This video, which I first watched a month or so after it posted, is the first to expose me to what anarchy is in a way that gave meaning to the word, rather than the vague pejorative term that people around me had used it as. It has opened a door for me and helped me to develop a better understanding of the world and my values as I found so many resources to learn more when I knew what to look for. Thank You!
What an incredible comment ! Thank you so much!!! I couldn’t ask for more from the reaction to these videos. I’m both profoundly touched and proud. Thank YOU!
It's funny cuz the earliest firsthand experience I have of anarchy was my high school ceramics teacher saying that he was an anarchist. In my mind, this made him cool cuz it seemed very rebellious for a 60+ yr old Italian American in Connecticut, but there was a certain disconnect cuz I didn't yet know what anarchy truly meant. It did lead to open up more to the idea tho & not think of anarchy has mayhem, chaos & lawlessness
I remember in school my teacher was trying to show the value of authority instead of anarchy, and just said to the class "you can do anything, you're free. The rules don't apply for the next few minutes." Students started talking, laughing, and then some people started throwing things. At the time, it felt like proof anarchy can't work. Since then, I've learned that it's hardly an accurate comparison to the actual working of democracy without hierarchy, which is more of how I think anarchy is. After all, kids in a room goofing off isn't the same as constructing a just world together
notice how they were bound to come back. if they were allowed to leave the class forever, they'd do something more useful than listening to 90% boring nonsense. authority creates strawman moments of freedom to prevent us from embracing it because it's always partial. you get productive worker for 8 hours and call it authority, and exhausted worker for 6 hours lying at his bed and call it anarchy.
Humans have grown past anarchy. A country with a goverment isn't an really a hierachy. All cases are but those are a result of human greed. Anarchy builds itself on the notion, that we do not need law enforcers nor govermental jobs etc etc. But things like healthcare or car insurgence etc etc. are positive things which are from the goverment. We humans have way to many flaws for none to enforce laws or write them. Of course humans write these laws but it is important that multiple people judge these laws. Anarchy is a thing of the past which is a theoritical ideology. We wouldn't have reached the moon with Anarchy and would be stuck on the same rock until humans go extinct.
I’m alternative. Emo specifically.. since emo came from punk, I have a lot of morals that line up with punks. Since being alive, I’ve heard about anarchy, and I’ve seen the symbol. I’ve always been told it was anti government. But I never knew more than that. Especially after this election, I find myself having a lot more punk political views. Which isn’t surprising. I’m glad I got to watch this video and educate myself. I appreciate this breakdown dude thanks! Edit: want to mention I’m 18, and I’ve only been alive in a world where the world around me as been failing me. And people who I love.
@@smc9207 Anarchy without master(s) or ruler(s). Communism is abolish of private property, redistribution of goods etc. If the majority telling you what you can or cannot have when no harm has been conducted or that you don't receive ALL the benefits of your labor then, by definition, you are a slave.
Laozi was probably one of the first anarchists. The Tao Te Ching leans heavily on that political theory thousands of years before the term anarchism was widespread.
Thank you so much for this video. It is so well laid out and explained that i feel like it can reach a lot of people. Anarchy needs to be properly understood if we are ever to have true freedom and solidarity of human needs. On a side note, i think a distinction should be made between private property and personal property. Anarchists want to abolish private property, not personal property. No one wants to share a community toothbrush or underwear. You can own your personal belongings. It is the ownership and enclosure or the means of production that we have an issue with, i.e. private property.
The Acehnese (an autonomous region in Indonesia) inheritance law somehow reflects this idea. Their community believes there are 2 types of properties: family-owned and personally-owned. Individuals have the right work the land in the manner the family agrees upon, in return for nominal rent to the family's trust fund (they call it as waqaf). The profits from such work is the exclusive right of that individual. This is a very interesting model from the unlikeliest place. Because the only thing you'll hear from mainstream media is the sharia legal system they implement there.. p/s: I heard the Taliban is considering such model to implement on the vast swathes of opium farms they had torched few months ago. After all, food supply is their primary security concern right now
@@afribeanner not sure who you're talking to, but if you reread the above comments you'll see that no one wants to take anyone else's property. My question to you is do governments and corporations use violence, force, or coercion when they want your property, water, or mineral rights?
@@WoodRabbitTaoist To answer your question I would say 100 percent Yes. Government is violence both democratic and dictatorship. Let me ask again will you use violence and force to confiscate private property from the individual? You say you don't "want" to but History shows something very different.
@joaolfcamacho if anything it sounds absolutist, but I feel like tyranny requires hierarchical power being wielded over others. What I believe the person above is trying to say is that when you truly see the humanity in your fellow humans, the systems of power in place are plainly wrong/harmful. By their nature, they are easily exploitable by groups or individuals, whether small or large, to use their power for their own benefit & at the expense of others. Seeing these sorts of things it becomes evident that the better way of life would be for communities, societies & general groups of people to govern themselves & not have their lives in the hands of people who more often do not are inconsiderate of or unmoved by the plight of their people. And by "better way of life", I mean a way of life that is conducive & beneficial for all people within it to the maximum ability, regardless of class, sex, gender, sexuality, etc. & where people have the freedom of self-determination. One that does not do intentional to harm people or the environment simply by nature of its existence. Note: this may not be exactly what the original commenter meant in their comment, but at the very least this my opinion on the matter
ive been an anarchist for about 7 years now and ive never come across this video. I really appreciate that you chose Malatestas Anarchy for this. malatesta deserves a lot more attention. usually when people make these videos they reference Kropotkin, Bakunin, Proudhon & goldman. which i think is great, but i do believe Malatesta is a lot more appealing due to him being a very cool guy. so thank you for this!
Amazing video Anarchist here very much-needed this video awsome to dive into the nitty gritty and understand a bit more about anarchy and sharpen my sights on this cheers to all over Anarchs
If we vote someone into power then we have someone who is only an authority on getting votes. If we coup someone into power then we have someone who is only an authority on insurrection. If we choose someone random for power we have someone who is only an authority on being in the right place at the right time. Give me sustenance and shelter and I will self govern and help others do the same. I have the most insight on the subject of helping myself and nobody can convince me otherwise. I recognize that I project a version of myself onto strangers and so I seek to witness kind and loving people by embodying those traits myself. A person who only sees evil strangers is the least deserving of power.
Nicely done young man, articulate and honest assessment of the subject matter, I do hope many many humans watch it and pass it on. Far to many 'tools' in this world don't even realise they are their own worst enemy. Viva la revolution!!!👊👊
Somewhat compelling argument regarding property. I'd like to hear a deep discussion on this point as well as defending territory from an "outsider" attempting to steal, kill, or enslave. A well rounded honest discussion with various ideas....not the usual bs where people r just trying to win an argument, talking over each other, twisting ideas, leaving out facts, etc
My greatest concern with anarchisim is how to teach ethics, especially to children, because in the very likely case that people are divided about that, the ones that teach in a way that encourages domination, individualism or debate instead of cooperation, happiness and dialogue will, as they have almost always done, overpower the others. Although maybe in a world of relative abundance this wouldn't happen idk
@@Scriven42 no what worries me is that anti anarchist values would overpower any other ones in the long term I mean If you are an anarchist you probably don't want to force everyone to be an anarchist, (I don't,) but some people won't be anarchists. Of course in an anarchist society people would probably lean towards anarchist values but I think we can't be sure yet
@@juanitopantuflapantufla2605 people would teach anarchist values, as anarchist values would necessarily be embedded in the pedagogy. If we managed to get so far as to have an anarchist society, the most easy way for people to get what they want is by working within the structure of society. So sheerly out of self interest, it would be the norm to teach egalitarian
IT ALWAYS FREAKS ME OUT when one of my most respected TH-camrs turns out to be a [fellow] Anarchist / Marxist / Communist type when they do art videos or woodworking videos... Its like I secretly _know_ and thats why I follow them
Excellent video, thank you for making and sharing this, I really enjoyed it and found it really helpful. I can recommend a book for anyone interested which touches on many of the topics here from an Australian Indigenous perspective: Sand Talk by Tyson Yunkaporta. He talks about general concepts of how traditional Aboriginal societies organised themselves (without government) in Australia, how justice was determined by the group and how closely human minds are tied to the natural world around them. As an Anglo Australian I found it hugely illuminating and I can also see many parallels to the anarchist ideas presented here. Again, great video!
I wrote this book in my head before I ever heard of malatesta. True, I have always loved learning and developing my own philosophies, but it's common sense and just the natural though process of the healthy mind. Should be obvious. I probably was an anarchist by the time I was 12. I didn't need anyone to teach me these things.
