is the machine we've created, showing us the end point of it's control mechanism....so those of us who can see this must very quickly learn how to take responsibility for our lives and livelihoods, if we are to avoid disappearing into trans-humanism....
Better to call it direct democracy instead of anarchism
spaceshipearth999 Why? Anarchism is a perfectly good term with a long history.
Anarchism: "An"=without "archo"=ruler
I think there are elements of direct democracy that are overlooked in his ideal. What about majority sentiments that actively exclude, or even oppress a minority group within the population. In times of crisis there are individuals who are very effective at rallying and motivating whole groups of people. Sometimes they motivate them to do terrible things. There is also a problem of scale with classical Anarchism. At some point the population reaches a critical mass where above that number decision making becomes very difficult and inefficient.
Anarchism is not direct democracy
This is true