Honestly what a beautiful and powerful instance of the collective benefit yielded from human cooperation. Truly one of humanity's greatest achievements.
@@globaloccultcoalition3212 I am a Trot, I think Coops are a good way of making workers self reliant and limiting the power of corrupt capitalist and government officals.
No. It only works in homogeneous communities. Same language, same family origins, same traditions etc. Similar to the Amish. It will not work in a "multicultural" society.
@@loadedpainted7040 that was one of factor. Overwhelming bureaucracy and dictatorship was also major reason. Communist countries failed to dictatorship because masses wasn't alert about what the hell was going on. This gave government large power and it used that power in full extent
@@shubhamwr anarchy is not communism - anarchists don't have dictators. Anarchist books state very clearly Marxism is evil and anarchism is not compatible with it. This is the only anarchist state in history.
@@Rainaman- end goals of communism and anarchism are same. Only ways to reach there are different. Anarchism focuses on leaderless spontaneous actions while communists urge for organized actions with strong leadership. Both of these things are equally faulty and are extreme positions which have failed in long run.
@@uvbe YT has an epic 3-part docu on the whole history of anarchism and the third video has much more on the spanish anarchist revolution than this vid. It's called: No gods no masters: a history of anarchism
This is great. But I guess my question would be how do we keep a fortified military to defend from hostile outside forces without a hierarchy in that particular organization?
If I remember correctly, it was mostly anarchist militias, than a real organized army. They fought valiantly, but you can’t fight on determination and ideas alone.
What about all the genocide that occured by the Anarchist? Is that true? And was it a reason Stalin got rid of them? Since he really didnt want the republic to win and he already got all thier gold! Plus he wanted the English and French as allies was a priority for him.
@@Stalin_Did_Nothing_Wrong no, exactly. Money is a social construct, and they just chose to call their money vouchers, instead of dollars, pounds, euros, or dinars. If that was the main thing being used for money, it was money. If they traded apples, then apples become money.
@@theyetti90 Currency is inherently linked to capital in its system, it can become capital, it can be stolen, and so on. This circulatory nature is absent in Labour vouchers. Vouchers are not exchangeable for any means of production, which means they cannot be transmuted into capital, which is a major characteristic of money. And I hope you know this is the same with apples. Once a purchase is made with a voucher, it is either destroyed or re-earned through labour, i.e, since there is no capital in the first place, the "shopkeeper" would not be accumulating the vouchers you've used to purchase the goods for his personal use but will have vouchers that complement his own labour.
@@Sarath-zo9kg okay, I don't think you're trying to do anything, but explain this, so I will be respectful in return. First, the ability to forge vouchers existed, and this was most likely done for those with the means to do so. Second, there's nothing stopping me from cashing in my voucher, then going to a family that can't work as much, or at all, and basically force them to give me things of theirs for necessities the voucher provides. Once again, apples, and vouchers are currency. Ask a friend that's been on foodstamps if they're currency, or not. Ever heard of selling stolen credit cards, or social security numbers? Also do you think those people were all carrying around photo identification? No. You show up with a voucher and if they don't know you you get the goods. A voucher is just a gift card with your name on it, and it tries to limit what you can get for it, but everyone knows (everyone should know) value is in the eye of the beholder. Promise if you're addicted to crack you'll give me your vouchers, or the goods you got from them, if I have crack, or prostitutes. There are very few things in this world that are not currency. Is it traditional currency? No, but this is semantics. Humans cannot be forced to not value what they value. Someone able to apply enough force could say, "I'm not taking these vouchers, bring me gold and women, or you get nothing." Uh oh, he's the guy that makes the weapons for the town, and people that want things they can't get with vouchers are flocking to him. It's all just trading.
