Help this Channel break through the Algorithm & share this video with as many people as you can. Like, Comment & watch it as much as you wish to as well. All of these small things help out a lot. Thanks a lot & I hope you enjoyed the video💪🏾 PS: Make sure to check out the other videos in the "One Legendary Scene" Playlist. There are some really great videos in there!
True freedom is knowing who you are, you're strengths, your weaknesses. The things that you can get rid of because it's was inauthentic from someone else's belief that applied to you and knowing that frees you from trying to live up to that "standard". You are uniquely your own standard and that frees you from fear, hatred, jealousy and so on. Knowing you don't have to waste time arguing with someone that disturbs your peace and aura. The importance of not getting sucked in such wasted time that you forget to enjoy the rest of your day. If you think about it, if more people had this freedom, just how much chaos would actually be left in the world?
Yooooo! Thank you for joining our collaborative event. And my goodness, when will your channel blow up!? Definitely want to work with you again, my dude! This is my favorite out of our whole bunch, I think.
Thanks as well man! It was a lot of fun being part of this bigger collab💪🏽 & good question 😂 Yeah! Would love to work together in the future for sure🙏🏽🙏🏽
I find it interesting cause the Guru taught Aang something that is mentioned very slightly. In the Light Chakra blocked by Illusions. Aang and the Guru say, "The greatest illusion of the world is separation. Like the four nations. We are one people, but we live as if we are divided. We are all connected.". Which fits really well with the Anarchist philosophy of what governments do. When wars and violence are waged we end up dividing each other, instead of working together.
Fair enough! I completely forgot about that time Guru Pathik explained this concept to Aang. Thanks for reminding me, I may talk about it in a future video🙏
I have an anarchy symbol tatted on my chest but I’m a very peaceful guy. Anarchism is not always the answer. There’s a time and a place and you nailed it on the head with your explanation and I thank you for it.
@@TheMeaningOfNerd I liked that each of the Korra villains followed this "right but also wrong" mentality, certainly made them more compelling than Ozai who I always found very one-dimensional. Also liked that the Korra villains all get a win to some extent despite their overall goals failing.
Tbh I think the LoK villains were better in concept, but with each of them, the creators' biases kind of spoiled some of the execution. I'd recommend the "Kay & Skittles" videos on the topic - there's four of them in total, and the one on Zaheer struck some similar notes to this one, arguably even going a bit more in-depth still.
Not necessarily. A good villain doesn't need to have a point. They can just be a needlessly evil maniac who just doesn't care, and can still just be as compelling. Case in point: Ozai.
This video got me thinking on already thought provoking topics. From my perspective, Zaheer was acting on a concept as opposed to a feasible goal. Korra had to deal with the harsh reality that things are not perfect. She could only do so much. Honestly, it makes the Avatar seem a whole lot more human. These imperfect ideas are further enunciated by the fact that in the end, she didn't truly get a victory against them. Next season they come to a tentative ally ship of sorts, if only for a moment. Love the analysis, psychology and politics in fiction is an underappreciated form of analysis!
Ultimately, if your principles are so good, why not try to convince others of your principles. After all, it was Zaheer, the man himself who said "There is no need for aggression".
the problem with how anarchy is presented in the show is that anarchy isn't necessarily against all structure. the key to anarchy is consent and voluntarisms and that no individual or institution has the right to use coercive power (with force) upon dissenters. Zaheer made a good point on nations and borders are foolish ideas, and people suffer under the hands of despotic leaders, but the chaos and natural order part is a big naturalistic fallacy and an excuse to avoid dealing with potential issues after dismantling an establishment. my last point: anarchy thrusted upon a population is just as despotic as authoritarian regimes since you're dictating what an ideal life and freedom means to other people
This video was incredibly insightful and thought provoking. Thank you so much for making such a great analysis! I live in Mexico and I heard of the Cheran people and what they did, but now I'm even more interested in learning more about them and exploring this new path you've opened. 🌟
I don't think the show gets anarchy wrong. Zaheer clearly preaches for stateless communities driven by mutual aid. What he's wrong about is his zealous method of achieving that goal.
I agree & disagree. I think Zaheer truly believes Chaos to be an ideal end goal & he truly means chaos, as you see his delight when ba sing se turns into riots & unrest. & personally, I don't think that Anarchy preaches Chaos, it preaches what you said it does. Maybe we just read Zaheer's intentions differently 🙏🏽
@@TheMeaningOfNerd That's why his method is zealous. He believes chaos will tear down the system and that once the dust settles, free communities will rise. He uses Laghima's philosophy "new growth cannot exist without the destruction of the old" as justification.
@@TheMeaningOfNerd it's possible the he believes that chaos is a necessary thing for anarchy to exist withing chaos the right people can revealed as leaders and people would naturally follow them.
This is pretty much why I’m done with the news and politics and just want a peaceful life helping others. All this rising against terrible leaders, taking them down, only for worse leaders to take their place. It’s a vicious cycle that won’t end. And that’s not what I want to be a part of.
I'm really glad you participated in this project because it let me find your channel. You have a new subscriber and I look forward to bringing your channel and seeing what comes next.
As a Christian Anarchist myself, I must say, great video sir. I'm glad you pointed the folly of violent Anarchists. I think the quote that illustrates all violent Anarchists hypocrisy best is this:"A man's natural rights are his own, against the whole world; and any infringement of them is equally a crime, whether committed by one man, or by millions; whether committed by one man, calling himself a robber, (or by any other name indicating his true character,) or by millions, calling themselves a government." -Lysander Spooner. Zaheer was a villain because he murdered people, and tried to murder Korra; not because he claimed to be a Anarchist. Also, I love that you included Tolostoy quotes. He's one of the best Christian Anarchist in history! Also, my favorite historical examples of Anarchism was the frontier west(called the wild west, but it wasn't in reality('The Not So Wild Wild West' is a great book on this)), Early Pennselvaia(which ignored its way into Anarchism), and Acadia(an island off the coast of eastern Canada).
don't forget cospaia, and old medieval ireland. when anarchy can survive in the middle of a hostile zone for over a thousand years with a prosperous population in the millions, that's pretty reassuring i would imagine.
Mate the editing in this video is insane! This video inspires me to keep improving my editing skills. The only thing that does need improvement is the audio, other than that this is some fine work you've done. I gotta thank Made2Express for mentioning your channel.