Hello my fellow allies! I am a techno-anarcho-decentralist advocating for the use of technology to create a post-scarcity society. I hope to get involved with the community this year. Thank you.
I'm at 9:55 I am a socialist/communist. The issue I see with anarchism is. If we take down the concept of government we would have a world ruled by corporations and very rich people, nothing would have changed. How can you anarchists claim to keep us free, from a anarchist with more power/resources for example? EDIT: I understand. Great video. You sway my opinion towards anarchism quite a bit.
Corporations are powerful because of government. They use the governments violence to squash competition. With that being said, you'll never have a justification for rulership over others.
sometimes i wonder why Jacque Fresco never really came across anarchism.... there are so many similarities between anarchist communism and the resource based economy... also i really appreciate errico malatestas eloquent formulations so much - he was so spot on with so many core issues. Also thank you for demystifiying anarchism in an understandalbe but clear manner - i think anarchism like truth needs to be fought for as long as humanity exists.
Great work on this. It articulates the Idea in a way i feel can get through to a lot of people. I hope it opens many doors and puts folks on the path to collective liberation. #stopcopcity
7:40 that's why I consider myself an Anarchist bc I always believed in democracy like they told us to buy I believed in true democracy - the govt being an extension of the people's will. And as I got older I realized that then there is no point in a state, just live.
It's such a great way for people to eat the pill. They don't realize that 'their' representatives don't represent anything about them. That the people this government is for were the landed aristocracy, those that have enough power to 'deserve' an audience to the ruling body. Anarchy must live if the people are to be free. Fuck the st4te.
I became more aware of anarchy because of the Sex Pistols. As a teen of the seventies Prog fan, they were a refreshing slap in the face. However, I understood the word to mean; "without rules", which conflicted with my sensibilities so I didn't look any further. How nice to learn I was wrong.
You should perhaps look further into the etymology of Anarchy because the Greeks used "without ruler" to define a time in which 30 tyrants took over from a much more peaceful system before it.
as king of the anarchists, I approve. In all seriousness though, I have always been an anarchist I think... it feels that way anyway... but it took until I was almost 30 to discover the actual words to articulate my feelings, and it was through anarchy by Malatesta. Such a joyous thing it was to not feel as though I was alone in my feelings. recently I read "Seeing like a State" which I must recommend to all comrades, its a great book for someone who's looking for a great book.
So you still believe in slavery. Libertarian asks for less government abuse and communism is mob rule based on "needs". Oh, and you don' t believe in ownership of property or the produce of your labor. You support slavery.
i'm considered by 10000% of people to be a "radical leftist," although i more accurately self-describe using a phrase in spanish translating to: "neither of the right nor the left but from those at the bottom coming for those at the top." a through-and-through abolitionist. i am a community organizer and co-founder of a (inter)national organization with a 3-letter acronym you've probably definitely heard of. as such, i've always respected anarchy but haven't strongly aligned myself with the philosophy based largely on my lack of knowledge on its history. this video is extremely helpful for that and i am grateful. a probable finite cause of my lack of knowledge on the subject comes from the scarcity of historical Black anarchist literature. as a Black and nobinary person, it is very, very difficult for a group of cishet white intellectual bros to sell me on something. and that's on generational trauma. i know race is touched upon in this video, but nowhere near enough. and not by the right people. we need to talk about the ways that certain leftist circles, no matter how well-intended in philosophy, have miserably failed to meet at the intersection of marginalized people when it comes down to praxis. i highly recommend you read "afropessimism" by frank b. wilderson.
You may enjoy The Nation on no Map: Black Anarchism and Liberation by William C. Anderson. I found it to be really good. It's understandable why many non-ciswhite people don't associate with the term "anarchism", as most people who identify with the term are white and don't put the theory into action and end up being as racist as the people they're supposed to hate. Labels aren't all that important like you're saying, but maybe you could use elements of the theory to help you in your organizing
I'd like to hear an argument for human cooperation that isn't based on evolutionary psychology (which was disproven decades ago) and written by men, from a time where eugenics was a valid field of scientific study. The evolution argument for why humans would naturally cooperate freely is disproven by the existence of the capitalist and authority, more broadly.
So what I don’t understand is the aspect of crime & punishment. It doesn’t seem well thought out. Correct me if I’m wrong but I could kill a man in cold blood but then what gives the right for “treatment specialists” to try to “cure” me. Especially if this means they can deprive me of my liberty to consent. And with that they seem to be at a higher class given they’re the only profession who can violate that right. However what differentiates them from police is that they can “treat” anyone who is acting anti-socially which is entirely speculative compared to modern policing which has specified codes. Then once they “treat” someone they can have their rights deprived without any ability to fight it. It just seems like there’s a LOT of room for abuse in this system.
Also I think the idea that “crime won’t happen” is pretty utopian. It cites Marxist ideas in conflict theory that class struggle causes crime/anti-social behavior but it ignores the possibility for crimes of passion or crimes stemming from people living in overcrowded or poor conditions.
Well if you've read the Dostoevsky novel and you have listened to chapter 7 of this video, this should tell you everything you need to know. I would also refer to the work of Jonathan Nitzan on crime in the US justice system to confirm the conclusions from Dostoevsky's novel in today's society.
So in an anarchist society for someone to be incriminated that would mean that the other people in their environment believe so, that means communication would be a skill that undeniably reduces your chances of being harmed by your peers if in any situation that could make you seem suspect
I'm a little confused. You claimed it has been suggested that in anarchical society nobody would care about the freedoms of other, and then said "but nothing could be farther from the truth". But you didnt explain why. You just said "governents are always tools of domination", a statements which is fairly debatable since they facilitate things we would have to emulate in an anarchical society such as healthcare. You can't just say yeah humans would actually become communally focused because governments are actually not great, it doesnt make sense. I like a lot of the message of anarchism but that sounded really naive. I want to understand
It's important to recognize that government is only immoral violence and nothing more. It's an utterly unfounded assertion of one group having valid authority over another. Does it guarantee, or even increase the probability of intelligent and just solutions being enacted? Not in the slightest. In fact, it increases the probability that self-serving, power-mongering misanthropes will hijack society, purposefully creating dysfunction and chaos in order to opportunistically benefit from the manufactured volitility, which is precisely what we have now. Giving one small group an artificial, insurmountable advantage in physical force over everyone else doesn't make positive outcomes more likely. Asking what people will do instead is the wrong question.
i were super political for 2 years arguing with people over discord and had all the tendencies but I thought anarchists are a bunch of dumb kids lol I literally managed to develop kinda anarchistic understanding of power before discovering that it's so much more developed by actual anarchists
That was very interesting to listen to. On an economic side, I agree at least on most points - but I can't really wrap my head around the arguments in Chapter 6. I feel like both sides here are utopians and neither will really work 100%. Which is fine, striving for utopia is always better than accepting stagnation.
How can a society adopt an anarchist methodology amid imperialist antagonism? If country x wanted to be anarchist, how would they fight against the Western imperialist? Collective trial and error is not a sufficient answer when faced with (re)enslavement.
14:12 in rebutting the chaos statement, you just pointed out why governments r bad but didn't address the potential chaos aspect of anarchy. (Maybe later you do, but comments while listening)
I asked recently asked my hyper capitalist grandmother what the American dream is. Bro she literally said stateless, classless, moneyless society The American dream 😂 It just goes to show how little the average person knows about theory. Ty for this video, your making it easier to challenge people’s manufactured consent. Keep doing the good work Take bread
"Order derived through submission and maintained by terror is not much of a safe guaranty; yet that is the only "order" that governments have ever maintained. True social harmony grows naturally out of solidarity of interests. In a society where those who always work never have anything, while those who never work enjoy everything, solidarity of interests is non-existent; hence social harmony is but a myth.... Thus the entire arsenal of governments - laws, police, soldiers, the courts, legislatures, prisons - is strenuously engaged in "harmonizing" the most antagonistic elements in society." ~ Emma Goldman
Is there a distinction in Anarchism of Private vs Personal property? Thanks for the video BTW. I learned a lot, and feel a lot of similar values with Anarchism.
