Wow. This was a phenomenal video! I am so glad you made it. It clarified several recurring debates and also helped give me some grounding in specifics that I didn't have before. Thank you for your work Zoe!
Hey Anark. I watched one of your q and a vids a while back and you mentioned that you thought that Bookchins views on democracy were no different than what Malatesta and other social anarchists believed and that he shouldn't have left anarchism to individualist anarchists. Do you still believe so? Because to me it seems as if Bookchin advocated for a super democratic state of some sorts. Thanks in advance if you can help me clear this up. Also love your work.
@@j.j.dragon9482 Yes that still seems to be the case to me. And I can't see how anything he advocated could be called a state. He was firmly anti-statist his entire life and was very much in line with the views heard by several people in this video. In fact, this video might be seen as an extensive support for that argument. Zoe points out very similar things as Bookchin did around the time that he was splitting. But there was so much vulgarization that he was made to think he was not an anarchist.
@@Anark I don’t know about that. Bookchin wanted to reproduce governmentalism even if not a State. A government of a city-state/polis is still a government. Democracy is a government. Anarchy is not incumbent on the polity form, but in moving way from such a social and political form. We want rhizomatic organizations, fluidity, and freedom to associate and disassociate. When Bookchin said once in a confederation you are subject to it and can’t get out of it without the approval of the other communes, that proves why Bookchin’s particular vision is not anarchistic, but radical democracy. His ideals can however be fixed to be more anarchistic. Bookchin should know better himself than you do, he was a Communalist (but fellow LibSoc). Also there’s nothing wrong with individualist anarchism. Though I have my own critiques of post-anarchism. As ridiculous the split in individualist and social is for anarchists, there is a problem among the social anarchists that, perhaps influenced too much by Marx, have misconceived governmentalist notions of anarchism. Like government without state or justified hierarchies. Or majority decision making. There are ways we can organize without democratic voting. Sounds like limiting the radical potential of anarchism with traditional and “safe” forms of organizing you ask me. I prefer Pantarchy as coined by Stephen Pearl Andrews. People joining whatever and as many organizations as they want, and free to leave whenever they want. A fluidity of organizing and as diverse projects as there are people and interests. Regardless I appreciate your work much Anark. I’m a sub.
Thank you Zoe. It's so nice to be able to learn about history of Anarchism. This is valuable content. Democracy to people means that their opinions are included in the decision making. With this definition nothing could be more democratic than Anarchism.
@@funkbungus137 About half-way into this one. Seems pretty good. Any other videos you wanna recommend or any order you might recommend to watch them in?
m.th-cam.com/video/CDMGfsUjS_I/w-d-xo.html Personally, this is a good starting point imo. I also suggest the channels of Radical Reviewer, Qualia Soup, NotJustBikes, Vaush and Anark.
This is sooo good! Forever my No.1 recommendation for people who want to learn more about anarchism without going straight to books! Well done! I really appreciate the nuance here. Far too often I see opponents of anarchism and even some anarchists take this ridiculous black and white view on things while ignoring all the degrees of difference in the world. Like yes, we oppose the state but we don't oppose all states in the same ways and there are situations (like when benefits are cut) that anarchists are some of the first to hit the streets to see a state function kept intact. My position on welfare programs and the military aren't the same despite both being state functions just like I don't view fascist states, CP lead states, monarchies, and Liberal Democracy as equals. Reform and Revolution aren't as mutually exclusive, as some like to claim, and reform isn't entirely worthless, as Emma Goldman wrote on so beautifully. We live in an incredibly complex world and if your perspective doesn't reflect as much it's not relevant to anyone. Stay at it, family! ✊👊🖤☮️🥀🏴🌐A///E
Thank you for this video. Cringy individualist anarchists on Reddit seem to be against these tried and true methods of decision making used in anarchist groups, worker councils, and communes which has troubled me deeply. I’m glad you’re shedding more light on the subject by explaining how they are wrong, and that direct democracy / vote taking was used and advocated for.
Thanks for putting this together. I think one of the important things to consider is how whatever model anarchists pick for making decisions will reinforce certain traits. 2 groups that are both anarchist but with different ways of making decisions can easily come into conflict in ways 2 groups with different ideologies but common decision making often won't
I’d not seen any of your videos prior to this one, but i found this really interesting. *subscribes*. An interesting example of this sort of arrangement working well in practice is that the way that Alcoholics Anonymous is organised means that it could almost be called Anarchists Anonymous: group autonomy, delegates rather than representatives; a preference for decisions being by “substantial unanimity” achieved through discussion (with majority votes only as a last resort); and these decisions generally regarded as suggestions rather than binding on groups or individuals.
Lol except that it's quasi religious and cultist as fuck. In the San Francisco bay there are (were?) more explicitly atheist and anti authoritarian AA/NA (they weren't the majority)
It is frustrating that so many people misunderstand what anarchism is, but it makes a bit more sense when you realize that even anarchists seem to have trouble getting it straight.
Individualists are not anarchists (at least they are not and wee not part of these massive movements that went by the name of anarchism, that are not re made up of millions of people who were in favor or direct democracy). Most social anarchists agree that organization and decision making processes are needed to do anything, it’s really just cringy Redditors and other individualists claiming to know a thing about anarchism, who are that are making false statements against direct democracy.
This is an incredible video/essay. I have to agree with the mixture of majority voting and consensus as a means of decision-making. Probably for the past 2 years, I've agreed with it.
thank you so much for having audio versions of your online essays. i’ve really been wanting to read them, but am chronically ill with POTS/CFS and so reading a screen for extended periods can be difficult for me.
Thank you for doing the long and hard work of digging up the hidden and forgotten history of Leftism and Anarchism. To know that people have been thinking about freedom like this for years is really reassuring.
Same! There are too many weird Redditors who argue that direct democratic voting (within worker councils and communes) is anti anarchist. I’m happy to see anarchists in the real world see past such silly arguments.
@@HeyJinx To add: Individualists are just annoying and disingenuous. They took over Reddit, and pretend their way is “pure” anarchism. I just wish they were honest. If they were forthcoming with the truth (that anti-organizational individualists and social anarchists have differing views on this) then I’d be alright with it I suppose, even though I dislike their view. But they pretend all the anarchist thinkers of the past agreed with them, when that simply isn’t true, which this video gracefully showed. It’s infuriating that they keep pedaling the lie that (non-binding) direct democracy / voting isn’t anarchist, when clearly it was in practice and theory. I didn’t understand why Murray Bookchin wrote that essay until I went onto Anarchy101 on Reddit and experienced this tired debate with anti-organizationalists. It’s just an echo chamber of madness. Sad to see to be honest. As a movement I think we need to move away from it instead of trying to convince those individualist weirdos to change their minds. If it wasn’t for this video I think I’d of abandoned anarchism too
Trying to get into old political works is like trying to demolish a building with a pool noodle. Thank you so much for making this information understandable and interesting.
explain majoritarianism to people and they will say: "ah, you mean democracy!" 😅 i like to differentiate between state democracy and majority decision making. the latter can (and most likely will) exist within anarchy. but people have the choice to opt out, split away or joins somewhere else. a vote is never a substitute for a choice, but it can be plenty useful nonetheless.
The overwhelming majority of anarchist organizations today still use various forms of majoritarian decision-making. The rejection of majoritarianism and insistence on unanimous consensus, with a few exceptions, is largely only prevalent amongst certain post-leftist and other informalist segments of the US and wider anglo anarchist milieus
@@edwinrollins142 Do these organisation that rely on majority vote also feature protections for minority rights? The right of subgroups to dissent from the organisation resolutions of some organisations featured in this video strike me as a form of primitive minority rights protection. It also reminds me of some of the rules in the European Union, and in other countries at the national level.
@@warrendriscoll350 it depends on the organization, what its purpose is, how it functions, how its structured, what its decision making process is. For some organizations there may be such measures where they may be necessary, for others, if there is strong enough dissent, people are always free to leave. Noone is being forced to go along with the group either way
@@sofia.eris.bauhaus the ability to leaving kind of makes it not democracy, it’s just free association. I think a better term in pantarchy. People are associated with as many organizations as they want and leave at will.
Loved this! Very informative. I’m still slowly learning about anarchism, don’t know a lot yet but I realized many things align with my values and understanding of the world. Zoe, my only suggestion as someone whose first language isn’t english is to put english CC on the video. I read the script you made available while I listened to the video but i guess subtitles make things easier. Thanks for the video
Thanks for this well-researched and concise overview of such a complicated topic! Regarding the debate over whether the decisions of a federation should be binding on all groups and individuals within the federation, I think it can be argued that Malatesta's position is contradictory. On the one hand he says federation decisions should not be binding, and on the other hand he says that those who just do whatever they want in an organization without regard for its decisions should be expelled. I don't think this position is necessarily contradictory, but it needs elaboration on what the boundaries are between tolerable and intolerable refusal of collective decisions. I was confused by 33:05 to 34:45: The argument was that majority rules decision making is ok so long as it's not binding on the minority who disagrees. An example is given which is meant to demonstrate a majority-rules decision that the dissenting minority is not bound by. But it seems to me that the example demonstrates the opposite! It was a vote at a meeting over whether anti-militarism should be removed from the meeting agenda. The majority voted to keep it. The minority who disagreed had to accept that this remains on the agenda. They were, in effect, bound to the decision. This makes me wonder if maybe I'm interpreting the term "binding decision" or "bound to a decision" in a different way than these old-school anarchists are intending.
efore i watch this video, some thoughts it seems to me like most criticisms of democracy coming from anarchists arre actually just criticism of bourgeois/liberal/representative democracy. these i 100% agree with. the remasinging criticisms mostly come from the tyranny of the majority argument. I think statements like "end democracy" or "democracy is tyranny" are statements about 90 percent of the time made purely for the sake of online lefty points or edgelord value, while making the anarchist movement VERY vulnerable to fascist entryism, a prime example being the boogaloo boy types so, i think anarchism should always be billed to the public as radically pro democracy, and that we should fight to redefine that word, just as some are doing with libertarian
Excellent video as always Zoe. My opinion is that we probably shouldn't use "direct democracy" when talking about Anarchism, because it has a rather specific connotation, but I think we absolutely can use the term "democracy" in a more general sense. As long as it's deliberately distinguishable from the common understanding of democracy (aka representative democracy). Something like "Radical democracy", "stateless democracy", would probably be ok imo.