This video is a great introductory explainer for anarchism, using a popular show to get people in the door. Anarchism has a rich intellectual tradition that I haven't seen explored very much in popular media -- LoK is the only one I can think of that comes close to treating it as a legitimate philosophy. Even then, it seems like the show writers' research began and ended with listening to Black Flag's discography. (No shade to the band or to lead singer Henry Rollins, who does a great job voicing Zaheer.) I'm looking forward to the licensed Avatar TTRPG (which is supposed to come out in Summer 2022 last I checked) and I hope to incorporate anarchism in a serious way in a Korra-era campaign. What would happen if, say, a bunch of former Red Lotus and Equalists set up an autonomous collective in the tunnels of Republic City?
Thanks a lot, glad you think so🙏 Anarchy is rarely portrayed in a proper manner, I'm glad to have given it, (hopefully) its proper acknowledgment. & yeah that would be an interesting campaign to play through🤔
I'd recommend the site "anarchy works", too. And as for violence... It depends. Zaheer's violence is certainly nonsensical. Complete anarcho-pacifism like that of Tolstoy isn't exactly viable either though, in my eyes: While I do think that ideally, a peaceful transition towards an anarchist system is preferred, I do believe that should the people go down that route, the state and its agents will try and enforce compliance through violence, at which point in my eyes the people do have the right to defend themselves and their ideals, with violence if need be. Violence should never be one's preferred means, but it certainly can be the lesser evil. And I do think that, say, Nestor Makhno's attempt, or that of the CNT-FAI, prove that *genuine* revolutionary violence can work, so long as one has the support of (a significant part of) the masses. Whilst yes, both those examples failed, I'd say they did achieve significant successes too, and failed only because of outside suppression. The Zapatistas and Rojava provide two other interesting examples.
I do agree that violence is sometimes necessary, specially in the case of self-defense. I'm not a pacifist & also never thought it to make much sense either, I just just think should be the LAST option. Not that it should cease to be an option, but rather, that it should be the one we resort to when no other options present themselves🙏 Also, I will check out that site for sure, thanks💪
There’s definitely a lot to be said about Zaheer’s plan. Remember how Kuvira said that the avatar is adored by millions? Hm? I I wonder what would happen if Zaheer had killed such a beloved figure.
Great video! For more exemple of quite anarchist societies you should look into Rojava and Chiapas, both larger exemple than the one in the video. Anarchist Spain is also a good historical exemple of anarchism put into practice. A lot of exemple of stateless and egalitarian societies can also be found when we look at indigenous groups all over the world, both past and present. Some exemple could be the Hadza people in Tanzania, the Smangus anarchist Christian community in Taiwan, the Piaroa in Venezuela/Columbia or geographic region of Zomia in Asia. Oh and in Avatar we could argue that the air nomads are anarchists: the live in egalitarian communes or as nomadic people, with nearly no government, no capitalist economy, etc
Zaheer and Eren Yeager are my favorite characters ever because they believe in freedom and attained true free Eren became a bird and Zaheer is free to rome the spirit world
anarchy doesn't require all of humanity to be implemented. small, and sometimes even large communities of anarchists can and have lived freely and prosperously for long periods of time without being taken over by the state. what a lot of people don't seem to understand is that the problems of a stable anarchy cannot be solved by statecraft and politics, but of engineering, and living up to one's principles while providing for themselves, thereby proving that it can be done. other ideologies can get around the problem of "how" by saying "the government will force everyone to comply" but anarchists can only show people that the option exists, discover techniques for making it more accessible and convenient, and then leave it to them on whether they choose to follow through with it or not. access to the internet has greatly improved the DIY anarchist lifestyle to such an extent that, if more people were aware of what could be done, i'd imagine more people would end up doing it.
Is there any way killing the avatar would have worked out well for Zaheer? Sure there would be some chaos and disarray, but most people would likely want his blood for killing someone that is beloved by millions as Kuvira said. You can bet your ass Korra’s friends and allies would spread the word about what Zaheer did to rally them to their cause.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR MAKING THIS! I could not agree more in what is said in this video!!!! I really think it's sad how Zaheer has been given the wrong treatment and i'm a bit angry because of it. He was like a Iroh but more rebellious. Here is the thing i'm a Anarchist for 6/9 years maybe and the biggest problem is that people do not understand the true meaning behind anarchy! When they hear anarchy they think of world war 1 and violence and even worse the news channels with their pogus propaganda only use the word "Anarchy" when something violent is happening THEY MISS USE THE ORIGINAL IDIOLGY and it's just another form of manipulation!
You clearly know what you talk about, and I always respect that. I also fully agree Zaheer is extremely interesting, and his philosophy makes sense - for his character. However, I have my disagreements, and while nit technically accurate, I like to phrase it this way: 'Governments don't cause wars. Wars cause governments.' Obviously, governments are responsible for wars, but governments are a response to crises - and what greater crisis than war? To succesfully wage war, you need incredible amounts of organisation; just ask the Celts, who, despite better equipment, better warriors and far greater numbers, just couldn't outmatch Rome and its brutally efficient killing machine. Actually, the Celts are very interesting here because while they couldn't match 'civilized' States, they actually had far more advanced and sophisticated cultures than they often get credit for, due to contact, often conflict, with Carthage, Greeks and Rome, on top of tribal wars against both each other and Germanic peoples. Anarchy, like Communism, is a beautiful dream. But it can never work. If it were achieved globally tomorrow, it would last until the first crisis and then people would go 'someone should have the power to do something about that'. By all means, dream! Just... be aware. Personally, no system will ever be perfect, as it will necessarily be made up by fallible humans, so I believe in slow, deliberate, gradual improvement. Governments have done great evil, sometimes even deliberately, but we couldn't go without. I understand getting rid of the whole thing sounds appealing, but it's just not a good idea. We've had revolutionary waves before in history, and I for one can do without.