I’m pretty new to anarchist thought but not leftist thought, and I can tell you there’s a pretty sharp distinction. Anarcho-Capitalism isn’t really anarchy because it doesn’t remove hierarchical power-only removes the state as the one who decides personal rights and economic policy. In the states place, you’ll get an absolute dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, where capital and land alone determine your power in society. Your employer will now be the only authority over you. If you’re not lucky enough to be landowning or have any capital of your own you are a complete, powerless slave. Private property cannot exist under a system that destroys hierarchical power
Anarchism is not a single philosophy, there are myriad versions of it. There's the collective anarchism (anarcho-communists, etc.) that are completely against private property, and on the other side the proto libertarians/individual anarchists that have no issue with private property. It is sad that over the years anarchism has become synonym of the former, which is an oxymoron because forcefully abolishing private property can only be done by force, with the help of a government. Anarcho communism in other words is antithetical to anarchism. People should be free to associate and do whatever with their stuff without anybody coercing or using force against them. Hope this helps
@@calebdunlap7566anarcho capitalism IS anarchism. Proudhon, the guy to invent the term in the first place, was in favour of private property. Then the movement got infiltrated by the communists and socialists which were much in vogue at the time (Bakunin & co) and now we are fighting over a nonsensical notion that anarchism must mean communism. Anybody that wants to tell me what to do with myself and my things cannot be anarchist, can they?
@@sbef Proudhon did not support private property. "The right of property was the origin of evil on the earth, the first link in the long chain of crimes and misfortunes which the human race has endured since its birth. The delusion of prescription is the fatal charm thrown over the intellect, the death sentence breathed into the conscience, to arrest man's progress towards truth, and bolster up the worship of error." "We shall show by the maxims of political economy and law, that is, by the authorities recognized by property, 1. That labor has no inherent power to appropriate natural wealth. 2. That, if we admit that labor has this power, we are led directly to equality of property, whatever the kind of labor, however scarce the product, or unequal the ability of the laborers. 3. That, in the order of justice, labor destroys property." "The price is not sufficient: the labor of the workers has created a value; now this value is their property. But they have neither sold nor exchanged it; and you, capitalist, you have not earned it." "Hitherto, I have considered property as a power of exclusion; hereafter, I shall examine it as a power of invasion." "I. Individual possession is the condition of social life; five thousand years of property demonstrate it. Property is the suicide of society. Possession is a right; property is against right. Suppress property while maintaining possession, and, by this simple modification of the principle, you will revolutionize law, government, economy, and institutions; you will drive evil from the face of the earth. II. All having an equal right of occupancy, possession varies with the number of possessors; property cannot establish itself. III. The effect of labor being the same for all, property is lost in the common prosperity. IV. All human labor being the result of collective force, all property becomes, in consequence, collective and unitary. To speak more exactly, labor destroys property. V. Every capacity for labor being, like every instrument of labor, an accumulated capital, and a collective property, inequality of wages and fortunes (on the ground of inequality of capacities) is, therefore, injustice and robbery. VI. The necessary conditions of commerce are the liberty of the contracting parties and the equivalence of the products exchanged. Now, value being expressed by the amount of time and outlay which each product costs, and liberty being inviolable, the wages of laborers (like their rights and duties) should be equal. VII. Products are bought only by products. Now, the condition of all exchange being equivalence of products, profit is impossible and unjust. Observe this elementary principle of economy, and pauperism, luxury, oppression, vice, crime, and hunger will disappear from our midst. VIII. Men are associated by the physical and mathematical law of production, before they are voluntarily associated by choice. Therefore, equality of conditions is demanded by justice; that is, by strict social law: esteem, friendship, gratitude, admiration, all fall within the domain of equitable or proportional law only. IX. Free association, liberty whose sole function is to maintain equality in the means of production and equivalence in exchanges is the only possible, the only just, the only true form of society. X. Politics is the science of liberty. The government of man by man (under whatever name it be disguised) is oppression. Society finds its highest perfection in the union of order with anarchy." Source: Proudhon, Pierre-Joseph; McKay, Iain, ed. (2011). "Property Is Theft!" _A Pierre-Joseph Proudhon Anthology._
@@sbef anarcho-communism is the abolition of all hierarchical power structures, including class and states. What you propose is a stateless society-but not a society without hierarchy. Private property within itself is a tool of oppression because it gives the landlord exclusive rights over the land and all of its production, whether it came from his own two hands or not. But what other choice do you have but to work for the landlord when you’re starving and own no land? At which point you are, by coercion, subjected to the will and power of the landlord unless forceful or violent action is taken. Why are we humans so arrogant to believe that any person has the exclusive ownership of a piece of a whole planet? The old system must be smashed and abolished entirely, by whatever means necessary, so long as those means are in line with the ends. Use of force to overthrow oppression is the exact opposite of authoritarianism, it is an individual seeking freedom from someone or something exercising the use of authoritarian, hierarchical power to oppress and exploit them. And in the old systems place a system that does not rely on a state, class, or any other hierarchical power will thrive
Listen as someone who's not a fan of governments in general if you can actually propose to me a system for a country to function without one I'm all for it. But I will watch critically and not just support everything you say. Still I really appreciate this video, no harm in learning something new.
non compete and andrewism are two anarchist TH-camrs who might help with this query. To be fair, this video is just an introduction to anarchism, but hopefully as they do more videos, more questions like these can be answered. you'll see that anarchism doesn't irradiate leadership. leadership is natural, it's just that anarchism is trying to remove the power dynamics and hierarchal nature of current 'leadership'. I also think Tao Te Ching has a great passage on how we can collectively do the work under great leadership. I hope this helps.
well i’m not sure about him, but my anarchism does not leave room for a “country”…..communes would be small and localised so as to maximise cohesion and minimise far-off rule and involvement in problems that will never affect you (amongst other reasons)
@@GasStationMan My bad I got busy with work, I guess that's one way to describe a country but to me countries and governments are one in the same. Usually because they are formed at the same time and so when you take away a government, whatever country existed there dissolves. What would be left if Anarchism took its place is a bunch of smaller scaled communities popping up everywhere. In terms of food , it will be on the community to run a farm or garden to feed their own and if they want to trade they can. Same for other functions
I know im late lol but im here lol Im not an anarchist im a ML but unlike a lot of others i think understanding anarchists is important anyway ur video is cool
I cannot, unfortunately, join you for discussion later having obligations, but I do hope to listen tomorrow. My copy of Malatesta’s little book arrived this morning.
Successful Anarchy requires perfection of self-management. It actually requires "seeing and treating the other as one would wish to be seen and treated". There is no known evidence, in all history, of any human achieving perfect self-management. By perfect self-management, I mean consciously and mindfully establishing, knowing and respecting self-drawn boundaries that do not disadvantage the self or over-favour the self. All the available evidence suggests that shared authority...though evil...is the lesser of the two evils. Somehow, SHARED authority USUALLY...USUALLY tends to have a monitoring effect on individual self-management. Of course, that is, if all those who share authority DO NOT also share an agreed-upon selfishness. That being said, there is more evidence of shared authority being less diabolical and more success, than "every man for himself".
Well, you Are basicaly right in most said. But if you want to prove something to be bad, Its not about bringing the evidence of all the bad stuff, but rather negate all the good thinks. Government Is bad in a lot of ways, but still a good deal when you consider you dont Have to care for So many things And instead live your life.
What will the community do if it gets invaded and how will mobillization, arms, ammo and other basic supllies be handled and distributed to the resistance fighters? I just thougt that these are some important questions you didn't mention in the video.
Anarchists do not reject narrow, for-purpose hierarchy. We accept that things like military organizations often require hierarchy in order to function "quickly but more wrong" and cannot be spun up reactively to military threat. The difference is the anarchist army doesn't invade countries on the other side of the world on the whim of an elite few.
@@sean748 Ok but doesn't It generate a brend new class? If the army remains pretty much the same, they'll stil have some-kind of power unlike the other people. Am i wrong? The fear of being attacked is certain and with powers like the USA for example, how cannot be a Revolution in Extreme danger?
@@Aj-oj8tq with power must come chains upon those who wield it. I honestly don't know the best way to stop hierarchies like a military from becoming embedded, but hey, anarchism is a process not a destination. Always be tearing down what hierarchies you can get by without. Work for peace, but prepare for war. Military coups are kinda an issue in every society and ideology so it's not like anyone else has really solved it.
@@sean748 I can say I agree, but I don't hide the fact that I'm quite pessimistic about the revolution itself. Particularly in today's world where the possibilities are endless, but the yoke of some nations and people is even tighter, I find it nearly impossible for any kind of revolution to end in success, be it communist or anarchist. The only possibility of change that comes to my mind is, besides that of climate change, an increasingly recurring and inevitable topic, is the management by the whole world with regard to technological progress. When machines actually replace humans the situation will really be of vital importance, how will a capitalist state manage to plug this thing? I see no way that doesn't increase social inequality exponentially, not to mention everything else that would entail. That moment could perhaps be the most opportune of all, as well as a perfect occasion.