I always thought that communists wanted a democratic stateless, classless, moneyless social system. And that Anarchists are communists who wanted that system to focus especially/fundamentally on empowering, uplifting and support individually guided development and expression of every single human. As opposed to some other communists (*tankies for example) who might still feel will of the majority and the overall public good let them trample some 'sacrificial' individuals; exclude some outliers "for the good of the community". This authoritarianism , I maintain, is something we must always be aware for on the left (** why we fight amongst ourselves so much, perhaps). Love your videos. Thank you.
I will highly recommend reading the text Against democracy by the coordination of anarchist groups, coordination that faced the Pandora operation in spain during the 2011-14 movement, the text is a complete modern analysis of democracy from its real meaning that is de-mos =Demiurgi and Geomori (craftmen and farmers) Kratos= state, the state of craftmen and farmers in wish being a male owner wasn't enough you had to be a pillar of the economy to had a part in politics and in the top since the offices were not paid and only those on top could afford to not work more than 2 years, to the modern vision of democracy and the error of dissident movements to follow the rhetoric of the US in the moral reality of democracy as standard that guarantee the hegemonic uni-vision of today that makes possible to impose this in all movements and impossible to imagine a reality out of it, the text also explores the connection between democracy and the nuclear family as the key columns of the producers of producers for the state, i think that after this well done video it can give a deeper understanding from the eyes of the auto-named antidemocratic anarchists that frighted sush operation. Thank you for your videos Zoe i appreciate them
Amazing video, I would love to hear your takes on what should be our current strategy of decision making in anarchist struggle and society. For exemple, Graeber in the book fragments of an anarchist anthropology made a very strong argument for consensus decision making, pointing to the fact that, aside from Athens, anthropological studies on societies with collective decision making were done by consensus, Athens, being the most competitive society in ancient Greece, would, according to Graeber, also make its political decision a competition, that's why the majority vote was in place, because ideas would compete for it's implementation.
@@randcall5933 i have it on my shelf, but I also have to read a bunch of books for college and stuff, so i have little to no time for other works these days, so sad...
The Syndicalist Anarchism disclude everyone who is not employed. The for various reasons unemployed, chronically ill and disabled,; as well as the self-employed, and puts them out of the equation of society/community.
Hi, I can understand why you think this but it is not true. At the founding congress of the CNT Lorenzo refers to the "unemployed”- workers without work, without pay, without bread, without a home, without affection". The CNT also did community organizing, including rent strikes. A key group of workers involved in this were unemployed construction workers. Syndicalists always claimed that in an anarchist society disabled people who were unable to work would be provided for. A significant number of workers in the CNT were disabled due to workplace accidents. At the first congress of the CNT in 1911 there was an entire discussion about disabled workers. It was proposed that "associations of disabled persons who can no longer work" should be formed and that the CNT should protect the rights of the disabled. They also carefully distinguished between disabled people who can work and those who cannot, and thereby avoided the ableist assumption that disabled people necessarily cannot work. The CNT's resolutions on libertarian communism advocate self-management via both economic organs (syndicates) and community organs (communes).
@@anarchozoe I am Swedish, and here the Syndicalists never mention the unemployed, chronically ill or disabled. They concern themselves with themselves; whilst posing revolutionary and helping out illegal migrants.
fabulous video it addresses what i'd consider my position to have been already, but the historical lens applied to compare contexts & break down the rigidity of language that divides comrades is extremely useful. thank u
@AveragepoliticsEnjoyer Are you saying you wish I said "democracy is the opposite of anarchism"? I think that's actually less grammatically correct, but I still endorse the obvious meaning of it
I was just wondering, if I were to make the following assumptions which seem reasonable: - if you're part of an association, its decisions bind you, and bind others regarding you - such guarantees may not exist if you aren't part of it - if you consistently go against the decisions of an association, it may and usually should kick you out - there is an association, with near-universal participation, that decides on basic human rights (this association may be informal in the form of traditions or morality) - violence in self-defense is justified - anyone who's known to disregard the near-universally agreed basic human rights is a significant threat to others How is that association functionally different from a state, and its resolutions different from a system of law?
1) if you voluntarily signed on to such an association, then yes. if it's "the association of japanese american women" and you just happen to be a japanese american woman, then hell no.
3) you have to define what you mean by "go against" the decisions of the association. If you breach your contract with the association, then that is a crime. If you merely express dissent, then the association's charter would determine whether you could be kicked out, but in this case I would hardly say that the assoc "should" kick you out; rather we should prefer associations which allow freedom of speech.
4) no, there is no binding informal association, as i pointed out in (1). if you do not agree to be in the organization, then it may not violate your rights and violently coerce you into adopting its morality
6) no, not at all. those who are a significant threat to others are a significant threat to others. This is already covered by your point (5). Anything beyond point (5) is wholly unjustified.
Finally, the answer to your conclusion is that they are nothing alike. Have you ever encountered a state before? Was it anything like what you described?
I don't understand how anarchists can be anti-government and anti-democracy, and yet still organize themselves in a way that requires everyone to agree on how things should be run, and even sometimes enforcing things with violence, for example. It often feels like anarchists are against certain words but ultimately envisage a society that has many of the key qualities that current ones have. That's not to say that current systems aren't deeply flawed, but it doesn't seem like anarchists are suggesting something that's *fundamentally* different. If the argument is indeed just that our systems could be much better, then of course I would agree. I think a lot of people would. And I think that's what we currently have - social democracy - where we take action to make reforms that improve the system. That's not to say that that's working even nearly good enough, or that it will ever be, but that's at least what we're *trying* to do. You also have to take into account the fact that our systems aren't manifestations of pure ideology, but rather have a long historical current to them, which explains the huge concentrations of wealth and power and massive inequality that we are trying to address on an ongoing basis. I'm trying to understand anarchism and what it actually entails, so I would appreciate anyone providing their thoughts on this.
Just to chime in for my fellow consensus heads, Graeber's "Are you an anarchist? The answer may suprise you!" refers to anarchy as being consensus based
The organizations he associated with that used “consensus” did not make decisions unanimously. It was essentially consensus or directly democratic vote (aiming for a really high super majority). Most groups who use “consensus based decision making,” have rules and measures to ensure a decision can be made, so it can’t get hijacked by a small group of dissenters (thus, it’s direct democracy, not consensus in the sense of unanimity). If they don’t then the group implodes. Murray Bookchin explained his own experience on how this can go wrong and destroy an organization (in his essay on the topic) Other thinkers like the ones mentioned in the video have explained similar things. Unanimous decision making (consensus in this context) is not viable and should not be the program anarchists go for.
imo an entirely horizontal and decentralized conception of anarchy is problematically Humanist. Why should the full autonomy of human individuals constitute an eternal goal when applying the same goal to single-celled organisms who were alone on this planet for the majority of life's existence would preclude humans from even existing? Overcentralization is a possibility for systems to become non-viable, yes. Just imagine if your central consciousness had to micromanage literally everything going on in your body. That would be totally non-viable and we can be glad about how autonomous the various parts of our bodies are, but on the other hand it is only through their interdependence and to a certain extent centrally coordinated nature that we as human subjects can even emerge. Likewise, a conception of anarchy or communism that reflects this apparent trajectory of life and viable systems in general needs to be open to some degree of centralization and ultimately even toward decentering the human individual. Even transhumanist Anarchism to my knowledge is mostly content with critiquing the "human" part of "human individual". The least Humanist anarchism might just be Daoist Anarchism.