First of all, I appreciate the critique🙏 Also, I don't think a revolution would in any sense be a good idea. Gradual change needs to be the way to go, which is also why Zaheer's plan fails so miserably. I wouldn't say that anything is impossible per se, for the sole fact that I'm not all-knowing. & so I don't think I should put boundaries on possibility it I can't possibly know where they are. That being said though, I don't think Anarchy is a likely outcome for sure. It's a great idea & I do think it could work, it just would have to be a generations long process and even so almost impossible to achieve. I see it more as a concept that could help us realize why our current governments are defunct & need to be improved upon. About your idea of crises. I do somewhat agree but I'd add that: war causes governments but so too do governments cause war. It's like the chicken & the egg question, which came first? & it think that you put it well when you said that to successfully wage war you need huge amounts of organization, & I think that by the point you're able to get that done, you already have a form of government, maybe not an official one but one nonetheless. & to wage war successfully & to organize on such a big scale, you need one more thing: enough ignorance within the people you govern. & that's why I like the idea of anarchy, I think it were to only be possible if every human (& I mean every) obtains enough information to govern himself & so therefore, if he gets to that point, he'd never willingly participate in any war effort => no crisis could break this state, it could only be broken up through generations of ignorance being formed once again. After all, there was a time where we didn't wage wars, but the main reason being: we were too busy looking out for our own lives & our own survival. Again, I don't think revolutions would result in anything positive & I don't even know if Anarchy is at all possible, I just think it's a great concept to think over.
@@TheMeaningOfNerd It's definitely a very interesting thought experiment! I do think since we spontaneously developed governments before, we would again. We're a competitive lot, we humans, seeking more resources and higher status (especially men, though it has expanded into women over time, to be more attractive as a potential mate; it's just biology), and the people most succesful at that will naturally become a sort of 'notables'. And when those notables start forming 'gentlemen's agreements'... you have a pre- or proto-government, if you will. Still, you certainly make a good point. Time makes all things possible. For reference, 500 years ago democracy as we currently understand it would be inconceivable. 200 years ago, France was a Kingdom (again), the superpower was Britain, Japan was still ruled by Samurai, neither Britain nor the US had abolished slavery and Belgium, Italy and Germany didn't exist yet. A hundred years ago, everyone thought there would never again be a new war. 10 years ago, no one ever heard of COVID. A year ago, I would never have guessed Russia would now be invading Ukraine. Who's to say what the world will look like even 5 years from now, let alone 500? Personally, I guess I'm torn. On the one hand, government no longer being necessary, as in, no more crises and everyone just going about their lives, would be great. On the other hand, it's a nice, comforting thought there's something to fall back on if it should become necessary. Still, as I said, an interesting thought experiment, and a beautiful dream!
Actually, anarchists across history did engage in violence. In fact, the late XIX Century saw the height of anarchist terrorism, with killings including a US President, the Italian King, or Empress Sissi from the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
Agreed, I'm not saying they didn't, the guy I mentioned (Johann Most) was one of the leading proponents of it actually. I was just implying how these "Anarchists" were hypocritical bc their own ideology would disallow such actions.
The Legend of Korra didn't get Anarchy wrong. Zaheer did. I believe the show was intentional in making Zaheer's philosophy of what Anarchy is purposely flawed, to be an example of how this, as you put it "Hollywood" esc depiticiton of what Anarchy is is wrong, both from what how true Anarchy and the ramifications of it. And even with Zaheer's idea of Anarchism being wrong, I do believe in the context of the show, it made sense why he probably didnt think he had no other choice but to use violence. He probably assumed that people wouldn't dare try take back power for themesleves unless these nations authority figures we're removed. The Earth Queen had the Dai Li, and given what we've seen them do through Avatar's history, I don't blame anyone for not thinking they had any chance of opposing her rule.. Not only does Korra herself straight up point out same criticism you mentioned in regards to his version of what Anarchy is, but Book 4 showed exactly what happens as a result of this wrong type of Anarchy being performed. Zaheer even comes to recognise this when he hears about Kurvia. Still a good video overall.
I can see your point, but I'd recommend giving the "Kay & Skittles" videos on this same topic a watch. Legend of Korra has a... Reoccurring problem, in which the creators seem to let their personal liberal (as in, centrist with socially progressive views and right-wing economic views) biases slip into their narrative imho.
Tbh I’ve always liked his character from korra at the time it aired and i rewatched it around 3 years ago but tbh if all gov leaders were removed I think people would start thinking properly and boarders shouldn’t even be a thing of passports since after all the world is for everyone but once again lovely breakdown man! Also to suggest you able to do an analysis fire force ? Manga since there’s interesting things relating bout humanity
I'm glad you liked it & yeah I think people should start being more self-reliant for sure. & never heard of that Manga but I may check it out if there's more demand for it, thanks for the suggestion 🙏
As an insurrectionary anarchist, I agree with basically every point here except the nonviolence bit. My contention boils down to one simple question: what do you do when tyrants refuse to give up their power? Yes, Zaheers plan was horribly naive, but in the scenario where they've done the work to gain popular support, how do you resist the inevitable violent suppression of the monarchy or state? My view is that if you remain nonviolent, you remain under control.
I don't think Zaheer was created by a lack of interpretation of what anarchy is. Zaheer was meant to be a villain, and villains need to be wrong to the story to work. In other words, he would not be a villain if he was right. The intention of showing the red lotus agreement with violence is an exposition of their error: they want immediate changes. As you said, the red lotus wants to set free the people without the time it takes to change the people from inside
I know, that was the point, actually. I never thought they were, but the media often covers any type of riots with the following headlines: "Groups of Anarchists destroy blablabla" or "The [insert cause] riots have led to a state of anarchy blablabla" & many people therefore also conflate anarchy with pure chaos, so that's the point I was trying to make, but by the end of the video I hope to have informed people of what Anarchy truly is 🙏🙏
@@TheMeaningOfNerd I think Timothy's trying to draw attention to the fact that most of the BLM protests were peaceful, most the "violence" committed there where there *were* riots was property damage, and that the depiction of BLM as a violent, "bad" movement is a rather dubious thing as a result.
@@TheLostArchangel666 so much for being "unbiased" when your homies are on the chopping block. funny how that works. BLM is a marxist front group. get over yourself.
Actually, I think that the show does get right the effects anarchy has on society, rather than the more nuanced philosophical descriptions. As such, I think it's quite fitting. In general I think this show gets politics right, especially the negative consquences of radical ideologies, which is something few ideologues acknowledge.