7min in, I write down my thoughts. I was put of by the term solidarity, because I associate it to union. Especially in conjunction with the red anachrie flag, which I assume to me anachro socialist.
Though I’m brand new to anarchism and haven’t read into anarchism thought-only some books by Marx, Lenin, Engels and the like, I support the idea of horizontal power structures. However, in the course of revolution and the immediate aftermath (counter-revolutions), how is this first stage of collapsing the vertical power structures done without means of force to destroy the existing state? This is where I feel the idea of the withering away state can come in. One that acts as a quasi state-where their powers are limited to oppression of bourgeois (and other) class rights, destroying the state and the counter revolutions, and then the necessary powers to eliminate class rule and other horizontal power structures, money, and then the quasi-state itself as it converts into purely administrative functions. I feel all of this could happen almost completely within a pretty short time in any individual country, and can happen completely even faster if there was an international movement to overthrow capitalism that transcended any form of nationalism and statism that shocked the world all at once. Is there a viable alternative that has a history of success where we can skip this whole phase to begin with? I don’t see a way to dislodge the current system without this step personally but I was wondering if someone could point me in the right direction to viable alternatives that have been proven to work historically. This being said-I believe the revolution itself does not need vertical power structures internally at any point-pre or post revolution-or the movement will ultimately fail
Anarchism is not communism. Communism is not Anarchism. Anarcho-communism is as much bullshit as modern right-wing libertarianism (which was originally an anarchist school of thought). Communism should be as much abhorrent to anarchists as totalitarianism.
So let me know if I misunderstood your comment but essentially you don't see a way to overthrow the state without a hierarchical organization? Overthrowing a government and installing a new one is called a coup, and those have a really bad track record. Most of the time the new "leaders" tend to revert back to business as usual. What you've done now is put yourself in a situation where you'd have to create a revolution all over again if you want to overcome the institution of the state. It just isn't practical. There are ways of structuring militias where the power flows from the bottom up (Black army, anarchist spain, ELZN, Rojava). So even though I agree that it may be harder to fight the state without installing a new one it just isn't worth the risks.
Read The Dawn of Everything by David graeber and David wengrow. Then watch "what is politics" youtube essays on it. Graebers lectures on "Bullshit jobs" really changed the way I understood potential implementations of anarchist theory to economic structures.
Would anarchy permit citizens assembly for so called government? If the government was truly representative of the people would that be permissible? What if they were delegative? Would it be less of a dystopia if the state was comprised of an assortment of randomly selected people? Is utopia truly necessary or just a guide to ideals? Which means citizens assembly states would be more practical/achievable than actual anarchy!
You cannot understand how much I appreciated and needed a video like this one. I just think you should have made it clearer that what you call anarchy (which is the original idea of anarchy) today is often called anarcho-socialism or anarcho-communism (you even use the black and red flag to symbolize socialism/communism joint with anarchy). The reason being that today there are also anarcho-capitalists, which believe that capitalism is fair and the only problem is the state, they are obviously different from the first kind of anarchist, but they still nontherless call themselves anarchist and believe to be "the true anarchist". Also I'm lucky for being italian and having the opportunity to read this book in the language it was written
Most anarchists I've seen really don't include ancaps at all in conversations about anarchism. Tbh I mostly just call them ancaps to make clear that they aren't anarchists.
After watching this video (on 1.5 speed because speak too slow I would’ve slept if I wasn’t on a treadmill) I now find the answer. This answer is that this ‘ideology’ is a mere foolish fantasy. Anarchism isn’t the thing of the past, present AND future. Highlighting why it won’t work in the real world. Humans, any other animals are divided as their nature, anarchism couldn’t overcome that. How many of you people know your neighbors in your blocks? Even more so in your whole city? This ideology based themselves on the utopian ideal of having human thinking for the WHOLE of humanity. NO. People strife for themselves that is the REALITY. And next is their families not the whole humanity! They couldn’t care less how people hundreds of kilometers from their home are doing! Lastly, I apologise for readers who have trouble grasping my grammar, I’ll get better soon.
I do not need to care for the whole of humanity, and I can't. That's precisely why rulers can't govern the ruled without harming them, even if rulers were perfectly beneficial. A single person with no power does not need to care for the entirety of humanity in anarchy, but a handful of people need to care for millions under states.
Anarchism isn't a collectivist ideology. It's a deeply self-centered one that relies on the principle that you, as an individual, do not have to agree to ANY law or agreement if you don't wish to. Anarchism isn't based around the masses of people, but on groups of individuals coming to the conclusion that the state system is deeply unfair and refusing to interact with it
This video, which I first watched a month or so after it posted, is the first to expose me to what anarchy is in a way that gave meaning to the word, rather than the vague pejorative term that people around me had used it as. It has opened a door for me and helped me to develop a better understanding of the world and my values as I found so many resources to learn more when I knew what to look for.
Thank You!
What an incredible comment ! Thank you so much!!! I couldn’t ask for more from the reaction to these videos. I’m both profoundly touched and proud.
Thank YOU!
Wait til you hear about Communisem from someone not just screaming "Commie bastard"
My teacher In highschool got me into anarchy, I wrote an essay and he suggested I look into anarchy because he thought I would agree with it. I did
It's funny cuz the earliest firsthand experience I have of anarchy was my high school ceramics teacher saying that he was an anarchist. In my mind, this made him cool cuz it seemed very rebellious for a 60+ yr old Italian American in Connecticut, but there was a certain disconnect cuz I didn't yet know what anarchy truly meant. It did lead to open up more to the idea tho & not think of anarchy has mayhem, chaos & lawlessness
W teacher
I remember in school my teacher was trying to show the value of authority instead of anarchy, and just said to the class "you can do anything, you're free. The rules don't apply for the next few minutes." Students started talking, laughing, and then some people started throwing things. At the time, it felt like proof anarchy can't work. Since then, I've learned that it's hardly an accurate comparison to the actual working of democracy without hierarchy, which is more of how I think anarchy is. After all, kids in a room goofing off isn't the same as constructing a just world together
notice how they were bound to come back. if they were allowed to leave the class forever, they'd do something more useful than listening to 90% boring nonsense.
authority creates strawman moments of freedom to prevent us from embracing it because it's always partial. you get productive worker for 8 hours and call it authority, and exhausted worker for 6 hours lying at his bed and call it anarchy.
Sounds like nobody got hurt or traumatized due to social customs and everyone shared a pleasant moment together.
Humans have grown past anarchy. A country with a goverment isn't an really a hierachy. All cases are but those are a result of human greed. Anarchy builds itself on the notion, that we do not need law enforcers nor govermental jobs etc etc. But things like healthcare or car insurgence etc etc. are positive things which are from the goverment. We humans have way to many flaws for none to enforce laws or write them. Of course humans write these laws but it is important that multiple people judge these laws. Anarchy is a thing of the past which is a theoritical ideology. We wouldn't have reached the moon with Anarchy and would be stuck on the same rock until humans go extinct.
Children SHOULD be subjected to authority, that's the problem.
@@saladcat8305 ...you think people didn't have healthcare -likw stuff before government?
I’m alternative. Emo specifically.. since emo came from punk, I have a lot of morals that line up with punks. Since being alive, I’ve heard about anarchy, and I’ve seen the symbol. I’ve always been told it was anti government. But I never knew more than that. Especially after this election, I find myself having a lot more punk political views. Which isn’t surprising. I’m glad I got to watch this video and educate myself. I appreciate this breakdown dude thanks!
Edit: want to mention I’m 18, and I’ve only been alive in a world where the world around me as been failing me. And people who I love.
Thank you for perhaps introducing Malatesta to Americans. Errico is one of the great anarchist thinkers.
Never thought you are an anarchist but I am glad that you are with the platflorm that you have
i mean guy did make a analysis of that Paul Signac painting, as well as always highlighting the class struggle subtext of various other paintings
@@martinzachary6632 Because I am not a frequent visitor of this channel but I do remember his video on Dali
Ancom is a literal contradiction.
@@Somberdemure why
@@smc9207 Anarchy without master(s) or ruler(s).
Communism is abolish of private property, redistribution of goods etc. If the majority telling you what you can or cannot have when no harm has been conducted or that you don't receive ALL the benefits of your labor then, by definition, you are a slave.
One simple question opened up my mind to Anarchism: If the cops can police themselves, why can't we police ourselves?
You really opened a huge barrel of worms with this loaded question 😂
Who is going to judge the judge?
@@Dr.Tinkerpawdoctor the doctor?