@@theyetti90 And I will be equally respectful to you in return because I just think, from the arguments you've put out, that your understanding of anarchist economies is limited, to say the least. You've given me a rather verbose answer describing all the illegal ways a person can steal vouchers from poor families or illegally exchange them for crack, prostitutes and what not or even by impersonation. The point was to distinguish between both the systems in terms of their legitimate use. Money can be converted into capital in principle as the system of currency literally and fundamdntally indicates just that. This is simply absent, in principle, when vouchers replace this. It is not a simple semantic difference because this "trading" that you talk about is how currency works. Legally, currency is a form of trade of goods where the amount of money you've traded is what becomes the benefit of the one you're trading it with. In an Anarchist economy, the voucher that you trade does not translate into the benefit of the person you're trading the goods with because the said person does not even own the goods as capital in the first place. Again, we're only talking about the workings of these systems, which are vastly different, in principle and not about how they can illegally be used. I obviously cannot read or explain "The Conquest of Bread" for you in a comment section but you can choose to read it to get a better understanding.
Honestly what a beautiful and powerful instance of the collective benefit yielded from human cooperation. Truly one of humanity's greatest achievements.
It's... Beautiful.
Makes ya wanna cry, picturing life like this in our country/ies, doesn't it?
Of course it is beautiful!
Please pa pa please ma ma can we have a life like this
Durruti: "llevamos un mundo nuevo en nuestros corazones"
Its wonderful,I wish I could be here.
Same here comrade
But you are communist not anarchist comrade
@@globaloccultcoalition3212 Socialist production lowers my blood pressure in general. It is self governance. No masters.
@@jmw-be6fl so you are anarcho what? Communism or Syndicalism
@@globaloccultcoalition3212 I am a Trot, I think Coops are a good way of making workers self reliant and limiting the power of corrupt capitalist and government officals.
can we do this again but in the whole world
^this please
No. It only works in homogeneous communities. Same language, same family origins, same traditions etc. Similar to the Amish. It will not work in a "multicultural" society.
@@mamachicken4602 wdym lol
@@mamachicken4602 As long as there is a mutual language in the region this could work
@@mamachicken4602 what are you a nazbol dude?
"Al fascismo no se le discute, se le distruye" Buenaventura Durruti true Working Class Hero
Solidarity forever
Send this to anyone who says Anarchism has failed
its only failed because of larger outside powers that overpower and crush it
@@loadedpainted7040 that was one of factor. Overwhelming bureaucracy and dictatorship was also major reason. Communist countries failed to dictatorship because masses wasn't alert about what the hell was going on. This gave government large power and it used that power in full extent
@@shubhamwr anarchy is not communism - anarchists don't have dictators. Anarchist books state very clearly Marxism is evil and anarchism is not compatible with it. This is the only anarchist state in history.
@@Rainaman- end goals of communism and anarchism are same. Only ways to reach there are different. Anarchism focuses on leaderless spontaneous actions while communists urge for organized actions with strong leadership. Both of these things are equally faulty and are extreme positions which have failed in long run.
This anarchists has been horrible tyrants. The people inside it had no freedom under danger of torture and death.
I'm literally crying bro
Patrolling the Mojave almost makes you wish for an anarcho syndicalism faction in fallout
Then watch "no gods no masters: a history of anarchy
It has much more of this and many other instances
Homage to Catalonia is a good read by George orwell
Viva el comunismo libertario, la aspiración de libertad, solidaridad, y cooperación mutua entre nosotros, los obreros
Which documentary is this from. I want to see the whole thing
Is there any more to this documentary by any chance?
th-cam.com/play/PLTk-NyAywRdecXyFj7dSjZMVIpztb1Itm.html
@@kameradkircheis8426 Thank you
@@uvbe YT has an epic 3-part docu on the whole history of anarchism and the third video has much more on the spanish anarchist revolution than this vid. It's called: No gods no masters: a history of anarchism
@@uvbe one of my favorite yt vids of all time
@@WorkerBeesUnite I already watched that, and I agree that it's really good
Feel like this is only capable with total cooperation.
or coercion
Theohybrid that’s like.... the whole point
@@williamabrey6658 that's like... the whole problem
@@basedmod2139 too bad it worked perfectly for a very long time. When it ceased to be anarchy is when it failed
@ayy lmao key word voluntary
Can some one tell me the name of the full documentary? Would be dope
i still dont understand how factory outputs were moved within society without prices?
Everyone takes what they need, and give what they can.