Interesting thoughts. From biology we have the social insects and even symbiotic relationships between organisms. Of course, only humans are capable of high level abstract thoughts and concepts but sometimes we might try to fly too high - remember Icarus I think, oh dear, the Greeks already been there again 🙂...🏴🚩
what a wonderful reminder that each of us develops our own definitions of so many words we people talk past one another so much, often because we simply don't understand what one another are actually talking about just 8 minutes into this video, i'm recognizing how my own ideas about "democracy" and "anarchism" are a mish-mash of many other people's different ideas about both and i'm seeing how my ideas about racism, misogyny, colonialism, imperialism, fascism, and many more crucial political ideas/systems/realities are also my own mish-mashes - i shouldn't expect anyone else to "understand' any of those big ideas the same way i "understand" them learning to understand what each person means when they say "democracy" - or any word describing any other "big idea" - is a challenge to each person's ability to communicate, to organize, to empathize, to ... ... ... aw, fuck ... ... mind blown fuckin cool essay, zoe thank you
While I do think that this an excellent resource for understanding the general anarchist position on "democracy" in its historical context, one thing that I think is missing here are the actual viewpoints of those anarchists who were opposed to the majority vote and often to large-scale assemblies and organisations in general, particularly given that you cite Luigi Galleani, an insurrectionary anarchist who explicitly drew on the those traditions. While Errico Malatesta was fairly explicit in his condemnation of individualist anarchism, Malatesta is not the be-all and end-all of anarchist thought, particularly not in his own historical context as an Italian anarchist of the early twentieth century; it would be interesting to contrast his more organisational approach with, for example, the ethical egoism of the flamboyant revolutionary antifascist Renzo Novatore, or indeed Galleani's own take on anarchism, which in many ways bridged the gap between the two.
I was unable to find a single primary source in English that advocates the position of only unanimous agreement. As a result I had to rely on other people responding to this position. Do you know of a source? I deliberately didn't touch on the debate around affinity groups vs affinity groups + formal federations because that's a separate topic.
@@anarchozoe I feel like my wording may have been misleading (and I must apologise), as generally speaking, what I've personally encountered are less situations of people opposing the majority vote in an assembly context than arguing against formal organisations in part because of the tendency for voting to move from non-binding gauges of room temperature to binding resolutions, as made explicit by the platformists and later the CNT-FAI. That said, if you were setting aside the formal org/affinity group question due to how big of a topic it is in its own right, I would be extremely interested in seeing you explore it in a future video. I personally sit firmly on the insurrectionist end of the spectrum, but while I suspect we differ greatly on the matter, your videos are always at a minimum highly informative and intriguing, and I would love to see you put that debate into its proper historical perspective. Again, it's kind of hard *not* to talk about organisation when discussing anarchism in the early twentieth century, particularly in the different approaches taken in response to imperialism and, ultimately, fascism, and I think that aspect of the subject is… *especially* applicable in our current political climate.
I do plan on making a video about the debate around organization in the future. Like with the democracy video I'm going to not take a side and just explain both positions as best as I can.
16:23 historical take on socialist society, that it (rule of majority over minority) could not actually occur 16:43 says not delegates but governors with power threat of force 17:29 collective decisions in community/workplace assemblies 32:20 communist 33:00 purges 36:14 **consider this unanimity of conviction to executing such decisions 35:50 fleeing bolsheviks - ** though the Bolshevik’s are not anarchist is not what they were attempting including the commitment to communal decisions almost exactly what they left to write about what was right ? *As with democracy and its different definitions there are often the same actions carried out under different names and with the same ultimate goals but dedicated to being opposed - not always but in this circumstance 40:00 democracy without the state = free association / anarchy 40:42 consensus 41:23 **state has the power of the “only legitimate” use of violence - **this is similar to the decision making process of when violence is justified (though it is the institutionalized condition which makes the state powerful, which is not possessed by the majority) **which is why though it could be argued that even anarchism requires a state for revolution - as the state is not some abstract governing body, but a conglomerate that is wielding legitimized use of power. (Which in all common sense ought to be stopped, and is entirely for oppression of all people (save the tiny few ruling elites who also would be subsumed if capitalism is left to its course) - versus the legitimated use of violence against the continuation of this system AND its return to power - and in truly free association / anarchy there is no legitimate use of violence (under these definitions of the state having the only legitimate use) without , in theory, creations and destructions of tiny Micro states over and over. (This understanding of a “micro state” doesnt really make sense , it is essentially a philosophical consideration trying to break down what the implications of this position on violence are - it would not be perceived logically as any kind of state but as community morals, etc.
Majoritarianism/majoritarian democracy is a useful way to distinguish democracy that places the majority over the minority from voluble democratic where everyone agrees to have an equal say
23:30 I don't think direct democracy was possible until the internet age. It will also be necessary to reclaim/clawback patents, lands, and monies from the rich/corporations. Nationalize human necessities, establish a true meritocracy, eliminate debt based economics. We can connect a paycheck/ubi to voting, maintaining the political and economic systems, will be our "jobs". Pay people to learn, instead of paying to learn, learning is work.
I think that we have to appreciate this about the athenian democracy (while obviously ignoring that only 12% of the populace actually were included): for a certain period the demos truly held power (before the tyrannis of the 30). To choose offices by lot and not through vote, to restrict offices by one term and other safeguards, ment that the assembly held immense power (the extense is probably best illustrated by the battle of arginusae), not comparable to any state that followed it. This obviously ment, that should one be able to effectively manipulate the demos, one would control this power, as shown by figures like Kimon or Perikles and criticised by the 4th century philosophers. Nonetheless it is amazing, that this experiment was so successful and that we have literary evidence of it. From an anarchist perspective the majority rule of the aseembly forced the Athenian demos into a devastating war and subjugated countles Poleis. The demos was also the master of the rest of the athenian populace, making women, children, foreigners and actual slaves its subjects.
Would anarchism be implemented within society or from without? It seems to me that anarchist societies have always arisen within broader revolutionary, progressive, or labor movements, or they are established as tiny communes that exists outside society. Even when anarchist societies do rise within broader societal movements, they are a tiny minority and have died out even before those movements were fully crushed by counter-revolutionaries.
I'd also like more information in this sphere. My broadest critique of anarchism lies in the fact that it's history is quite isolated and segmented within the history of European Enlightenment, colonial expansion, and current post colonial imperialist domination. The closest history of Anarchist revolt lies in the Spanish Civil War where the anarchist fighters refused to advance revolutionary aims because they clashed with anarchist principles ultimately providing the opening that enabled Franco's rise to power. Kinda rambling now but my question lies in how do anarchists secure revolution? In my studies I believe anarchism has to be the tool used to break apart the colonial and settler colonial powers (establishment of a socialist state in Canada or the US sounds honestly terrifying given the imperialist arm and settler colonial nature) but the how eludes me.
I think choosing to use a definition of democracy that's excludes anarchism as a form is a grave mistake that makes it very difficult to convince anyone that anarchism is a good idea.
I am by no means an expert but there are multiple definitions and it depends on the context. In sociology it is usually put forward that unanimity means everyone agreed to a thing (everyone voted yes) and consent means that no one voted no but some (or possibly a majority) remained silent (no "no" but some did not vote). Looking at it from a functional lense consensus can be seen as the process of having everyone agree on an idea. In every day language people may also use the term interchangeably. So that can also get confusing. As you didn't refer to a specific part I cannot propose which one the author used here.
@@JebeckyGranjola my apoligies. You are of course correct. I have ADHD and sometimes accidentally switch things around. Consens is the absence of dissenting opinions while unanimity means everyone agreed. Sry everyone, also edited the reply.
I think we should use direct democracy, the concept, as a core principle of free asscoiation, which we should use as the core principle itself.. Brilliant video as per usual Zoe.
This has been super useful for me, as a socialist, to begin understanding what Anarchism actually is. Hasn't really changed my preference for socialist democracy, but I think I see at least why someone might like the idea of Anarchy.
I don't see how you had that takeaway. The videoessay author just claimed that democratic socialism *is* anarchy. So of course you now agree with anarchy once it's conflated with your own view. But of course the author is quite wrong, and democracy is the opposite of anarchy.
@authenticallysuperficial9874 To be fair, I made this comment two years ago. Easy to say my understanding has evolved, and I forgot what was even in this video.
What about situations that affect humans globally, such as a pandemic or other global environmental issue? How would the non-binding nature of majoritarian decision-making prevent the problems associated with non-cooperation in coordinated needs?
Hm. I guess I'm of the opinion that majority votes should only represent a snapshot of people's viewpoints at a certain time. Consequently a very fluid system of consensus is needed and the body that votes should be able to create or dissolve policies and viewpoints at will. I'm thinking here strictly in the sense of polities, although one could argue that polities are not the ideal way of structuring society. On the other hand, when people live next to each other, it necessarily requires an agreement to behave civilly, so I struggle to imagine how society would function without at least a vague notion of polity. That being said, if all the members of a certain polity are okay with someone's actions that go against a wider resolution, I believe that would be the way in which certain resolutions are non-binding. It really comes down to what the grass roots community councils think, because they're in charge of their specific polities. So in that case, communities could pretty much run things how they wanted as long as there were a consensus within that community, and it would be no harm no foul
Even though i myself am a ML it was very interesting. I agree on most parts besides ofc the soviet republics not being real democracies. And still oppressing the people. Whilst there still is class struggle indeed, we’re working towards communism. For most people and for society as a whole it isn’t easy to make such a switch immediatly. If someone thinks I came to the wrong conclusion or misunderstood something please do respond.
I don't know if I missed it, or the term is agreed upon, but what defines "Historical anarchist" vs "modern anarchist"? Is there a time period or event in which these two sets of people are split?
She doesn't say in the video, but I assume the Historical or Classical Anarchism was from the late 19th and early 20th century, while Modern Anarchism is from the mid to late 20th and early 21st century. Anarchism lost sway in the Labor Movement after WWII, when the Modern State felt as powerful as ever, but had a renewal in the 60s and 70s New Left and Student Movement.