@@thonytso The immune system
@@Dr.Tinkerpaw GOD
Yesterday I watched videos on Daoism and Shintoism now I’m here watching Anarchism and I love it. What a ride I’ve been on…
Laozi was probably one of the first anarchists. The Tao Te Ching leans heavily on that political theory thousands of years before the term anarchism was widespread.
Ursula K. LeGuinn grindset
Thank you so much for this video. It is so well laid out and explained that i feel like it can reach a lot of people. Anarchy needs to be properly understood if we are ever to have true freedom and solidarity of human needs.
On a side note, i think a distinction should be made between private property and personal property. Anarchists want to abolish private property, not personal property. No one wants to share a community toothbrush or underwear. You can own your personal belongings. It is the ownership and enclosure or the means of production that we have an issue with, i.e. private property.
The Acehnese (an autonomous region in Indonesia) inheritance law somehow reflects this idea. Their community believes there are 2 types of properties: family-owned and personally-owned. Individuals have the right work the land in the manner the family agrees upon, in return for nominal rent to the family's trust fund (they call it as waqaf). The profits from such work is the exclusive right of that individual.
This is a very interesting model from the unlikeliest place. Because the only thing you'll hear from mainstream media is the sharia legal system they implement there..
p/s: I heard the Taliban is considering such model to implement on the vast swathes of opium farms they had torched few months ago. After all, food supply is their primary security concern right now
Would you use violence and force when confiscating someones private property?
Thanks for this comment
@@afribeanner not sure who you're talking to, but if you reread the above comments you'll see that no one wants to take anyone else's property. My question to you is do governments and corporations use violence, force, or coercion when they want your property, water, or mineral rights?
@@WoodRabbitTaoist To answer your question I would say 100 percent Yes. Government is violence both democratic and dictatorship. Let me ask again will you use violence and force to confiscate private property from the individual? You say you don't "want" to but History shows something very different.
when you have love, anarchism is the only political philosophy that makes any sense
Well, that sounds tyrannical.
@joaolfcamacho if anything it sounds absolutist, but I feel like tyranny requires hierarchical power being wielded over others. What I believe the person above is trying to say is that when you truly see the humanity in your fellow humans, the systems of power in place are plainly wrong/harmful. By their nature, they are easily exploitable by groups or individuals, whether small or large, to use their power for their own benefit & at the expense of others. Seeing these sorts of things it becomes evident that the better way of life would be for communities, societies & general groups of people to govern themselves & not have their lives in the hands of people who more often do not are inconsiderate of or unmoved by the plight of their people. And by "better way of life", I mean a way of life that is conducive & beneficial for all people within it to the maximum ability, regardless of class, sex, gender, sexuality, etc. & where people have the freedom of self-determination. One that does not do intentional to harm people or the environment simply by nature of its existence.
Note: this may not be exactly what the original commenter meant in their comment, but at the very least this my opinion on the matter
@@joaolfcamacho tyrannical is forcing your ideas on other people. It isn't believing that your ideas are correct.
You are correct. th-cam.com/video/pcL0J_ndaUc/w-d-xo.htmlsi=qTHgu4mmI5P-4uq7
When you have no brain anarchy is what you love
I'm only a portion through this vid but I wanted to thank you for making this, its really well put and has made this topic approachable
We are reaching levels of basedness previously thought impossible
Extremely hyped to see you cover anarchism and Malatesta! Keep em coming my guy
Your time and care is much appreciated. Thank you.
ive been an anarchist for about 7 years now and ive never come across this video. I really appreciate that you chose Malatestas Anarchy for this. malatesta deserves a lot more attention. usually when people make these videos they reference Kropotkin, Bakunin, Proudhon & goldman. which i think is great, but i do believe Malatesta is a lot more appealing due to him being a very cool guy. so thank you for this!
Bravo! Beautifully edited, researched and constructed, and most of all, easy to understand for the ‘common’ person like myself. Great work
Amazing video Anarchist here very much-needed this video awsome to dive into the nitty gritty and understand a bit more about anarchy and sharpen my sights on this cheers to all over Anarchs
If we vote someone into power then we have someone who is only an authority on getting votes. If we coup someone into power then we have someone who is only an authority on insurrection. If we choose someone random for power we have someone who is only an authority on being in the right place at the right time. Give me sustenance and shelter and I will self govern and help others do the same. I have the most insight on the subject of helping myself and nobody can convince me otherwise. I recognize that I project a version of myself onto strangers and so I seek to witness kind and loving people by embodying those traits myself. A person who only sees evil strangers is the least deserving of power.
Nicely done young man, articulate and honest assessment of the subject matter, I do hope many many humans watch it and pass it on. Far to many 'tools' in this world don't even realise they are their own worst enemy. Viva la revolution!!!👊👊
I would probably say I’m not an anarchist, but this video was pretty insightful
young anarchist here (13!!,) and im gonna learn more about anarchism today :D yay!!!
Hello fellow Anarchist! 🏴
@@joshuahjoseph6738 hello!!!
Good on you, young man 👍
(Check out Conflict, the band)
Watch and learn, young Padawan
Average age of an anarchist
But I also want to say some positive stuff.
I love your voice. Really.
I love that you switch screens when quoting. Makes it easier to distinct.
i've seen a couple of your art-related videos but i didn't realize you did hard-political content. this will be a stimulating watch.
I hope it was as stimulating as you expected it to be!
I finally found the channel I didnt know I needed. Merci mon ami!
I had no idea The Canvas was so based
You don't know what based means
@@Lord_Humungusyou don't.
@@Lord_Humungusyou don’t know what anything means. How do you feel now huh??? I told you you don’t know what anything means so I can feel superior 😤.
@@Eeeemomo go cry to your wife's boyfriend about it
Somewhat compelling argument regarding property.
I'd like to hear a deep discussion on this point as well as defending territory from an "outsider" attempting to steal, kill, or enslave.
A well rounded honest discussion with various ideas....not the usual bs where people r just trying to win an argument, talking over each other, twisting ideas, leaving out facts, etc
Great video!
My greatest concern with anarchisim is how to teach ethics, especially to children, because in the very likely case that people are divided about that, the ones that teach in a way that encourages domination, individualism or debate instead of cooperation, happiness and dialogue will, as they have almost always done, overpower the others.
Although maybe in a world of relative abundance this wouldn't happen idk
I get being against domination, but what's wrong with individualism?
Posted before watching, I hope...?
@@etinarcadiaego7424 I meant extreme egoism
English isn't my first language
@@Scriven42 no what worries me is that anti anarchist values would overpower any other ones in the long term
I mean
If you are an anarchist you probably don't want to force everyone to be an anarchist, (I don't,) but some people won't be anarchists.
Of course in an anarchist society people would probably lean towards anarchist values but I think we can't be sure yet
@@juanitopantuflapantufla2605 people would teach anarchist values, as anarchist values would necessarily be embedded in the pedagogy. If we managed to get so far as to have an anarchist society, the most easy way for people to get what they want is by working within the structure of society. So sheerly out of self interest, it would be the norm to teach egalitarian
Fuck man I'm evolving from a libertarian to an anarchist
Glad to have you on this side, brethren! ✨
Communism is not anarchy
From dumb to dumber
@Somberdemure but communism never worked
@@The_Consciousness I never said it did
At the intersection of art and anarchism I found your channel, and I'm looking forward to checking it out.
Ps after watching ❤
what the person who does nuanced and informed deconstruction of art is an anarchist, who would have known
IT ALWAYS FREAKS ME OUT when one of my most respected TH-camrs turns out to be a [fellow] Anarchist / Marxist / Communist type when they do art videos or woodworking videos...
Its like I secretly _know_ and thats why I follow them
@@piccalillipit9211 well, I had a hunch, but yeah, you are right, i was quite happy to find it out too
@@piccalillipit9211do not debase the name of anarchists putting them alongside communists and marxists. We are not the same.
@@sbef NO way more tetchy and sensitive LOL
what does art has to do with anarchy ?
Back in my punk days I used to tag "My liberty depends on your freedom".
Excellent video, thank you for making and sharing this, I really enjoyed it and found it really helpful. I can recommend a book for anyone interested which touches on many of the topics here from an Australian Indigenous perspective: Sand Talk by Tyson Yunkaporta. He talks about general concepts of how traditional Aboriginal societies organised themselves (without government) in Australia, how justice was determined by the group and how closely human minds are tied to the natural world around them. As an Anglo Australian I found it hugely illuminating and I can also see many parallels to the anarchist ideas presented here. Again, great video!