I appreciate the critique, but I think it doesn't for one sole reason: Because they never address Zaheer's critics of Governments later on in the show. They could've spent the next season focused on self-reflecting about how maybe Zaheer had some points & how Republic city even is a mess of a place to live in, full of corruption & poverty that is incentivized by the government itself. Rather, they decided to spend an entire season saying why Zaheer was DEFINITELY wrong. And don't get me wrong, he was, but his critics were still valid & need to be addressed, otherwise people will revolt & things will look even uglier in the end.
The problem with anarchy is that it never works. Leo Tolstoy quote is a logic fallacy. Just because laws create slavery and laws are made by governments you cannot conclude that the only solution is to abolish governments. SInce laws are also responsible for helping the people who need most, laws are reponsible for bringuing security to people, laws are responsible for easy access to basic needs to the population. Also you can have laws that don't lead to slavery. So the idea that you need to abolish governments to abolish slavery is a flawd logic. Also it only abolish wide spread slavery. At a individual level if there's no laws, you can still have slavery. The problem with the core idea of anarchy from Mikhail Bakunin is that if there's no authority over people, the individual is the one that is going to apply authority. The problem is almost every individual will choose to apply authority that favours themselfs unless there's too much ethical and/or conscience pressure. Basically even if others are more justified to have something most people will still decide that they themselves are the ones that should have something because we always see things that go against ourselves as more unfair than things that go against others. This is why we have a judicial system, we have long noticed that when law and fairness is left to the individual envolved in the processes they will rarely be fair. This is an ideology that believes the systems are the origin of the flaws we see in society when in most cases the those flaws already exist on a individual level. The point of th system is to reduce personal flaws. Yes governments have been responsible for huge attrocities but are we going to pretend that at an individual level they don't exist? People kill each other over common day disputes. People violate, torture, kill, are violent on a individual levell without any need for government intervention to this happends. Like any animal in the animal kingdom, humans commit attrocities on a small scale, governments are not the ones doing that. Governments have the potencial to exacerbate this violence to a new scale and force people that didn't want part in it to be part of it, but the violence already exist. Governments create structure, organization and focus which improves the scale of good things like progress, economy, access to basic needs, quality of life but it also creates a possability for a bigger scale in violence and injustice. The mexico example you gave my have worked, but I can give you an example where it happend something similar and definitly not worked. A lot of "favelas" in Brazil did the same. The people took the power over their oen hands in certain regions and the crime an quality of life from those poeple only decreased over the years. Right now citizens themselves want the police to enter and do some pressure over drug dealer groups that have stablished themselves in those places. THe need for government intervention is asked by a lot of the citizens in those places but they can't do it easily since there's a lot of powerfull new gang groups that control those areas. It all started with a close state of anarchy that allowed people to create their own homes with a community effort but it ended up poorly.
the only reason they are begging to be enslaved in those favelas is the same reason the jews wanted to go back to captivity in egypt. they think they can take refuge in something familiar rather than grow the balls to solve their own damn problems. your wall of text is moot.
the idea that without a ruler to enforce rules, there will be chaos and lawlessness is the true fallacy. anarchists believe that those rules which are voluntarily enacted are of a superior quality to those that are enforced by force by the state.
I don't think the show gets anarchy wrong. I think they intentionally make Zaheer have a similar philosophy to that of an anarchy, but differs fundamentally in the way to get there. The show KNOWS Zaheer isn't right, and that it isn't true anarchy. After all, they still have to paint Zaheer as a bad guy who ultimately needs to be taken out.
I respectfully disagree. I think that if they knew more about Anarchy, they'd tackle Zaheer's complaints later on, but instead they spent the next entire season hammering that Zaheer was wrong, which yes he was, but his criticisms were never truly addressed. & maybe I'm wrong & the writers decided to not tackle that for different reasons but I don't know 🤔
@@TheMeaningOfNerd but it ends in them finding democracy as a middleground between monarchy/dictatorship and anarchy. They make clear that Zaheers approach was bad, because as you said yourself, abolishing a government by assasinating the leader leads to more oppressive replacements and is just objectively not a good idea.
@Mathies See, that's exactly my point. The show ended up making people believe that Monarchy was Zaheer's problem. But if you ever rewatch it, listen to what zaheer is actually saying. He constantly also criticizes democracies & their presidents as well. He was going to assassinate the republic city president as well after all. Anarchists believe that a rule of the majority that rules over the minority is just a different form of tyranny.
I disagree with you on the role and purpose of government. The purpose and role of the government is to provide for the best possible quality of life of it's people. Usually by organizing and administering the various products and services a society needs but individual people can't manage on their own.
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree then, which is totally fine. Personally I just don't believe that to be government's role simply because I don't believe it to actually be capable of that & so it just ends up using the people's money that they would've used to create a good life for themselves, to keep their control over people. I just don't believe governments should be anyone's parents that's all.
In theory, yes, that's the role government should have. But for that it wouldn't need top-down hierarchical power. Anarchists don't advocate for the complete dissolution of society, if anything, we do the opposite: Mutual aid and horizontal organisation are at the heart of the modern anarchist framework. We advocate for a grassroots "government", and against any form of top-down state power.
Help this Channel break through the Algorithm & share this video with as many people as you can. Like, Comment & watch it as much as you wish to as well.
All of these small things help out a lot. Thanks a lot & I hope you enjoyed the video💪🏾
PS: Make sure to check out the other videos in the "One Legendary Scene" Playlist. There are some really great videos in there!
Freedom isn't about doing what you want, it's about not having to do what you don't want to do.
I think I agree with that statement a lot. Specially, when you consider that most people don't even know what they want in the first place.
@@TheMeaningOfNerd yupp👍
True freedom is knowing who you are, you're strengths, your weaknesses. The things that you can get rid of because it's was inauthentic from someone else's belief that applied to you and knowing that frees you from trying to live up to that "standard". You are uniquely your own standard and that frees you from fear, hatred, jealousy and so on. Knowing you don't have to waste time arguing with someone that disturbs your peace and aura. The importance of not getting sucked in such wasted time that you forget to enjoy the rest of your day. If you think about it, if more people had this freedom, just how much chaos would actually be left in the world?
Yooooo! Thank you for joining our collaborative event. And my goodness, when will your channel blow up!? Definitely want to work with you again, my dude! This is my favorite out of our whole bunch, I think.