This explained it well but i still dont get how majority rule democracy with the option to leave the association is anarchist Like if i am in an association to manage the local roads or idk anything of that sorts i would have the freedom to disagree in an anarchist society and the freedom to leave that association to found a new one but mine will inevitably be useless since i cant really organise the roads or have "jurisdiction" over where to build roads vis a vis the other roads organisation Doesnt this in effect just mean that majority rule is still firmly in place and that the only chance for me to really disagree and do my own thing is to move out in the woods which is more or less the same chance we have now
Feels like you might be thinking of a specific example in too abstract a manner? I don't know what Zoe would answer but if you leave the roads org to found one yourself because their decision is so against your belief then the energy you put in would be to try to convince others outside of any roads org to join your org and go for your motion instead. Pitting your org against the other with the input of both sets of members would result in new decisions and new ideas from the conversation between the two. Yes you could of course just concentrate on dealing with roads in an area not covered by the existing roads org (ie. move away into the woods etc.), but more than likely you could try to come back to the table with a reinforced set of arguments and motions and work it out from there. True democracy must mean that everyone gets a voice, not that everything that is said is therefore done or is capable of being done.
There would inevitably be lots of issues like this, but that is the same with any system as 100% unanimous consent is impossible for 100% of decisions. The benefit is that this system is built to establish the most consent for any decision, and doesn't go out of it's way to punish those who disagree or disassociate. In community management related issues like this road system, those who disassociate would just self manage their residences. If you were the only one to disassociate then there would be no need for road construction as there are no other nodes who have consented to being linked to yours. We wouldn't want one individual to be constructing roads wherever they wish. Furthermore, associations shouldn't be able to refuse service to disassociated individual if that refusal reduces the individuals agency; that would entail coercion by access restriction. So the community association wouldn't force you to do all the management for a long road that connects your residence to the rest of the community. They would probably be expected to perform basic maintenance (with your help too), and wouldn't make any additions to the road that you disagreed with. Different types of associations would encounter different issues depending on what is being acted upon, but I can't imagine anything better.
@@Birbface the specific example question is the constant pitfall of anarchist circles, it seems. "Well what about this situation? How would that work?" And it seems to be related to the ideas that Zoe quoted from Malatesta, that some anarchists were trying to be so "pure" and by-the-book that nothing would get done because voting was supposedly "anti-anarchist". I don't have a specific solution, and I'm kind of just spewing brain soup, but it makes me think of Work-to-rule strikes. The reason those work is because we develop ways of working through experience and familiarity that allow us to be more efficient and productive without having to follow every step and every rule. Seems to be similar with anarchism. Yeah there are certain rules that generally should be upheld, but as we organize in new ways, we will discover what works and what doesn't. And with regard to road making specifically, maybe majority votes work in those situations and maybe they don't. But we only find out by experimenting with new ways of organization, and anything that we are thinking of is probably guaranteed to be better than what we have now. But getting so hung up on specific circumstances just keeps pushing us back on reaching any meaningful progress. Okay, brain dump over, please critique me lol.
I: Not the OP but since I asked as well, gonna say, good responses, everyone, thank you. I think the roads were just one example, it´s the underlying principle rather than the specific scenario that the question actually targets. But I suppose the answers could work in different scenarios as well
That would be some weird individualist kratocracy Anyone who uses the phrase "survival of the fittest" in such a way seemingly doesn't understand what selective fitness is, the difference in Spencer's and Darwin's usage, doesn't understand the mistake Darwin made in borrowing Spencer's term at the behest of Wallace, or his critique of it, let alone the reason for the development of "higher thinking skills" of the frontal lobe in Homo sapiens or mirror neurons, or why dogs and sapiens were so compatible, or what "anarchism" is vs "anarchy", or the definition of either... or that they would be the first to go bye bye in that situation. Because unlike Spencer, Darwin's assertion (although many don't realize this) and Anarchisms assertion (although many don't realize this) is based on survival and benefit to populations through cooperative organization, symbiosis, natural niche partitioning and many other things, because these things have been demonstrated to bring selective fitness advantages in primate populations specifically and mammal and animal populations more generally.
@@micixduda You can't have no rulers in a survival of the fittest situation. It's fundamentally not anarchist because it'd inevitably result in the most basic form of hierarchy, the domination of the weak by the strong. I can see why you think this is Anarchy, as it's the way the word is commonly used, but it's only used in that way due to well, anti anarchist propaganda. Simply put, Anarchism isn't chaos, even though that's how it's often seen as. Summarized in one sentence, anarchy is organization without oppression. It seeks to remove all forms of coercion and create a form of true freedom. Not freedom in this abstract metaphysical sense that only results in the domination of the weak, but a real, true freedom to do what one sees fit so long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others.
@@FreiheitHistory 'so long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others', doesn't sounds like anarchy or freedom. The so called rights we have were fought for and taken from the anarchists and they always want, a roll back, to a good old days. when we had less rights aka survival of the fittest aka anarchy. Rights are rules to hold chaos back.
@@micixduda Once again the right to hurt others isn't a right a person should hold. That isn't freedom, it's simply the oppression of the weak by the strong. Again anarchists don't just want chaos. Anarchists want a voluntary and cooperative society free from the coercive forces in the current. We want to remove the government, capitalism, and other similar institutions which create a stepping stool for bad actors to hurt others. Due to the way these institutions are designed, the most power hungry individuals end up getting the most control. Inevitably, those with the most power are the ones who should have that power the least. Any attempts to change this within the system will fail because it's been constructed over the course of thousands of years solely to benefit those at the top. We want to remove this hierarchy entirely, and prevent another similar form of exploitation from arising. I think your confusion again comes from your idea of what anarchism is. We're not ideologues, we don't want to remove hierarchy because we have to fulfill some mathematical equation. We want to remove coercive hierarchies because we believe they will fundamentally lead to repression. We want to remove hierarchy because we believe people can behave without a boot down their neck. And ultimately we believe what we believe because we think it'll lead to the best and most prosperous outcome. We aren't utopians, anarchism is more of a process than a set end goal, and even if the state is overthrown there are likely new problems to arise. In that case, anarchism can be replaced with a new revolutionary ideal. But in the world's current state, the greatest problem we have is the institutionalized and accepted exploitation of billions to benefit very few. We are working to overturn this once again not because we have an innate hatred of hierarchy for no reason, but because we think its best. Hope this explanation helped!
Your definition of anarchy I believe is a little off. You're putting too many rules on the idea. I think the whole idea is that it's an idea of individual men being able to cooperate with another individual man through voluntary cooperation and in which the two men are allowed to make their own rules.
I just don't see anarchism without democracy. I'm not referring to our booshy modern plutocractic representative democracy. I just think for Anarchism to work fuck even just socialism to succeed egalitarian direct democracy is needed.
Wow. This was a phenomenal video! I am so glad you made it. It clarified several recurring debates and also helped give me some grounding in specifics that I didn't have before. Thank you for your work Zoe!
Hey Anark. I watched one of your q and a vids a while back and you mentioned that you thought that Bookchins views on democracy were no different than what Malatesta and other social anarchists believed and that he shouldn't have left anarchism to individualist anarchists. Do you still believe so? Because to me it seems as if Bookchin advocated for a super democratic state of some sorts. Thanks in advance if you can help me clear this up. Also love your work.
@@j.j.dragon9482 Yes that still seems to be the case to me. And I can't see how anything he advocated could be called a state. He was firmly anti-statist his entire life and was very much in line with the views heard by several people in this video. In fact, this video might be seen as an extensive support for that argument. Zoe points out very similar things as Bookchin did around the time that he was splitting. But there was so much vulgarization that he was made to think he was not an anarchist.
@@Anark Thanks for the fast reply and clearance. One more thing, what would be the best book to start with Bookchin?
@@Anark I don’t know about that. Bookchin wanted to reproduce governmentalism even if not a State. A government of a city-state/polis is still a government. Democracy is a government. Anarchy is not incumbent on the polity form, but in moving way from such a social and political form. We want rhizomatic organizations, fluidity, and freedom to associate and disassociate. When Bookchin said once in a confederation you are subject to it and can’t get out of it without the approval of the other communes, that proves why Bookchin’s particular vision is not anarchistic, but radical democracy. His ideals can however be fixed to be more anarchistic. Bookchin should know better himself than you do, he was a Communalist (but fellow LibSoc). Also there’s nothing wrong with individualist anarchism. Though I have my own critiques of post-anarchism. As ridiculous the split in individualist and social is for anarchists, there is a problem among the social anarchists that, perhaps influenced too much by Marx, have misconceived governmentalist notions of anarchism. Like government without state or justified hierarchies. Or majority decision making. There are ways we can organize without democratic voting. Sounds like limiting the radical potential of anarchism with traditional and “safe” forms of organizing you ask me. I prefer Pantarchy as coined by Stephen Pearl Andrews. People joining whatever and as many organizations as they want, and free to leave whenever they want. A fluidity of organizing and as diverse projects as there are people and interests. Regardless I appreciate your work much Anark. I’m a sub.
Hey, Anark.
Thank you Zoe. It's so nice to be able to learn about history of Anarchism. This is valuable content.
Democracy to people means that their opinions are included in the decision making. With this definition nothing could be more democratic than Anarchism.
yet another certified hood classic from zoe, our (democratically-elected) queen
Urgh, please stop
No, she's the democratically elected CEO of anarchism.