I wrote this book in my head before I ever heard of malatesta. True, I have always loved learning and developing my own philosophies, but it's common sense and just the natural though process of the healthy mind. Should be obvious. I probably was an anarchist by the time I was 12. I didn't need anyone to teach me these things.
Hello my fellow allies! I am a techno-anarcho-decentralist advocating for the use of technology to create a post-scarcity society. I hope to get involved with the community this year. Thank you.
I'm at 9:55 I am a socialist/communist.
The issue I see with anarchism is. If we take down the concept of government we would have a world ruled by corporations and very rich people, nothing would have changed. How can you anarchists claim to keep us free, from a anarchist with more power/resources for example?
EDIT: I understand. Great video. You sway my opinion towards anarchism quite a bit.
Massive W
Corporations are powerful because of government. They use the governments violence to squash competition. With that being said, you'll never have a justification for rulership over others.
The government maintains private property, without it the rich could not be so rich, the value of money itself will become obsolete.
sometimes i wonder why Jacque Fresco never really came across anarchism.... there are so many similarities between anarchist communism and the resource based economy... also i really appreciate errico malatestas eloquent formulations so much - he was so spot on with so many core issues. Also thank you for demystifiying anarchism in an understandalbe but clear manner - i think anarchism like truth needs to be fought for as long as humanity exists.
Great work on this. It articulates the Idea in a way i feel can get through to a lot of people. I hope it opens many doors and puts folks on the path to collective liberation. #stopcopcity
I was wondering why I liked all your other videos so much. Now I have my answer.
7:40 that's why I consider myself an Anarchist bc I always believed in democracy like they told us to buy I believed in true democracy - the govt being an extension of the people's will. And as I got older I realized that then there is no point in a state, just live.
It's such a great way for people to eat the pill. They don't realize that 'their' representatives don't represent anything about them. That the people this government is for were the landed aristocracy, those that have enough power to 'deserve' an audience to the ruling body. Anarchy must live if the people are to be free. Fuck the st4te.
I became more aware of anarchy because of the Sex Pistols. As a teen of the seventies Prog fan, they were a refreshing slap in the face. However, I understood the word to mean; "without rules", which conflicted with my sensibilities so I didn't look any further. How nice to learn I was wrong.
I absolutely loved the video, and I'm happy to be an anarchist.
Was not expecting this at all, but it's a very welcome surprise
You and Andrewism are cool as hell!
Just discovered Anark's channel, so this came as a pleasant surprise.
You should perhaps look further into the etymology of Anarchy because the Greeks used "without ruler" to define a time in which 30 tyrants took over from a much more peaceful system before it.
as king of the anarchists, I approve.
In all seriousness though, I have always been an anarchist I think... it feels that way anyway... but it took until I was almost 30 to discover the actual words to articulate my feelings, and it was through anarchy by Malatesta. Such a joyous thing it was to not feel as though I was alone in my feelings.
recently I read "Seeing like a State" which I must recommend to all comrades, its a great book for someone who's looking for a great book.
Agree on seeing like a state
I'm no anarchist through I do have alot of overlap(I'm a libertarian communist), but I've wanted to learn more about anarchism. Loved the video
So you still believe in slavery. Libertarian asks for less government abuse and communism is mob rule based on "needs". Oh, and you don' t believe in ownership of property or the produce of your labor. You support slavery.
It's dreadful how communists wildly overlook anarchist theory
I’m not sure you understand the words that you’re speaking, because libertarian communism/socialism is def anarchist, keyword being libertarian
@@funkerdoo he's probably a libertarian marxist.
Anarchism is for me the only way of possible the best philosophy of human life.
from one anarchist to another, brilliant video
The removal of violence from human relations is the main plank of Anarchism.
~ Errico Malatesta
TIL: Power is like the ring from LOTR, it corrupts even anarchists/wizards
53:34 is the best part, adam smith's invisible hand will manage everything
i'm considered by 10000% of people to be a "radical leftist," although i more accurately self-describe using a phrase in spanish translating to: "neither of the right nor the left but from those at the bottom coming for those at the top." a through-and-through abolitionist. i am a community organizer and co-founder of a (inter)national organization with a 3-letter acronym you've probably definitely heard of. as such, i've always respected anarchy but haven't strongly aligned myself with the philosophy based largely on my lack of knowledge on its history. this video is extremely helpful for that and i am grateful.
a probable finite cause of my lack of knowledge on the subject comes from the scarcity of historical Black anarchist literature. as a Black and nobinary person, it is very, very difficult for a group of cishet white intellectual bros to sell me on something. and that's on generational trauma. i know race is touched upon in this video, but nowhere near enough. and not by the right people. we need to talk about the ways that certain leftist circles, no matter how well-intended in philosophy, have miserably failed to meet at the intersection of marginalized people when it comes down to praxis.
i highly recommend you read "afropessimism" by frank b. wilderson.
complete aside: i discovered your channel maybe two days ago and it's all i've watched since. exactly what my soul needs right now.
You may enjoy The Nation on no Map: Black Anarchism and Liberation by William C. Anderson. I found it to be really good. It's understandable why many non-ciswhite people don't associate with the term "anarchism", as most people who identify with the term are white and don't put the theory into action and end up being as racist as the people they're supposed to hate. Labels aren't all that important like you're saying, but maybe you could use elements of the theory to help you in your organizing
This is a great discussion of Malatesta’s ideas, his work is a really good introduction to anarchism. Fantastic video!
I'd like to hear an argument for human cooperation that isn't based on evolutionary psychology (which was disproven decades ago) and written by men, from a time where eugenics was a valid field of scientific study. The evolution argument for why humans would naturally cooperate freely is disproven by the existence of the capitalist and authority, more broadly.
So what I don’t understand is the aspect of crime & punishment. It doesn’t seem well thought out. Correct me if I’m wrong but I could kill a man in cold blood but then what gives the right for “treatment specialists” to try to “cure” me. Especially if this means they can deprive me of my liberty to consent. And with that they seem to be at a higher class given they’re the only profession who can violate that right. However what differentiates them from police is that they can “treat” anyone who is acting anti-socially which is entirely speculative compared to modern policing which has specified codes. Then once they “treat” someone they can have their rights deprived without any ability to fight it. It just seems like there’s a LOT of room for abuse in this system.
Also I think the idea that “crime won’t happen” is pretty utopian. It cites Marxist ideas in conflict theory that class struggle causes crime/anti-social behavior but it ignores the possibility for crimes of passion or crimes stemming from people living in overcrowded or poor conditions.
Well if you've read the Dostoevsky novel and you have listened to chapter 7 of this video, this should tell you everything you need to know. I would also refer to the work of Jonathan Nitzan on crime in the US justice system to confirm the conclusions from Dostoevsky's novel in today's society.
Two of my favourite creators!
So in an anarchist society for someone to be incriminated that would mean that the other people in their environment believe so, that means communication would be a skill that undeniably reduces your chances of being harmed by your peers if in any situation that could make you seem suspect
Thank you I found this video useful.
I’m an ML but awesome video. Keep up the good work comrade! Love your vids btw
30:08 OMG yes! This quote is exactly how I feel.
I'm a little confused. You claimed it has been suggested that in anarchical society nobody would care about the freedoms of other, and then said "but nothing could be farther from the truth".
But you didnt explain why. You just said "governents are always tools of domination", a statements which is fairly debatable since they facilitate things we would have to emulate in an anarchical society such as healthcare.
You can't just say yeah humans would actually become communally focused because governments are actually not great, it doesnt make sense.
I like a lot of the message of anarchism but that sounded really naive. I want to understand
It's important to recognize that government is only immoral violence and nothing more. It's an utterly unfounded assertion of one group having valid authority over another.
Does it guarantee, or even increase the probability of intelligent and just solutions being enacted? Not in the slightest. In fact, it increases the probability that self-serving, power-mongering misanthropes will hijack society, purposefully creating dysfunction and chaos in order to opportunistically benefit from the manufactured volitility, which is precisely what we have now.
Giving one small group an artificial, insurmountable advantage in physical force over everyone else doesn't make positive outcomes more likely. Asking what people will do instead is the wrong question.
I believe I was always an anarchist but didn’t know it had a name until 2011.
i were super political for 2 years arguing with people over discord and had all the tendencies but I thought anarchists are a bunch of dumb kids lol
I literally managed to develop kinda anarchistic understanding of power before discovering that it's so much more developed by actual anarchists
I feel like this video will get more views in the near future
That was very interesting to listen to. On an economic side, I agree at least on most points - but I can't really wrap my head around the arguments in Chapter 6. I feel like both sides here are utopians and neither will really work 100%. Which is fine, striving for utopia is always better than accepting stagnation.