11:15 - Why did Zaheer's look away make me LOL
Thanks as well man! It was a lot of fun being part of this bigger collab💪🏽
& good question 😂
Yeah! Would love to work together in the future for sure🙏🏽🙏🏽
@@AntoineBandele 11:15 The ashamed look of someone who just realized their mistakes 😂
I find it interesting cause the Guru taught Aang something that is mentioned very slightly. In the Light Chakra blocked by Illusions. Aang and the Guru say, "The greatest illusion of the world is separation. Like the four nations. We are one people, but we live as if we are divided. We are all connected.". Which fits really well with the Anarchist philosophy of what governments do. When wars and violence are waged we end up dividing each other, instead of working together.
Fair enough! I completely forgot about that time Guru Pathik explained this concept to Aang. Thanks for reminding me, I may talk about it in a future video🙏
Look up the law of divine oneness. First law of the 7 hermetic principles. It will fascinate you.
I have an anarchy symbol tatted on my chest but I’m a very peaceful guy. Anarchism is not always the answer. There’s a time and a place and you nailed it on the head with your explanation and I thank you for it.
I'm glad you enjoyed it! And yeah agreed. I think it's a very misunderstood Philosophy that doesn't get explored or talked about enough.
A good villain is one who has a legitimate point, but their proposed solution is objectively wrong.
They are right and wrong at the same time.
Exactly! & it's this Dichotomy that makes them often times so appealing to viewers as well
@@TheMeaningOfNerd I liked that each of the Korra villains followed this "right but also wrong" mentality, certainly made them more compelling than Ozai who I always found very one-dimensional.
Also liked that the Korra villains all get a win to some extent despite their overall goals failing.
Completely agree. As much as I prefer Legend of Aang, the villains from LoK are on a different level for sure
Tbh I think the LoK villains were better in concept, but with each of them, the creators' biases kind of spoiled some of the execution. I'd recommend the "Kay & Skittles" videos on the topic - there's four of them in total, and the one on Zaheer struck some similar notes to this one, arguably even going a bit more in-depth still.
Not necessarily. A good villain doesn't need to have a point. They can just be a needlessly evil maniac who just doesn't care, and can still just be as compelling. Case in point: Ozai.
I found this wonderfully thought provoking. Best video in the playlist!
Thanks a lot mate! I'm glad you think so.
I really enjoyed your video as well. 🙏🙏
This video got me thinking on already thought provoking topics. From my perspective, Zaheer was acting on a concept as opposed to a feasible goal. Korra had to deal with the harsh reality that things are not perfect. She could only do so much. Honestly, it makes the Avatar seem a whole lot more human. These imperfect ideas are further enunciated by the fact that in the end, she didn't truly get a victory against them. Next season they come to a tentative ally ship of sorts, if only for a moment. Love the analysis, psychology and politics in fiction is an underappreciated form of analysis!
I'm glad you enjoyed it, thanks! & yeah agreed, the more complex & understandable you can make your villains, the better they end up becoming
Ultimately, if your principles are so good, why not try to convince others of your principles. After all, it was Zaheer, the man himself who said "There is no need for aggression".
Completely agree!🙏
the problem with how anarchy is presented in the show is that anarchy isn't necessarily against all structure. the key to anarchy is consent and voluntarisms and that no individual or institution has the right to use coercive power (with force) upon dissenters. Zaheer made a good point on nations and borders are foolish ideas, and people suffer under the hands of despotic leaders, but the chaos and natural order part is a big naturalistic fallacy and an excuse to avoid dealing with potential issues after dismantling an establishment. my last point: anarchy thrusted upon a population is just as despotic as authoritarian regimes since you're dictating what an ideal life and freedom means to other people
This video was incredibly insightful and thought provoking. Thank you so much for making such a great analysis! I live in Mexico and I heard of the Cheran people and what they did, but now I'm even more interested in learning more about them and exploring this new path you've opened. 🌟
I'm glad you enjoyed it 🙏🏼🙏🏼
& oh wow that's a great opportunity to get to know more about it first hand. Hope you have a great day 💪🏼
Great video. The Red Lotus were my favorite characters from the Korra era.
Zaheer was my favorite villain.
@andresbur15 If you like his voice try listening to Black Flag or Rollins Band. He does great spoken word too.
Such an incredible video of yours. So deep and perspective-changing.
I'm glad you think so thanks 🙏🏽
It was a lot of fun to make it & the book also seriously changed my perspectives on many things as well
I don't think the show gets anarchy wrong. Zaheer clearly preaches for stateless communities driven by mutual aid. What he's wrong about is his zealous method of achieving that goal.
I agree & disagree. I think Zaheer truly believes Chaos to be an ideal end goal & he truly means chaos, as you see his delight when ba sing se turns into riots & unrest. & personally, I don't think that Anarchy preaches Chaos, it preaches what you said it does.
Maybe we just read Zaheer's intentions differently 🙏🏽
@@TheMeaningOfNerd That's why his method is zealous. He believes chaos will tear down the system and that once the dust settles, free communities will rise. He uses Laghima's philosophy "new growth cannot exist without the destruction of the old" as justification.
@Vetarlit Torf Ahhh, I get where you're coming from now. Didn't consider it from that perspective but yeah makes sense, I appreciate the insight 🙏
@@TheMeaningOfNerd it's possible the he believes that chaos is a necessary thing for anarchy to exist withing chaos the right people can revealed as leaders and people would naturally follow them.
@@vetarlittorf1807 I find his teachings fascinating because when I take Laghima’s quote to it’s most bare form, I get “Think Differently”.
This video is honestly an amazing intro to anarchy in general. Such good insight into into LOK's political standpoint.
I'm glad you think so, thanks💪🙏
This is pretty much why I’m done with the news and politics and just want a peaceful life helping others. All this rising against terrible leaders, taking them down, only for worse leaders to take their place. It’s a vicious cycle that won’t end. And that’s not what I want to be a part of.
I'm really glad you participated in this project because it let me find your channel. You have a new subscriber and I look forward to bringing your channel and seeing what comes next.