Don't do that
th-cam.com/video/oX3qM4VqbJo/w-d-xo.html
@@TrollDude3 She?
@@nanashi2146 she
No idea what this channel is but since this seems to be on anarchism I am already on board.
Excited to watch this later.
oh shit, you should just watch all of Zoe's content, its the bees knees.
@@funkbungus137 About half-way into this one. Seems pretty good.
Any other videos you wanna recommend or any order you might recommend to watch them in?
m.th-cam.com/video/CDMGfsUjS_I/w-d-xo.html
Personally, this is a good starting point imo. I also suggest the channels of Radical Reviewer, Qualia Soup, NotJustBikes, Vaush and Anark.
Oh and basically anyone in Zoe's channel friends.
@@michimatsch5862 Her video on the theory of the unity of means and ends is v good (th-cam.com/video/vsRyTWBj84E/w-d-xo.html)
This is sooo good! Forever my No.1 recommendation for people who want to learn more about anarchism without going straight to books! Well done!
I really appreciate the nuance here. Far too often I see opponents of anarchism and even some anarchists take this ridiculous black and white view on things while ignoring all the degrees of difference in the world. Like yes, we oppose the state but we don't oppose all states in the same ways and there are situations (like when benefits are cut) that anarchists are some of the first to hit the streets to see a state function kept intact. My position on welfare programs and the military aren't the same despite both being state functions just like I don't view fascist states, CP lead states, monarchies, and Liberal Democracy as equals. Reform and Revolution aren't as mutually exclusive, as some like to claim, and reform isn't entirely worthless, as Emma Goldman wrote on so beautifully. We live in an incredibly complex world and if your perspective doesn't reflect as much it's not relevant to anyone.
Stay at it, family!
✊👊🖤☮️🥀🏴🌐A///E
Thank you for this video. Cringy individualist anarchists on Reddit seem to be against these tried and true methods of decision making used in anarchist groups, worker councils, and communes which has troubled me deeply. I’m glad you’re shedding more light on the subject by explaining how they are wrong, and that direct democracy / vote taking was used and advocated for.
@@HeyJinx Guess he spent too much time on Reddit lol. That’s saddening.
Thanks for putting this together. I think one of the important things to consider is how whatever model anarchists pick for making decisions will reinforce certain traits. 2 groups that are both anarchist but with different ways of making decisions can easily come into conflict in ways 2 groups with different ideologies but common decision making often won't
Never heard the classic anarchist dilemma articulated so well lol
I’d not seen any of your videos prior to this one, but i found this really interesting. *subscribes*.
An interesting example of this sort of arrangement working well in practice is that the way that Alcoholics Anonymous is organised means that it could almost be called Anarchists Anonymous: group autonomy, delegates rather than representatives; a preference for decisions being by “substantial unanimity” achieved through discussion (with majority votes only as a last resort); and these decisions generally regarded as suggestions rather than binding on groups or individuals.
I had no idea about this. That's incredible tbh
Lol except that it's quasi religious and cultist as fuck. In the San Francisco bay there are (were?) more explicitly atheist and anti authoritarian AA/NA (they weren't the majority)
It is frustrating that so many people misunderstand what anarchism is, but it makes a bit more sense when you realize that even anarchists seem to have trouble getting it straight.
Individualists are not anarchists (at least they are not and wee not part of these massive movements that went by the name of anarchism, that are not re made up of millions of people who were in favor or direct democracy). Most social anarchists agree that organization and decision making processes are needed to do anything, it’s really just cringy Redditors and other individualists claiming to know a thing about anarchism, who are that are making false statements against direct democracy.
anarchism is an inherently individualist idea. next.
This is an incredible video/essay. I have to agree with the mixture of majority voting and consensus as a means of decision-making. Probably for the past 2 years, I've agreed with it.
thank you so much for having audio versions of your online essays. i’ve really been wanting to read them, but am chronically ill with POTS/CFS and so reading a screen for extended periods can be difficult for me.
Thank you for doing the long and hard work of digging up the hidden and forgotten history of Leftism and Anarchism. To know that people have been thinking about freedom like this for years is really reassuring.
Mario with Malatesta's head is not something that I thought I needed
More like Mariotesta, amirite?
I'll get my coat...
@@RaunienTheFirst
Wasn't Malatesta a Buddhist?
This is most clarity I’ve heard on an issue that so many silly online conversations get caught up in - thank you!
Same! There are too many weird Redditors who argue that direct democratic voting (within worker councils and communes) is anti anarchist. I’m happy to see anarchists in the real world see past such silly arguments.
@@HeyJinx I’m unfamiliar with most of their content. What side do they take in this? The correct side or wrong side? Lol
@@HeyJinx To add: Individualists are just annoying and disingenuous. They took over Reddit, and pretend their way is “pure” anarchism. I just wish they were honest. If they were forthcoming with the truth (that anti-organizational individualists and social anarchists have differing views on this) then I’d be alright with it I suppose, even though I dislike their view. But they pretend all the anarchist thinkers of the past agreed with them, when that simply isn’t true, which this video gracefully showed. It’s infuriating that they keep pedaling the lie that (non-binding) direct democracy / voting isn’t anarchist, when clearly it was in practice and theory.
I didn’t understand why Murray Bookchin wrote that essay until I went onto Anarchy101 on Reddit and experienced this tired debate with anti-organizationalists. It’s just an echo chamber of madness. Sad to see to be honest. As a movement I think we need to move away from it instead of trying to convince those individualist weirdos to change their minds.
If it wasn’t for this video I think I’d of abandoned anarchism too
Trying to get into old political works is like trying to demolish a building with a pool noodle. Thank you so much for making this information understandable and interesting.
I'd say, in modern terms, anarchists are against majoritarianism, which is sometimes called democracy, but is not democracy.
explain majoritarianism to people and they will say: "ah, you mean democracy!" 😅
i like to differentiate between state democracy and majority decision making. the latter can (and most likely will) exist within anarchy. but people have the choice to opt out, split away or joins somewhere else.
a vote is never a substitute for a choice, but it can be plenty useful nonetheless.
The overwhelming majority of anarchist organizations today still use various forms of majoritarian decision-making. The rejection of majoritarianism and insistence on unanimous consensus, with a few exceptions, is largely only prevalent amongst certain post-leftist and other informalist segments of the US and wider anglo anarchist milieus
@@edwinrollins142 Do these organisation that rely on majority vote also feature protections for minority rights? The right of subgroups to dissent from the organisation resolutions of some organisations featured in this video strike me as a form of primitive minority rights protection. It also reminds me of some of the rules in the European Union, and in other countries at the national level.
@@warrendriscoll350 it depends on the organization, what its purpose is, how it functions, how its structured, what its decision making process is. For some organizations there may be such measures where they may be necessary, for others, if there is strong enough dissent, people are always free to leave. Noone is being forced to go along with the group either way
@@sofia.eris.bauhaus the ability to leaving kind of makes it not democracy, it’s just free association. I think a better term in pantarchy. People are associated with as many organizations as they want and leave at will.
Loved this! Very informative. I’m still slowly learning about anarchism, don’t know a lot yet but I realized many things align with my values and understanding of the world.
Zoe, my only suggestion as someone whose first language isn’t english is to put english CC on the video. I read the script you made available while I listened to the video but i guess subtitles make things easier. Thanks for the video
Wow this is such an amazing resource, quickly becoming my fave channel, thank you Zoe!!!!
Thanks for this well-researched and concise overview of such a complicated topic! Regarding the debate over whether the decisions of a federation should be binding on all groups and individuals within the federation, I think it can be argued that Malatesta's position is contradictory. On the one hand he says federation decisions should not be binding, and on the other hand he says that those who just do whatever they want in an organization without regard for its decisions should be expelled.
I don't think this position is necessarily contradictory, but it needs elaboration on what the boundaries are between tolerable and intolerable refusal of collective decisions.
I was confused by 33:05 to 34:45: The argument was that majority rules decision making is ok so long as it's not binding on the minority who disagrees. An example is given which is meant to demonstrate a majority-rules decision that the dissenting minority is not bound by. But it seems to me that the example demonstrates the opposite! It was a vote at a meeting over whether anti-militarism should be removed from the meeting agenda. The majority voted to keep it. The minority who disagreed had to accept that this remains on the agenda. They were, in effect, bound to the decision.
This makes me wonder if maybe I'm interpreting the term "binding decision" or "bound to a decision" in a different way than these old-school anarchists are intending.
Thank you so much for your work!🏴❤️🖤🏴
Great vid, can really tell it was a crafted labour of love.
efore i watch this video, some thoughts
it seems to me like most criticisms of democracy coming from anarchists arre actually just criticism of bourgeois/liberal/representative democracy. these i 100% agree with. the remasinging criticisms mostly come from the tyranny of the majority argument.
I think statements like "end democracy" or "democracy is tyranny" are statements about 90 percent of the time made purely for the sake of online lefty points or edgelord value, while making the anarchist movement VERY vulnerable to fascist entryism, a prime example being the boogaloo boy types
so, i think anarchism should always be billed to the public as radically pro democracy, and that we should fight to redefine that word, just as some are doing with libertarian
It does not matter in the slightest whether it is direct or representative democracy. Both are evil.