For you're interested in more economics, try looking into Ostrom's work on the Commons. As well as Stafford Beer's Cybernetics.
😅that is the word my friend the 🔥COMMONS🔥with Individual Freedom ; there is no reason for basics like housing and food to be scarce or expensive🤩
Forget that. Take it from a moral standpoint.
P.S. communism isn't moral.
Every consistent libertarian should be an anarchist.
Good to know anarchism is being shared to the world
Hey this is cool comrade. Dunno anything about art but I watch this channel to learn. Didn’t know you’re anarchist bro. 🏴
Around 28:45 - Did all passengers on the Herald of Free Enterprise act cooperatively that fateful night? (6 March 1987)
How can a society adopt an anarchist methodology amid imperialist antagonism? If country x wanted to be anarchist, how would they fight against the Western imperialist? Collective trial and error is not a sufficient answer when faced with (re)enslavement.
14:12 in rebutting the chaos statement, you just pointed out why governments r bad but didn't address the potential chaos aspect of anarchy. (Maybe later you do, but comments while listening)
I got sidetracked and read the first 3 chapters of anarchy for a few days
Do one on Conquest of bread ❤️🖤
I asked recently asked my hyper capitalist grandmother what the American dream is. Bro she literally said stateless, classless, moneyless society
The American dream 😂
It just goes to show how little the average person knows about theory. Ty for this video, your making it easier to challenge people’s manufactured consent. Keep doing the good work
Take bread
I like that sweater. Good topic. Thx.
"Order derived through submission and maintained by terror is not much of a safe guaranty; yet that is the only "order" that governments have ever maintained. True social harmony grows naturally out of solidarity of interests. In a society where those who always work never have anything, while those who never work enjoy everything, solidarity of interests is non-existent; hence social harmony is but a myth.... Thus the entire arsenal of governments - laws, police, soldiers, the courts, legislatures, prisons - is strenuously engaged in "harmonizing" the most antagonistic elements in society." ~ Emma Goldman
Is there a distinction in Anarchism of Private vs Personal property? Thanks for the video BTW. I learned a lot, and feel a lot of similar values with Anarchism.
I’m pretty new to anarchist thought but not leftist thought, and I can tell you there’s a pretty sharp distinction. Anarcho-Capitalism isn’t really anarchy because it doesn’t remove hierarchical power-only removes the state as the one who decides personal rights and economic policy. In the states place, you’ll get an absolute dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, where capital and land alone determine your power in society. Your employer will now be the only authority over you. If you’re not lucky enough to be landowning or have any capital of your own you are a complete, powerless slave. Private property cannot exist under a system that destroys hierarchical power
Anarchism is not a single philosophy, there are myriad versions of it. There's the collective anarchism (anarcho-communists, etc.) that are completely against private property, and on the other side the proto libertarians/individual anarchists that have no issue with private property. It is sad that over the years anarchism has become synonym of the former, which is an oxymoron because forcefully abolishing private property can only be done by force, with the help of a government. Anarcho communism in other words is antithetical to anarchism. People should be free to associate and do whatever with their stuff without anybody coercing or using force against them. Hope this helps
@@calebdunlap7566anarcho capitalism IS anarchism. Proudhon, the guy to invent the term in the first place, was in favour of private property. Then the movement got infiltrated by the communists and socialists which were much in vogue at the time (Bakunin & co) and now we are fighting over a nonsensical notion that anarchism must mean communism. Anybody that wants to tell me what to do with myself and my things cannot be anarchist, can they?
@@sbef
Proudhon did not support private property.
"The right of property was the origin of evil on the earth, the first link in the long chain of crimes and misfortunes which the human race has endured since its birth. The delusion of prescription is the fatal charm thrown over the intellect, the death sentence breathed into the conscience, to arrest man's progress towards truth, and bolster up the worship of error."
"We shall show by the maxims of political economy and law, that is, by the authorities recognized by property,
1. That labor has no inherent power to appropriate natural wealth.
2. That, if we admit that labor has this power, we are led directly to equality of property, whatever the kind of labor, however scarce the product, or unequal the ability of the laborers.
3. That, in the order of justice, labor destroys property."
"The price is not sufficient: the labor of the workers has created a value; now this value is their property. But they
have neither sold nor exchanged it; and you, capitalist, you have not earned it."
"Hitherto, I have considered property as a power of exclusion; hereafter, I shall examine it as a power of invasion."
"I. Individual possession is the condition of social life; five thousand years of property demonstrate it. Property is the suicide of society. Possession is a right; property is against right. Suppress property while maintaining possession, and, by this simple modification of the principle, you will revolutionize law, government, economy, and institutions; you will drive evil from the face of the earth.
II. All having an equal right of occupancy, possession varies with the number of possessors; property cannot establish itself.
III. The effect of labor being the same for all, property is lost in the common prosperity.
IV. All human labor being the result of collective force, all property becomes, in consequence, collective and unitary. To speak more exactly, labor destroys property.
V. Every capacity for labor being, like every instrument of labor, an accumulated capital, and a collective property, inequality of wages and fortunes (on the ground of inequality of capacities) is, therefore, injustice and robbery.
VI. The necessary conditions of commerce are the liberty of the contracting parties and the equivalence of the products exchanged. Now, value being expressed by the amount of time and outlay which each product costs, and liberty being inviolable, the wages of laborers (like their rights and duties) should be equal.
VII. Products are bought only by products. Now, the condition of all exchange being equivalence of products, profit is impossible and unjust. Observe this elementary principle of economy, and pauperism, luxury, oppression, vice, crime, and hunger will disappear from our midst.
VIII. Men are associated by the physical and mathematical law of production, before they are voluntarily associated by choice. Therefore, equality of conditions is demanded by justice; that is, by strict social law: esteem, friendship, gratitude, admiration, all fall within the domain of equitable or proportional law only.
IX. Free association, liberty whose sole function is to maintain equality in the means of production and equivalence in exchanges is the only possible, the only just, the only true form of society.
X. Politics is the science of liberty. The government of man by man (under whatever name it be disguised) is oppression. Society finds its highest perfection in the union of order with anarchy."
Source:
Proudhon, Pierre-Joseph; McKay, Iain, ed. (2011). "Property Is Theft!" _A Pierre-Joseph Proudhon Anthology._
@@sbef anarcho-communism is the abolition of all hierarchical power structures, including class and states. What you propose is a stateless society-but not a society without hierarchy. Private property within itself is a tool of oppression because it gives the landlord exclusive rights over the land and all of its production, whether it came from his own two hands or not. But what other choice do you have but to work for the landlord when you’re starving and own no land? At which point you are, by coercion, subjected to the will and power of the landlord unless forceful or violent action is taken. Why are we humans so arrogant to believe that any person has the exclusive ownership of a piece of a whole planet? The old system must be smashed and abolished entirely, by whatever means necessary, so long as those means are in line with the ends. Use of force to overthrow oppression is the exact opposite of authoritarianism, it is an individual seeking freedom from someone or something exercising the use of authoritarian, hierarchical power to oppress and exploit them. And in the old systems place a system that does not rely on a state, class, or any other hierarchical power will thrive
Listen as someone who's not a fan of governments in general if you can actually propose to me a system for a country to function without one I'm all for it.
But I will watch critically and not just support everything you say.
Still I really appreciate this video, no harm in learning something new.
non compete and andrewism are two anarchist TH-camrs who might help with this query. To be fair, this video is just an introduction to anarchism, but hopefully as they do more videos, more questions like these can be answered. you'll see that anarchism doesn't irradiate leadership. leadership is natural, it's just that anarchism is trying to remove the power dynamics and hierarchal nature of current 'leadership'. I also think Tao Te Ching has a great passage on how we can collectively do the work under great leadership. I hope this helps.
May I ask you, what is a country to you?
@@Turiorian hmm, I guess a bordered territory where it's people cooperate and (generally) follow one ideology under one flag. But I'm not sure.
well i’m not sure about him, but my anarchism does not leave room for a “country”…..communes would be small and localised so as to maximise cohesion and minimise far-off rule and involvement in problems that will never affect you (amongst other reasons)
@@GasStationMan My bad I got busy with work, I guess that's one way to describe a country but to me countries and governments are one in the same. Usually because they are formed at the same time and so when you take away a government, whatever country existed there dissolves.