I'm glad you think so, thanks a lot!! 🙏
As a Christian Anarchist myself, I must say, great video sir. I'm glad you pointed the folly of violent Anarchists. I think the quote that illustrates all violent Anarchists hypocrisy best is this:"A man's natural rights are his own, against the whole world; and any infringement of them is equally a crime, whether committed by one man, or by millions; whether committed by one man, calling himself a robber, (or by any other name indicating his true character,) or by millions, calling themselves a government." -Lysander Spooner. Zaheer was a villain because he murdered people, and tried to murder Korra; not because he claimed to be a Anarchist.
Also, I love that you included Tolostoy quotes. He's one of the best Christian Anarchist in history!
Also, my favorite historical examples of Anarchism was the frontier west(called the wild west, but it wasn't in reality('The Not So Wild Wild West' is a great book on this)), Early Pennselvaia(which ignored its way into Anarchism), and Acadia(an island off the coast of eastern Canada).
don't forget cospaia, and old medieval ireland. when anarchy can survive in the middle of a hostile zone for over a thousand years with a prosperous population in the millions, that's pretty reassuring i would imagine.
Great video!
Mate the editing in this video is insane! This video inspires me to keep improving my editing skills. The only thing that does need improvement is the audio, other than that this is some fine work you've done. I gotta thank Made2Express for mentioning your channel.
I truly appreciate the nice words, thanks 👍🏽
Also, if you don't mind me asking, what do you mean with the audio?
This video is a great introductory explainer for anarchism, using a popular show to get people in the door. Anarchism has a rich intellectual tradition that I haven't seen explored very much in popular media -- LoK is the only one I can think of that comes close to treating it as a legitimate philosophy. Even then, it seems like the show writers' research began and ended with listening to Black Flag's discography. (No shade to the band or to lead singer Henry Rollins, who does a great job voicing Zaheer.)
I'm looking forward to the licensed Avatar TTRPG (which is supposed to come out in Summer 2022 last I checked) and I hope to incorporate anarchism in a serious way in a Korra-era campaign. What would happen if, say, a bunch of former Red Lotus and Equalists set up an autonomous collective in the tunnels of Republic City?
Thanks a lot, glad you think so🙏
Anarchy is rarely portrayed in a proper manner, I'm glad to have given it, (hopefully) its proper acknowledgment. & yeah that would be an interesting campaign to play through🤔
I'd recommend the site "anarchy works", too. And as for violence... It depends. Zaheer's violence is certainly nonsensical.
Complete anarcho-pacifism like that of Tolstoy isn't exactly viable either though, in my eyes:
While I do think that ideally, a peaceful transition towards an anarchist system is preferred, I do believe that should the people go down that route, the state and its agents will try and enforce compliance through violence, at which point in my eyes the people do have the right to defend themselves and their ideals, with violence if need be.
Violence should never be one's preferred means, but it certainly can be the lesser evil. And I do think that, say, Nestor Makhno's attempt, or that of the CNT-FAI, prove that *genuine* revolutionary violence can work, so long as one has the support of (a significant part of) the masses. Whilst yes, both those examples failed, I'd say they did achieve significant successes too, and failed only because of outside suppression.
The Zapatistas and Rojava provide two other interesting examples.
I do agree that violence is sometimes necessary, specially in the case of self-defense. I'm not a pacifist & also never thought it to make much sense either, I just just think should be the LAST option. Not that it should cease to be an option, but rather, that it should be the one we resort to when no other options present themselves🙏
Also, I will check out that site for sure, thanks💪
There’s definitely a lot to be said about Zaheer’s plan. Remember how Kuvira said that the avatar is adored by millions? Hm? I I wonder what would happen if Zaheer had killed such a beloved figure.
Great video! For more exemple of quite anarchist societies you should look into Rojava and Chiapas, both larger exemple than the one in the video. Anarchist Spain is also a good historical exemple of anarchism put into practice. A lot of exemple of stateless and egalitarian societies can also be found when we look at indigenous groups all over the world, both past and present. Some exemple could be the Hadza people in Tanzania, the Smangus anarchist Christian community in Taiwan, the Piaroa in Venezuela/Columbia or geographic region of Zomia in Asia.
Oh and in Avatar we could argue that the air nomads are anarchists: the live in egalitarian communes or as nomadic people, with nearly no government, no capitalist economy, etc
Zaheer and Eren Yeager are my favorite characters ever because they believe in freedom and attained true free Eren became a bird and Zaheer is free to rome the spirit world
Thank you brother
Great video
Id also look up the rojava democratic confederacy in North East SyrIa. great vid
I'll definitely check it out, thanks for the insight 🙏
anarchy doesn't require all of humanity to be implemented. small, and sometimes even large communities of anarchists can and have lived freely and prosperously for long periods of time without being taken over by the state. what a lot of people don't seem to understand is that the problems of a stable anarchy cannot be solved by statecraft and politics, but of engineering, and living up to one's principles while providing for themselves, thereby proving that it can be done. other ideologies can get around the problem of "how" by saying "the government will force everyone to comply" but anarchists can only show people that the option exists, discover techniques for making it more accessible and convenient, and then leave it to them on whether they choose to follow through with it or not. access to the internet has greatly improved the DIY anarchist lifestyle to such an extent that, if more people were aware of what could be done, i'd imagine more people would end up doing it.
Is there any way killing the avatar would have worked out well for Zaheer? Sure there would be some chaos and disarray, but most people would likely want his blood for killing someone that is beloved by millions as Kuvira said. You can bet your ass Korra’s friends and allies would spread the word about what Zaheer did to rally them to their cause.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR MAKING THIS!
I could not agree more in what is said in this video!!!!
I really think it's sad how Zaheer has been given the wrong treatment and i'm a bit angry because of it.
He was like a Iroh but more rebellious. Here is the thing i'm a Anarchist for 6/9 years maybe and the biggest problem is that people do not understand the true meaning behind anarchy! When they hear anarchy they think of world war 1 and violence and even worse the news channels with their pogus propaganda only use the word "Anarchy" when something violent is happening THEY MISS USE THE ORIGINAL IDIOLGY and it's just another form of manipulation!
💀 bro said "despotic" and showed Uncle Joe falling up the stairs
Don't change
You clearly know what you talk about, and I always respect that. I also fully agree Zaheer is extremely interesting, and his philosophy makes sense - for his character.