Wonderful work, as always. Precision immaculate, detailed. Thank you for your efforts and for featuring my silly anarchist raccoon drawings.
Wiggy is here
hey wiggy
@@_doop8257 hey
Comrades, we have nothing to fear! wiggy is here!!!
Excellent video as always Zoe. My opinion is that we probably shouldn't use "direct democracy" when talking about Anarchism, because it has a rather specific connotation, but I think we absolutely can use the term "democracy" in a more general sense. As long as it's deliberately distinguishable from the common understanding of democracy (aka representative democracy). Something like "Radical democracy", "stateless democracy", would probably be ok imo.
“Decentralized direct democracy” and stateless democracy would work
@thelonewanderer4084 that would be better, i agree
worth the wait
I always enjoy listening to u! always teaches new outlooks and history. keep up the good work Zoe
This has cleared up so many questions I've had with anarchism that I haven't been able to get a clear answer on in the past! Great video essay:)
I always thought that communists wanted a democratic stateless, classless, moneyless social system. And that Anarchists are communists who wanted that system to focus especially/fundamentally on empowering, uplifting and support individually guided development and expression of every single human.
As opposed to some other communists (*tankies for example) who might still feel will of the majority and the overall public good let them trample some 'sacrificial' individuals; exclude some outliers "for the good of the community".
This authoritarianism , I maintain, is something we must always be aware for on the left (** why we fight amongst ourselves so much,
perhaps). Love your videos. Thank you.
Why do you subscribe to Beau of the Fifth Column who is a convicted human trafficker?
Well researched and thorough. I have to say that was excellent work. Great video presentation visuals too.
Great vid, comprehensive and detailed!
Great video Zoe! Thank you!
I will highly recommend reading the text Against democracy by the coordination of anarchist groups, coordination that faced the Pandora operation in spain during the 2011-14 movement, the text is a complete modern analysis of democracy from its real meaning that is de-mos =Demiurgi and Geomori (craftmen and farmers) Kratos= state, the state of craftmen and farmers in wish being a male owner wasn't enough you had to be a pillar of the economy to had a part in politics and in the top since the offices were not paid and only those on top could afford to not work more than 2 years, to the modern vision of democracy and the error of dissident movements to follow the rhetoric of the US in the moral reality of democracy as standard that guarantee the hegemonic uni-vision of today that makes possible to impose this in all movements and impossible to imagine a reality out of it, the text also explores the connection between democracy and the nuclear family as the key columns of the producers of producers for the state, i think that after this well done video it can give a deeper understanding from the eyes of the auto-named antidemocratic anarchists that frighted sush operation.
Thank you for your videos Zoe i appreciate them
can you pass the link of that text pleaase
Wow that was very insightful. Thanks a lot!
Once again zoe
Amazing work
You are incredible
Could you do a video on the types of structures and organizations successful anarchist movements built?
Amazing video, I would love to hear your takes on what should be our current strategy of decision making in anarchist struggle and society. For exemple, Graeber in the book fragments of an anarchist anthropology made a very strong argument for consensus decision making, pointing to the fact that, aside from Athens, anthropological studies on societies with collective decision making were done by consensus, Athens, being the most competitive society in ancient Greece, would, according to Graeber, also make its political decision a competition, that's why the majority vote was in place, because ideas would compete for it's implementation.
Great point. Have you read Debt yet? It could be parenthetically titled (A Good Sized Chunk of Anarchist Anthropology).
@@randcall5933 i have it on my shelf, but I also have to read a bunch of books for college and stuff, so i have little to no time for other works these days, so sad...
The Syndicalist Anarchism disclude everyone who is not employed. The for various reasons unemployed, chronically ill and disabled,; as well as the self-employed, and puts them out of the equation of society/community.
Hi,
I can understand why you think this but it is not true. At the founding congress of the CNT Lorenzo refers to the "unemployed”- workers without work, without pay, without bread, without a home, without affection". The CNT also did community organizing, including rent strikes. A key group of workers involved in this were unemployed construction workers.
Syndicalists always claimed that in an anarchist society disabled people who were unable to work would be provided for. A significant number of workers in the CNT were disabled due to workplace accidents. At the first congress of the CNT in 1911 there was an entire discussion about disabled workers. It was proposed that "associations of disabled persons who can no longer work" should be formed and that the CNT should protect the rights of the disabled. They also carefully distinguished between disabled people who can work and those who cannot, and thereby avoided the ableist assumption that disabled people necessarily cannot work.
The CNT's resolutions on libertarian communism advocate self-management via both economic organs (syndicates) and community organs (communes).
@@anarchozoe I am Swedish, and here the Syndicalists never mention the unemployed, chronically ill or disabled. They concern themselves with themselves; whilst posing revolutionary and helping out illegal migrants.
fabulous video
it addresses what i'd consider my position to have been already, but the historical lens applied to compare contexts & break down the rigidity of language that divides comrades is extremely useful. thank u
thanks for making this, this is an incredibly good, interesting and helpful video!
Democracy is the opposite of anarchy.
@@authenticallysuperficial9874 Talking about Anarchism here.
@AveragepoliticsEnjoyer Are you saying you wish I said "democracy is the opposite of anarchism"? I think that's actually less grammatically correct, but I still endorse the obvious meaning of it
I was just wondering, if I were to make the following assumptions which seem reasonable:
- if you're part of an association, its decisions bind you, and bind others regarding you
- such guarantees may not exist if you aren't part of it
- if you consistently go against the decisions of an association, it may and usually should kick you out
- there is an association, with near-universal participation, that decides on basic human rights (this association may be informal in the form of traditions or morality)
- violence in self-defense is justified
- anyone who's known to disregard the near-universally agreed basic human rights is a significant threat to others
How is that association functionally different from a state, and its resolutions different from a system of law?
1) if you voluntarily signed on to such an association, then yes. if it's "the association of japanese american women" and you just happen to be a japanese american woman, then hell no.
3) you have to define what you mean by "go against" the decisions of the association. If you breach your contract with the association, then that is a crime. If you merely express dissent, then the association's charter would determine whether you could be kicked out, but in this case I would hardly say that the assoc "should" kick you out; rather we should prefer associations which allow freedom of speech.
4) no, there is no binding informal association, as i pointed out in (1). if you do not agree to be in the organization, then it may not violate your rights and violently coerce you into adopting its morality
6) no, not at all. those who are a significant threat to others are a significant threat to others. This is already covered by your point (5). Anything beyond point (5) is wholly unjustified.
Finally, the answer to your conclusion is that they are nothing alike. Have you ever encountered a state before? Was it anything like what you described?
I don't understand how anarchists can be anti-government and anti-democracy, and yet still organize themselves in a way that requires everyone to agree on how things should be run, and even sometimes enforcing things with violence, for example.
It often feels like anarchists are against certain words but ultimately envisage a society that has many of the key qualities that current ones have. That's not to say that current systems aren't deeply flawed, but it doesn't seem like anarchists are suggesting something that's *fundamentally* different.
If the argument is indeed just that our systems could be much better, then of course I would agree. I think a lot of people would. And I think that's what we currently have - social democracy - where we take action to make reforms that improve the system. That's not to say that that's working even nearly good enough, or that it will ever be, but that's at least what we're *trying* to do.
You also have to take into account the fact that our systems aren't manifestations of pure ideology, but rather have a long historical current to them, which explains the huge concentrations of wealth and power and massive inequality that we are trying to address on an ongoing basis.
I'm trying to understand anarchism and what it actually entails, so I would appreciate anyone providing their thoughts on this.
Great video as always Zoe
Just to chime in for my fellow consensus heads, Graeber's "Are you an anarchist? The answer may suprise you!" refers to anarchy as being consensus based
The organizations he associated with that used “consensus” did not make decisions unanimously. It was essentially consensus or directly democratic vote (aiming for a really high super majority). Most groups who use “consensus based decision making,” have rules and measures to ensure a decision can be made, so it can’t get hijacked by a small group of dissenters (thus, it’s direct democracy, not consensus in the sense of unanimity). If they don’t then the group implodes. Murray Bookchin explained his own experience on how this can go wrong and destroy an organization (in his essay on the topic) Other thinkers like the ones mentioned in the video have explained similar things.
Unanimous decision making (consensus in this context) is not viable and should not be the program anarchists go for.
imo an entirely horizontal and decentralized conception of anarchy is problematically Humanist. Why should the full autonomy of human individuals constitute an eternal goal when applying the same goal to single-celled organisms who were alone on this planet for the majority of life's existence would preclude humans from even existing? Overcentralization is a possibility for systems to become non-viable, yes. Just imagine if your central consciousness had to micromanage literally everything going on in your body. That would be totally non-viable and we can be glad about how autonomous the various parts of our bodies are, but on the other hand it is only through their interdependence and to a certain extent centrally coordinated nature that we as human subjects can even emerge. Likewise, a conception of anarchy or communism that reflects this apparent trajectory of life and viable systems in general needs to be open to some degree of centralization and ultimately even toward decentering the human individual. Even transhumanist Anarchism to my knowledge is mostly content with critiquing the "human" part of "human individual". The least Humanist anarchism might just be Daoist Anarchism.