What would be left if Anarchism took its place is a bunch of smaller scaled communities popping up everywhere. In terms of food , it will be on the community to run a farm or garden to feed their own and if they want to trade they can. Same for other functions
so so happy you’re an anarchist. much love ♥️♥️
I know im late lol but im here lol
Im not an anarchist im a ML but unlike a lot of others i think understanding anarchists is important anyway ur video is cool
World Peace day June 22nd 🌎, unite in solidarity for each other, Overcoming nonsense with Common sense ❤
Amazing, thak you!
Anark/Canvas is certainly a surprising crossover, but definitely a welcome one
You would knew, if you watch the livestreams :)
@@federicosavorani6320 Ya got me there 😆
@@Cubehead27 PS, I am so sorry for the butchered English there, I am ashamed of myself lol
@@federicosavorani6320 Not at all! It's your second language, is it? I can only speak one so you're ahead of me anyway lol
Ⓐ ❤︎
I cannot, unfortunately, join you for discussion later having obligations, but I do hope to listen tomorrow. My copy of Malatesta’s little book arrived this morning.
Successful Anarchy requires perfection of self-management. It actually requires "seeing and treating the other as one would wish to be seen and treated". There is no known evidence, in all history, of any human achieving perfect self-management. By perfect self-management, I mean consciously and mindfully establishing, knowing and respecting self-drawn boundaries that do not disadvantage the self or over-favour the self. All the available evidence suggests that shared authority...though evil...is the lesser of the two evils. Somehow, SHARED authority USUALLY...USUALLY tends to have a monitoring effect on individual self-management. Of course, that is, if all those who share authority DO NOT also share an agreed-upon selfishness. That being said, there is more evidence of shared authority being less diabolical and more success, than "every man for himself".
I love your videos so much man
Well, you Are basicaly right in most said. But if you want to prove something to be bad, Its not about bringing the evidence of all the bad stuff, but rather negate all the good thinks. Government Is bad in a lot of ways, but still a good deal when you consider you dont Have to care for So many things And instead live your life.
What do classic Anarchists think of the theory of people like Rasmus Hastbacka and Swedish Anarcho-Syndicalism?
Thanks for making this video 🙏🖤
Majority of the teachers are teaching because they love to teach
What will the community do if it gets invaded and how will mobillization, arms, ammo and other basic supllies be handled and distributed to the resistance fighters? I just thougt that these are some important questions you didn't mention in the video.
Anarchists do not reject narrow, for-purpose hierarchy. We accept that things like military organizations often require hierarchy in order to function "quickly but more wrong" and cannot be spun up reactively to military threat. The difference is the anarchist army doesn't invade countries on the other side of the world on the whim of an elite few.
@@sean748 Ok but doesn't It generate a brend new class? If the army remains pretty much the same, they'll stil have some-kind of power unlike the other people. Am i wrong? The fear of being attacked is certain and with powers like the USA for example, how cannot be a Revolution in Extreme danger?
@@Aj-oj8tq with power must come chains upon those who wield it. I honestly don't know the best way to stop hierarchies like a military from becoming embedded, but hey, anarchism is a process not a destination. Always be tearing down what hierarchies you can get by without. Work for peace, but prepare for war. Military coups are kinda an issue in every society and ideology so it's not like anyone else has really solved it.
@@sean748 Well said.
@@sean748 I can say I agree, but I don't hide the fact that I'm quite pessimistic about the revolution itself. Particularly in today's world where the possibilities are endless, but the yoke of some nations and people is even tighter, I find it nearly impossible for any kind of revolution to end in success, be it communist or anarchist. The only possibility of change that comes to my mind is, besides that of climate change, an increasingly recurring and inevitable topic, is the management by the whole world with regard to technological progress. When machines actually replace humans the situation will really be of vital importance, how will a capitalist state manage to plug this thing? I see no way that doesn't increase social inequality exponentially, not to mention everything else that would entail. That moment could perhaps be the most opportune of all, as well as a perfect occasion.
7min in, I write down my thoughts. I was put of by the term solidarity, because I associate it to union.
Especially in conjunction with the red anachrie flag, which I assume to me anachro socialist.
Once people get past that stage they realize they will have to be productive together also.
Though I’m brand new to anarchism and haven’t read into anarchism thought-only some books by Marx, Lenin, Engels and the like, I support the idea of horizontal power structures. However, in the course of revolution and the immediate aftermath (counter-revolutions), how is this first stage of collapsing the vertical power structures done without means of force to destroy the existing state? This is where I feel the idea of the withering away state can come in. One that acts as a quasi state-where their powers are limited to oppression of bourgeois (and other) class rights, destroying the state and the counter revolutions, and then the necessary powers to eliminate class rule and other horizontal power structures, money, and then the quasi-state itself as it converts into purely administrative functions. I feel all of this could happen almost completely within a pretty short time in any individual country, and can happen completely even faster if there was an international movement to overthrow capitalism that transcended any form of nationalism and statism that shocked the world all at once. Is there a viable alternative that has a history of success where we can skip this whole phase to begin with? I don’t see a way to dislodge the current system without this step personally but I was wondering if someone could point me in the right direction to viable alternatives that have been proven to work historically. This being said-I believe the revolution itself does not need vertical power structures internally at any point-pre or post revolution-or the movement will ultimately fail
Anarchism is not communism. Communism is not Anarchism. Anarcho-communism is as much bullshit as modern right-wing libertarianism (which was originally an anarchist school of thought). Communism should be as much abhorrent to anarchists as totalitarianism.
So let me know if I misunderstood your comment but essentially you don't see a way to overthrow the state without a hierarchical organization? Overthrowing a government and installing a new one is called a coup, and those have a really bad track record. Most of the time the new "leaders" tend to revert back to business as usual. What you've done now is put yourself in a situation where you'd have to create a revolution all over again if you want to overcome the institution of the state.
It just isn't practical. There are ways of structuring militias where the power flows from the bottom up (Black army, anarchist spain, ELZN, Rojava). So even though I agree that it may be harder to fight the state without installing a new one it just isn't worth the risks.
Read The Dawn of Everything by David graeber and David wengrow. Then watch "what is politics" youtube essays on it. Graebers lectures on "Bullshit jobs" really changed the way I understood potential implementations of anarchist theory to economic structures.
Kropotkins work is also very important
Would anarchy permit citizens assembly for so called government? If the government was truly representative of the people would that be permissible? What if they were delegative? Would it be less of a dystopia if the state was comprised of an assortment of randomly selected people? Is utopia truly necessary or just a guide to ideals? Which means citizens assembly states would be more practical/achievable than actual anarchy!
You cannot understand how much I appreciated and needed a video like this one.
I just think you should have made it clearer that what you call anarchy (which is the original idea of anarchy) today is often called anarcho-socialism or anarcho-communism (you even use the black and red flag to symbolize socialism/communism joint with anarchy). The reason being that today there are also anarcho-capitalists, which believe that capitalism is fair and the only problem is the state, they are obviously different from the first kind of anarchist, but they still nontherless call themselves anarchist and believe to be "the true anarchist".
Also I'm lucky for being italian and having the opportunity to read this book in the language it was written
Most anarchists I've seen really don't include ancaps at all in conversations about anarchism. Tbh I mostly just call them ancaps to make clear that they aren't anarchists.
In a free society, how are you going to stop people from freely trading with each other?
@@quatelecapitalism is not free trade.
@@otherperson By definition, it is.
@@Somberdemure silence suits you.
very well made, great job!
After watching this video (on 1.5 speed because speak too slow I would’ve slept if I wasn’t on a treadmill) I now find the answer. This answer is that this ‘ideology’ is a mere foolish fantasy.
Anarchism isn’t the thing of the past, present AND future. Highlighting why it won’t work in the real world. Humans, any other animals are divided as their nature, anarchism couldn’t overcome that.
How many of you people know your neighbors in your blocks? Even more so in your whole city? This ideology based themselves on the utopian ideal of having human thinking for the WHOLE of humanity. NO. People strife for themselves that is the REALITY. And next is their families not the whole humanity! They couldn’t care less how people hundreds of kilometers from their home are doing!
Lastly, I apologise for readers who have trouble grasping my grammar, I’ll get better soon.
I do not need to care for the whole of humanity, and I can't. That's precisely why rulers can't govern the ruled without harming them, even if rulers were perfectly beneficial. A single person with no power does not need to care for the entirety of humanity in anarchy, but a handful of people need to care for millions under states.
Anarchism isn't a collectivist ideology. It's a deeply self-centered one that relies on the principle that you, as an individual, do not have to agree to ANY law or agreement if you don't wish to. Anarchism isn't based around the masses of people, but on groups of individuals coming to the conclusion that the state system is deeply unfair and refusing to interact with it