However, I have my disagreements, and while nit technically accurate, I like to phrase it this way: 'Governments don't cause wars. Wars cause governments.'
Obviously, governments are responsible for wars, but governments are a response to crises - and what greater crisis than war? To succesfully wage war, you need incredible amounts of organisation; just ask the Celts, who, despite better equipment, better warriors and far greater numbers, just couldn't outmatch Rome and its brutally efficient killing machine. Actually, the Celts are very interesting here because while they couldn't match 'civilized' States, they actually had far more advanced and sophisticated cultures than they often get credit for, due to contact, often conflict, with Carthage, Greeks and Rome, on top of tribal wars against both each other and Germanic peoples.
Anarchy, like Communism, is a beautiful dream. But it can never work. If it were achieved globally tomorrow, it would last until the first crisis and then people would go 'someone should have the power to do something about that'. By all means, dream! Just... be aware.
Personally, no system will ever be perfect, as it will necessarily be made up by fallible humans, so I believe in slow, deliberate, gradual improvement. Governments have done great evil, sometimes even deliberately, but we couldn't go without. I understand getting rid of the whole thing sounds appealing, but it's just not a good idea. We've had revolutionary waves before in history, and I for one can do without.
First of all, I appreciate the critique🙏
Also, I don't think a revolution would in any sense be a good idea. Gradual change needs to be the way to go, which is also why Zaheer's plan fails so miserably. I wouldn't say that anything is impossible per se, for the sole fact that I'm not all-knowing. & so I don't think I should put boundaries on possibility it I can't possibly know where they are.
That being said though, I don't think Anarchy is a likely outcome for sure. It's a great idea & I do think it could work, it just would have to be a generations long process and even so almost impossible to achieve. I see it more as a concept that could help us realize why our current governments are defunct & need to be improved upon.
About your idea of crises. I do somewhat agree but I'd add that: war causes governments but so too do governments cause war. It's like the chicken & the egg question, which came first?
& it think that you put it well when you said that to successfully wage war you need huge amounts of organization, & I think that by the point you're able to get that done, you already have a form of government, maybe not an official one but one nonetheless. & to wage war successfully & to organize on such a big scale, you need one more thing: enough ignorance within the people you govern. & that's why I like the idea of anarchy, I think it were to only be possible if every human (& I mean every) obtains enough information to govern himself & so therefore, if he gets to that point, he'd never willingly participate in any war effort => no crisis could break this state, it could only be broken up through generations of ignorance being formed once again. After all, there was a time where we didn't wage wars, but the main reason being: we were too busy looking out for our own lives & our own survival.
Again, I don't think revolutions would result in anything positive & I don't even know if Anarchy is at all possible, I just think it's a great concept to think over.
@@TheMeaningOfNerd It's definitely a very interesting thought experiment!
I do think since we spontaneously developed governments before, we would again. We're a competitive lot, we humans, seeking more resources and higher status (especially men, though it has expanded into women over time, to be more attractive as a potential mate; it's just biology), and the people most succesful at that will naturally become a sort of 'notables'. And when those notables start forming 'gentlemen's agreements'... you have a pre- or proto-government, if you will.
Still, you certainly make a good point. Time makes all things possible. For reference, 500 years ago democracy as we currently understand it would be inconceivable. 200 years ago, France was a Kingdom (again), the superpower was Britain, Japan was still ruled by Samurai, neither Britain nor the US had abolished slavery and Belgium, Italy and Germany didn't exist yet. A hundred years ago, everyone thought there would never again be a new war. 10 years ago, no one ever heard of COVID. A year ago, I would never have guessed Russia would now be invading Ukraine. Who's to say what the world will look like even 5 years from now, let alone 500?
Personally, I guess I'm torn. On the one hand, government no longer being necessary, as in, no more crises and everyone just going about their lives, would be great. On the other hand, it's a nice, comforting thought there's something to fall back on if it should become necessary.
Still, as I said, an interesting thought experiment, and a beautiful dream!
Zaheer was kinda based ngl
I will have to agree 😅
Actually, anarchists across history did engage in violence. In fact, the late XIX Century saw the height of anarchist terrorism, with killings including a US President, the Italian King, or Empress Sissi from the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
Agreed, I'm not saying they didn't, the guy I mentioned (Johann Most) was one of the leading proponents of it actually. I was just implying how these "Anarchists" were hypocritical bc their own ideology would disallow such actions.
The Legend of Korra didn't get Anarchy wrong. Zaheer did. I believe the show was intentional in making Zaheer's philosophy of what Anarchy is purposely flawed, to be an example of how this, as you put it "Hollywood" esc depiticiton of what Anarchy is is wrong, both from what how true Anarchy and the ramifications of it.
And even with Zaheer's idea of Anarchism being wrong, I do believe in the context of the show, it made sense why he probably didnt think he had no other choice but to use violence. He probably assumed that people wouldn't dare try take back power for themesleves unless these nations authority figures we're removed. The Earth Queen had the Dai Li, and given what we've seen them do through Avatar's history, I don't blame anyone for not thinking they had any chance of opposing her rule..
Not only does Korra herself straight up point out same criticism you mentioned in regards to his version of what Anarchy is, but Book 4 showed exactly what happens as a result of this wrong type of Anarchy being performed. Zaheer even comes to recognise this when he hears about Kurvia. Still a good video overall.
I can see your point, but I'd recommend giving the "Kay & Skittles" videos on this same topic a watch. Legend of Korra has a... Reoccurring problem, in which the creators seem to let their personal liberal (as in, centrist with socially progressive views and right-wing economic views) biases slip into their narrative imho.
You have borders because ideas and values are different from population to population and some are a lot better than others and need to be defended
Tbh I’ve always liked his character from korra at the time it aired and i rewatched it around 3 years ago but tbh if all gov leaders were removed I think people would start thinking properly and boarders shouldn’t even be a thing of passports since after all the world is for everyone but once again lovely breakdown man!
Also to suggest you able to do an analysis fire force ? Manga since there’s interesting things relating bout humanity
I'm glad you liked it & yeah I think people should start being more self-reliant for sure.
& never heard of that Manga but I may check it out if there's more demand for it, thanks for the suggestion 🙏
As an insurrectionary anarchist, I agree with basically every point here except the nonviolence bit.