Interesting thoughts. From biology we have the social insects and even symbiotic relationships between organisms. Of course, only humans are capable of high level abstract thoughts and concepts but sometimes we might try to fly too high - remember Icarus I think, oh dear, the Greeks already been there again 🙂...🏴🚩
Thank you for saying the words I'm not always the best in saying
what a wonderful reminder that each of us develops our own definitions of so many words
we people talk past one another so much, often because we simply don't understand what one another are actually talking about
just 8 minutes into this video, i'm recognizing how my own ideas about "democracy" and "anarchism" are a mish-mash of many other people's different ideas about both
and i'm seeing how my ideas about racism, misogyny, colonialism, imperialism, fascism, and many more crucial political ideas/systems/realities are also my own mish-mashes - i shouldn't expect anyone else to "understand' any of those big ideas the same way i "understand" them
learning to understand what each person means when they say "democracy" - or any word describing any other "big idea" - is a challenge to each person's ability to communicate, to organize, to empathize, to ... ... ... aw, fuck ... ... mind blown
fuckin cool essay, zoe
thank you
HOW DID YOU GET THE RECORDING OF RUDOLF ROCKER
Very nice job dear Zoe! Greetings from Argentina!
¿Cómo te gusta Milei?
While I do think that this an excellent resource for understanding the general anarchist position on "democracy" in its historical context, one thing that I think is missing here are the actual viewpoints of those anarchists who were opposed to the majority vote and often to large-scale assemblies and organisations in general, particularly given that you cite Luigi Galleani, an insurrectionary anarchist who explicitly drew on the those traditions. While Errico Malatesta was fairly explicit in his condemnation of individualist anarchism, Malatesta is not the be-all and end-all of anarchist thought, particularly not in his own historical context as an Italian anarchist of the early twentieth century; it would be interesting to contrast his more organisational approach with, for example, the ethical egoism of the flamboyant revolutionary antifascist Renzo Novatore, or indeed Galleani's own take on anarchism, which in many ways bridged the gap between the two.
I was unable to find a single primary source in English that advocates the position of only unanimous agreement. As a result I had to rely on other people responding to this position. Do you know of a source?
I deliberately didn't touch on the debate around affinity groups vs affinity groups + formal federations because that's a separate topic.
@@anarchozoe I feel like my wording may have been misleading (and I must apologise), as generally speaking, what I've personally encountered are less situations of people opposing the majority vote in an assembly context than arguing against formal organisations in part because of the tendency for voting to move from non-binding gauges of room temperature to binding resolutions, as made explicit by the platformists and later the CNT-FAI. That said, if you were setting aside the formal org/affinity group question due to how big of a topic it is in its own right, I would be extremely interested in seeing you explore it in a future video. I personally sit firmly on the insurrectionist end of the spectrum, but while I suspect we differ greatly on the matter, your videos are always at a minimum highly informative and intriguing, and I would love to see you put that debate into its proper historical perspective. Again, it's kind of hard *not* to talk about organisation when discussing anarchism in the early twentieth century, particularly in the different approaches taken in response to imperialism and, ultimately, fascism, and I think that aspect of the subject is… *especially* applicable in our current political climate.
I do plan on making a video about the debate around organization in the future. Like with the democracy video I'm going to not take a side and just explain both positions as best as I can.
@@anarchozoe Excellent! ^w^
Love your work Zoe :)
16:23 historical take on socialist society, that it (rule of majority over minority) could not actually occur
16:43 says not delegates but governors with power threat of force
17:29 collective decisions in community/workplace assemblies
32:20 communist 33:00 purges
36:14 **consider this unanimity of conviction to executing such decisions
35:50 fleeing bolsheviks - ** though the Bolshevik’s are not anarchist is not what they were attempting including the commitment to communal decisions almost exactly what they left to write about what was right ?
*As with democracy and its different definitions there are often the same actions carried out under different names and with the same ultimate goals but dedicated to being opposed - not always but in this circumstance
40:00 democracy without the state = free association / anarchy
40:42 consensus
41:23 **state has the power of the “only legitimate” use of violence - **this is similar to the decision making process of when violence is justified (though it is the institutionalized condition which makes the state powerful, which is not possessed by the majority)
**which is why though it could be argued that even anarchism requires a state for revolution - as the state is not some abstract governing body, but a conglomerate that is wielding legitimized use of power. (Which in all common sense ought to be stopped, and is entirely for oppression of all people (save the tiny few ruling elites who also would be subsumed if capitalism is left to its course) - versus the legitimated use of violence against the continuation of this system AND its return to power - and in truly free association / anarchy there is no legitimate use of violence (under these definitions of the state having the only legitimate use) without , in theory, creations and destructions of tiny Micro states over and over. (This understanding of a “micro state” doesnt really make sense , it is essentially a philosophical consideration trying to break down what the implications of this position on violence are - it would not be perceived logically as any kind of state but as community morals, etc.
Majoritarianism/majoritarian democracy is a useful way to distinguish democracy that places the majority over the minority from voluble democratic where everyone agrees to have an equal say
Finally someones talking bout Galleani
Another great video!
23:30 I don't think direct democracy was possible until the internet age.
It will also be necessary to reclaim/clawback patents, lands, and monies from the rich/corporations. Nationalize human necessities, establish a true meritocracy, eliminate debt based economics.
We can connect a paycheck/ubi to voting, maintaining the political and economic systems, will be our "jobs". Pay people to learn, instead of paying to learn, learning is work.
Nationalize? You are an authoritarian then, and an enemy of anarchism.
Anyone going to the Rainbow Family Gathering this July can meet me at Faerie Fuel
time to show this to my liberal friends, great stuff
i appreciate anything with mario and luigi
Great video that clarifies so much…thankyou very much
Would love to hear your videos in podcast form
I think that we have to appreciate this about the athenian democracy (while obviously ignoring that only 12% of the populace actually were included): for a certain period the demos truly held power (before the tyrannis of the 30). To choose offices by lot and not through vote, to restrict offices by one term and other safeguards, ment that the assembly held immense power (the extense is probably best illustrated by the battle of arginusae), not comparable to any state that followed it. This obviously ment, that should one be able to effectively manipulate the demos, one would control this power, as shown by figures like Kimon or Perikles and criticised by the 4th century philosophers. Nonetheless it is amazing, that this experiment was so successful and that we have literary evidence of it.
From an anarchist perspective the majority rule of the aseembly forced the Athenian demos into a devastating war and subjugated countles Poleis. The demos was also the master of the rest of the athenian populace, making women, children, foreigners and actual slaves its subjects.
Would anarchism be implemented within society or from without? It seems to me that anarchist societies have always arisen within broader revolutionary, progressive, or labor movements, or they are established as tiny communes that exists outside society. Even when anarchist societies do rise within broader societal movements, they are a tiny minority and have died out even before those movements were fully crushed by counter-revolutionaries.
I'd also like more information in this sphere. My broadest critique of anarchism lies in the fact that it's history is quite isolated and segmented within the history of European Enlightenment, colonial expansion, and current post colonial imperialist domination.
The closest history of Anarchist revolt lies in the Spanish Civil War where the anarchist fighters refused to advance revolutionary aims because they clashed with anarchist principles ultimately providing the opening that enabled Franco's rise to power.
Kinda rambling now but my question lies in how do anarchists secure revolution? In my studies I believe anarchism has to be the tool used to break apart the colonial and settler colonial powers (establishment of a socialist state in Canada or the US sounds honestly terrifying given the imperialist arm and settler colonial nature) but the how eludes me.
I think choosing to use a definition of democracy that's excludes anarchism as a form is a grave mistake that makes it very difficult to convince anyone that anarchism is a good idea.
LONG LIVE ANARCHY!
A very complete and clear exposition of the topic. Good job.
Can I ask what is the differenze between consensus and unanimity?
I am by no means an expert but there are multiple definitions and it depends on the context.
In sociology it is usually put forward that unanimity means everyone agreed to a thing (everyone voted yes) and consent means that no one voted no but some (or possibly a majority) remained silent (no "no" but some did not vote).
Looking at it from a functional lense consensus can be seen as the process of having everyone agree on an idea.
In every day language people may also use the term interchangeably. So that can also get confusing.
As you didn't refer to a specific part I cannot propose which one the author used here.
@@JebeckyGranjola my apoligies. You are of course correct.
I have ADHD and sometimes accidentally switch things around.
Consens is the absence of dissenting opinions while unanimity means everyone agreed.
Sry everyone, also edited the reply.
Do you think democracy or voting in general is coercive?
Esattamente
I think we should use direct democracy, the concept, as a core principle of free asscoiation, which we should use as the core principle itself..
Brilliant video as per usual Zoe.
great vid
This has been super useful for me, as a socialist, to begin understanding what Anarchism actually is.
Hasn't really changed my preference for socialist democracy, but I think I see at least why someone might like the idea of Anarchy.
I don't see how you had that takeaway. The videoessay author just claimed that democratic socialism *is* anarchy. So of course you now agree with anarchy once it's conflated with your own view. But of course the author is quite wrong, and democracy is the opposite of anarchy.
@authenticallysuperficial9874 To be fair, I made this comment two years ago.
Easy to say my understanding has evolved, and I forgot what was even in this video.
What about situations that affect humans globally, such as a pandemic or other global environmental issue? How would the non-binding nature of majoritarian decision-making prevent the problems associated with non-cooperation in coordinated needs?
Cool, this is going to be interesting.
Good work!
Very confusing to me, great video.
Cool video.