Mutual aid and gift economy
This is great. But I guess my question would be how do we keep a fortified military to defend from hostile outside forces without a hierarchy in that particular organization?
If I remember correctly, it was mostly anarchist militias, than a real organized army. They fought valiantly, but you can’t fight on determination and ideas alone.
It is one of the challenges such a society faced. Therefore we face the necessity of a global revolution, and international solidarity.
When they see utopia they would want to join us. And we would welcome them with open arms. No borders. One world.
I think it is fair to say that military organizations exclusively will function better when there is a hierarchy of command
@@donnygv27 Yeah that's why they often have a rule of democracy, except when under attack
Oh to proclaim the commune once again.........perhaps in 2022
Total anarchy I tell you!! ;)
0:58
What about all the genocide that occured by the Anarchist? Is that true?
And was it a reason Stalin got rid of them?
Since he really didnt want the republic to win and he already got all thier gold!
Plus he wanted the English and French as
allies was a priority for him.
Vouchers..., you mean, money?😆
Not exactly
@@Stalin_Did_Nothing_Wrong no, exactly. Money is a social construct, and they just chose to call their money vouchers, instead of dollars, pounds, euros, or dinars. If that was the main thing being used for money, it was money. If they traded apples, then apples become money.
@@theyetti90 Currency is inherently linked to capital in its system, it can become capital, it can be stolen, and so on. This circulatory nature is absent in Labour vouchers. Vouchers are not exchangeable for any means of production, which means they cannot be transmuted into capital, which is a major characteristic of money. And I hope you know this is the same with apples. Once a purchase is made with a voucher, it is either destroyed or re-earned through labour, i.e, since there is no capital in the first place, the "shopkeeper" would not be accumulating the vouchers you've used to purchase the goods for his personal use but will have vouchers that complement his own labour.
@@Sarath-zo9kg okay, I don't think you're trying to do anything, but explain this, so I will be respectful in return.
First, the ability to forge vouchers existed, and this was most likely done for those with the means to do so. Second, there's nothing stopping me from cashing in my voucher, then going to a family that can't work as much, or at all, and basically force them to give me things of theirs for necessities the voucher provides.
Once again, apples, and vouchers are currency. Ask a friend that's been on foodstamps if they're currency, or not. Ever heard of selling stolen credit cards, or social security numbers?
Also do you think those people were all carrying around photo identification? No. You show up with a voucher and if they don't know you you get the goods.
A voucher is just a gift card with your name on it, and it tries to limit what you can get for it, but everyone knows (everyone should know) value is in the eye of the beholder. Promise if you're addicted to crack you'll give me your vouchers, or the goods you got from them, if I have crack, or prostitutes.
There are very few things in this world that are not currency. Is it traditional currency? No, but this is semantics. Humans cannot be forced to not value what they value. Someone able to apply enough force could say, "I'm not taking these vouchers, bring me gold and women, or you get nothing." Uh oh, he's the guy that makes the weapons for the town, and people that want things they can't get with vouchers are flocking to him.
It's all just trading.
@@theyetti90 And I will be equally respectful to you in return because I just think, from the arguments you've put out, that your understanding of anarchist economies is limited, to say the least.
You've given me a rather verbose answer describing all the illegal ways a person can steal vouchers from poor families or illegally exchange them for crack, prostitutes and what not or even by impersonation. The point was to distinguish between both the systems in terms of their legitimate use. Money can be converted into capital in principle as the system of currency literally and fundamdntally indicates just that. This is simply absent, in principle, when vouchers replace this.
It is not a simple semantic difference because this "trading" that you talk about is how currency works. Legally, currency is a form of trade of goods where the amount of money you've traded is what becomes the benefit of the one you're trading it with. In an Anarchist economy, the voucher that you trade does not translate into the benefit of the person you're trading the goods with because the said person does not even own the goods as capital in the first place.
Again, we're only talking about the workings of these systems, which are vastly different, in principle and not about how they can illegally be used. I obviously cannot read or explain "The Conquest of Bread" for you in a comment section but you can choose to read it to get a better understanding.