Hm. I guess I'm of the opinion that majority votes should only represent a snapshot of people's viewpoints at a certain time. Consequently a very fluid system of consensus is needed and the body that votes should be able to create or dissolve policies and viewpoints at will. I'm thinking here strictly in the sense of polities, although one could argue that polities are not the ideal way of structuring society. On the other hand, when people live next to each other, it necessarily requires an agreement to behave civilly, so I struggle to imagine how society would function without at least a vague notion of polity.
That being said, if all the members of a certain polity are okay with someone's actions that go against a wider resolution, I believe that would be the way in which certain resolutions are non-binding. It really comes down to what the grass roots community councils think, because they're in charge of their specific polities. So in that case, communities could pretty much run things how they wanted as long as there were a consensus within that community, and it would be no harm no foul
Even though i myself am a ML it was very interesting. I agree on most parts besides ofc the soviet republics not being real democracies. And still oppressing the people. Whilst there still is class struggle indeed, we’re working towards communism. For most people and for society as a whole it isn’t easy to make such a switch immediatly. If someone thinks I came to the wrong conclusion or misunderstood something please do respond.
I don't know if I missed it, or the term is agreed upon, but what defines "Historical anarchist" vs "modern anarchist"? Is there a time period or event in which these two sets of people are split?
She doesn't say in the video, but I assume the Historical or Classical Anarchism was from the late 19th and early 20th century, while Modern Anarchism is from the mid to late 20th and early 21st century. Anarchism lost sway in the Labor Movement after WWII, when the Modern State felt as powerful as ever, but had a renewal in the 60s and 70s New Left and Student Movement.
My personal bar is "Anarchists who lived and died before any currently living anarchists."
@@h.j.froehlich326 so is Malatesta out if there's any anarchist over 91 out there? : p
A historical anarchist would be one who was philosophising and writing on anarchism from Proudhon to 1939, I presume.
Anarcho bureaucracy?
This explained it well but i still dont get how majority rule democracy with the option to leave the association is anarchist
Like if i am in an association to manage the local roads or idk anything of that sorts i would have the freedom to disagree in an anarchist society and the freedom to leave that association to found a new one but mine will inevitably be useless since i cant really organise the roads or have "jurisdiction" over where to build roads vis a vis the other roads organisation
Doesnt this in effect just mean that majority rule is still firmly in place and that the only chance for me to really disagree and do my own thing is to move out in the woods which is more or less the same chance we have now
I: Great question... Have you got any ideas as to this, @ZoeBaker, please?
Feels like you might be thinking of a specific example in too abstract a manner? I don't know what Zoe would answer but if you leave the roads org to found one yourself because their decision is so against your belief then the energy you put in would be to try to convince others outside of any roads org to join your org and go for your motion instead. Pitting your org against the other with the input of both sets of members would result in new decisions and new ideas from the conversation between the two. Yes you could of course just concentrate on dealing with roads in an area not covered by the existing roads org (ie. move away into the woods etc.), but more than likely you could try to come back to the table with a reinforced set of arguments and motions and work it out from there. True democracy must mean that everyone gets a voice, not that everything that is said is therefore done or is capable of being done.
There would inevitably be lots of issues like this, but that is the same with any system as 100% unanimous consent is impossible for 100% of decisions. The benefit is that this system is built to establish the most consent for any decision, and doesn't go out of it's way to punish those who disagree or disassociate. In community management related issues like this road system, those who disassociate would just self manage their residences. If you were the only one to disassociate then there would be no need for road construction as there are no other nodes who have consented to being linked to yours. We wouldn't want one individual to be constructing roads wherever they wish. Furthermore, associations shouldn't be able to refuse service to disassociated individual if that refusal reduces the individuals agency; that would entail coercion by access restriction. So the community association wouldn't force you to do all the management for a long road that connects your residence to the rest of the community. They would probably be expected to perform basic maintenance (with your help too), and wouldn't make any additions to the road that you disagreed with. Different types of associations would encounter different issues depending on what is being acted upon, but I can't imagine anything better.
@@Birbface the specific example question is the constant pitfall of anarchist circles, it seems. "Well what about this situation? How would that work?" And it seems to be related to the ideas that Zoe quoted from Malatesta, that some anarchists were trying to be so "pure" and by-the-book that nothing would get done because voting was supposedly "anti-anarchist". I don't have a specific solution, and I'm kind of just spewing brain soup, but it makes me think of Work-to-rule strikes. The reason those work is because we develop ways of working through experience and familiarity that allow us to be more efficient and productive without having to follow every step and every rule. Seems to be similar with anarchism. Yeah there are certain rules that generally should be upheld, but as we organize in new ways, we will discover what works and what doesn't. And with regard to road making specifically, maybe majority votes work in those situations and maybe they don't. But we only find out by experimenting with new ways of organization, and anything that we are thinking of is probably guaranteed to be better than what we have now. But getting so hung up on specific circumstances just keeps pushing us back on reaching any meaningful progress. Okay, brain dump over, please critique me lol.
I: Not the OP but since I asked as well, gonna say, good responses, everyone, thank you.
I think the roads were just one example, it´s the underlying principle rather than the specific scenario that the question actually targets. But I suppose the answers could work in different scenarios as well
Good video!
Engagement for the engagement god!
yea yea yea yea zoe zoe zoe zoe zoe
amazing video! great topic, great research, great presentation
love it!
What happened to twitter account?
ty
Malatesta should've been Luigi. Case closed!
You are missing the point.
_Spread the bread, algorhithm!_
W
i understand anarchy as survival of the fittest No ruler, no rules.
@Mud enlighten me
That would be some weird individualist kratocracy
Anyone who uses the phrase "survival of the fittest" in such a way seemingly doesn't understand what selective fitness is, the difference in Spencer's and Darwin's usage, doesn't understand the mistake Darwin made in borrowing Spencer's term at the behest of Wallace, or his critique of it, let alone the reason for the development of "higher thinking skills" of the frontal lobe in Homo sapiens or mirror neurons, or why dogs and sapiens were so compatible, or what "anarchism" is vs "anarchy", or the definition of either... or that they would be the first to go bye bye in that situation.
Because unlike Spencer, Darwin's assertion (although many don't realize this) and Anarchisms assertion (although many don't realize this) is based on survival and benefit to populations through cooperative organization, symbiosis, natural niche partitioning and many other things, because these things have been demonstrated to bring selective fitness advantages in primate populations specifically and mammal and animal populations more generally.
@@micixduda You can't have no rulers in a survival of the fittest situation. It's fundamentally not anarchist because it'd inevitably result in the most basic form of hierarchy, the domination of the weak by the strong.
I can see why you think this is Anarchy, as it's the way the word is commonly used, but it's only used in that way due to well, anti anarchist propaganda.
Simply put, Anarchism isn't chaos, even though that's how it's often seen as. Summarized in one sentence, anarchy is organization without oppression. It seeks to remove all forms of coercion and create a form of true freedom. Not freedom in this abstract metaphysical sense that only results in the domination of the weak, but a real, true freedom to do what one sees fit so long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others.
@@FreiheitHistory 'so long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others', doesn't sounds like anarchy or freedom.
The so called rights we have were fought for and taken from the anarchists and they always want, a roll back, to a good old days. when we had less rights aka survival of the fittest aka anarchy.
Rights are rules to hold chaos back.
@@micixduda Once again the right to hurt others isn't a right a person should hold. That isn't freedom, it's simply the oppression of the weak by the strong.
Again anarchists don't just want chaos. Anarchists want a voluntary and cooperative society free from the coercive forces in the current.
We want to remove the government, capitalism, and other similar institutions which create a stepping stool for bad actors to hurt others. Due to the way these institutions are designed, the most power hungry individuals end up getting the most control. Inevitably, those with the most power are the ones who should have that power the least.
Any attempts to change this within the system will fail because it's been constructed over the course of thousands of years solely to benefit those at the top.
We want to remove this hierarchy entirely, and prevent another similar form of exploitation from arising.
I think your confusion again comes from your idea of what anarchism is. We're not ideologues, we don't want to remove hierarchy because we have to fulfill some mathematical equation. We want to remove coercive hierarchies because we believe they will fundamentally lead to repression. We want to remove hierarchy because we believe people can behave without a boot down their neck. And ultimately we believe what we believe because we think it'll lead to the best and most prosperous outcome.
We aren't utopians, anarchism is more of a process than a set end goal, and even if the state is overthrown there are likely new problems to arise. In that case, anarchism can be replaced with a new revolutionary ideal. But in the world's current state, the greatest problem we have is the institutionalized and accepted exploitation of billions to benefit very few. We are working to overturn this once again not because we have an innate hatred of hierarchy for no reason, but because we think its best.
Hope this explanation helped!
Your definition of anarchy I believe is a little off. You're putting too many rules on the idea. I think the whole idea is that it's an idea of individual men being able to cooperate with another individual man through voluntary cooperation and in which the two men are allowed to make their own rules.
LET'S FUGGIN GOOOOO
We need change...yesterday 🌍🔥 🔥 🐖 🔥
I just don't see anarchism without democracy. I'm not referring to our booshy modern plutocractic representative democracy. I just think for Anarchism to work fuck even just socialism to succeed egalitarian direct democracy is needed.
Based
banger
I'll watch this video later when I have the mental strength necessary haha
Comment for the algorithm