My contention boils down to one simple question: what do you do when tyrants refuse to give up their power? Yes, Zaheers plan was horribly naive, but in the scenario where they've done the work to gain popular support, how do you resist the inevitable violent suppression of the monarchy or state? My view is that if you remain nonviolent, you remain under control.
I don't think Zaheer was created by a lack of interpretation of what anarchy is. Zaheer was meant to be a villain, and villains need to be wrong to the story to work. In other words, he would not be a villain if he was right. The intention of showing the red lotus agreement with violence is an exposition of their error: they want immediate changes. As you said, the red lotus wants to set free the people without the time it takes to change the people from inside
😱
Legend of Korra wasn't good, but Zaheer made sense. It balanced out Korras anti- Feminine personality
Humans are tribal, Warlords pop up in a Vacuum
No, Bruce Banner isn’t absolutely dangerous. He was framed and used, you fool! He is not a monster at all.
The black lives matters protests weren’t anarchy tho 🤷🏽♂️🤷🏽♂️🤷🏽♂️🤷🏽♂️🤷🏽♂️
I know, that was the point, actually.
I never thought they were, but the media often covers any type of riots with the following headlines: "Groups of Anarchists destroy blablabla" or "The [insert cause] riots have led to a state of anarchy blablabla"
& many people therefore also conflate anarchy with pure chaos, so that's the point I was trying to make, but by the end of the video I hope to have informed people of what Anarchy truly is 🙏🙏
Gotta love it when uneducated people give their take on politics
promosm ❤️
"BLM riots" yikes 😬
?
@@TheMeaningOfNerd I think Timothy's trying to draw attention to the fact that most of the BLM protests were peaceful, most the "violence" committed there where there *were* riots was property damage, and that the depiction of BLM as a violent, "bad" movement is a rather dubious thing as a result.
@@TheLostArchangel666 so much for being "unbiased" when your homies are on the chopping block. funny how that works. BLM is a marxist front group. get over yourself.
Actually, I think that the show does get right the effects anarchy has on society, rather than the more nuanced philosophical descriptions. As such, I think it's quite fitting. In general I think this show gets politics right, especially the negative consquences of radical ideologies, which is something few ideologues acknowledge.
I appreciate the critique, but I think it doesn't for one sole reason: Because they never address Zaheer's critics of Governments later on in the show. They could've spent the next season focused on self-reflecting about how maybe Zaheer had some points & how Republic city even is a mess of a place to live in, full of corruption & poverty that is incentivized by the government itself. Rather, they decided to spend an entire season saying why Zaheer was DEFINITELY wrong. And don't get me wrong, he was, but his critics were still valid & need to be addressed, otherwise people will revolt & things will look even uglier in the end.
The problem with anarchy is that it never works.
Leo Tolstoy quote is a logic fallacy. Just because laws create slavery and laws are made by governments you cannot conclude that the only solution is to abolish governments. SInce laws are also responsible for helping the people who need most, laws are reponsible for bringuing security to people, laws are responsible for easy access to basic needs to the population. Also you can have laws that don't lead to slavery. So the idea that you need to abolish governments to abolish slavery is a flawd logic. Also it only abolish wide spread slavery. At a individual level if there's no laws, you can still have slavery.
The problem with the core idea of anarchy from Mikhail Bakunin is that if there's no authority over people, the individual is the one that is going to apply authority. The problem is almost every individual will choose to apply authority that favours themselfs unless there's too much ethical and/or conscience pressure. Basically even if others are more justified to have something most people will still decide that they themselves are the ones that should have something because we always see things that go against ourselves as more unfair than things that go against others. This is why we have a judicial system, we have long noticed that when law and fairness is left to the individual envolved in the processes they will rarely be fair. This is an ideology that believes the systems are the origin of the flaws we see in society when in most cases the those flaws already exist on a individual level. The point of th system is to reduce personal flaws.
Yes governments have been responsible for huge attrocities but are we going to pretend that at an individual level they don't exist? People kill each other over common day disputes. People violate, torture, kill, are violent on a individual levell without any need for government intervention to this happends. Like any animal in the animal kingdom, humans commit attrocities on a small scale, governments are not the ones doing that. Governments have the potencial to exacerbate this violence to a new scale and force people that didn't want part in it to be part of it, but the violence already exist. Governments create structure, organization and focus which improves the scale of good things like progress, economy, access to basic needs, quality of life but it also creates a possability for a bigger scale in violence and injustice.
The mexico example you gave my have worked, but I can give you an example where it happend something similar and definitly not worked. A lot of "favelas" in Brazil did the same. The people took the power over their oen hands in certain regions and the crime an quality of life from those poeple only decreased over the years. Right now citizens themselves want the police to enter and do some pressure over drug dealer groups that have stablished themselves in those places. THe need for government intervention is asked by a lot of the citizens in those places but they can't do it easily since there's a lot of powerfull new gang groups that control those areas. It all started with a close state of anarchy that allowed people to create their own homes with a community effort but it ended up poorly.
the only reason they are begging to be enslaved in those favelas is the same reason the jews wanted to go back to captivity in egypt. they think they can take refuge in something familiar rather than grow the balls to solve their own damn problems. your wall of text is moot.
the idea that without a ruler to enforce rules, there will be chaos and lawlessness is the true fallacy. anarchists believe that those rules which are voluntarily enacted are of a superior quality to those that are enforced by force by the state.
I don't think the show gets anarchy wrong. I think they intentionally make Zaheer have a similar philosophy to that of an anarchy, but differs fundamentally in the way to get there. The show KNOWS Zaheer isn't right, and that it isn't true anarchy. After all, they still have to paint Zaheer as a bad guy who ultimately needs to be taken out.
I respectfully disagree.
I think that if they knew more about Anarchy, they'd tackle Zaheer's complaints later on, but instead they spent the next entire season hammering that Zaheer was wrong, which yes he was, but his criticisms were never truly addressed. & maybe I'm wrong & the writers decided to not tackle that for different reasons but I don't know 🤔
@@TheMeaningOfNerd but it ends in them finding democracy as a middleground between monarchy/dictatorship and anarchy. They make clear that Zaheers approach was bad, because as you said yourself, abolishing a government by assasinating the leader leads to more oppressive replacements and is just objectively not a good idea.
@Mathies See, that's exactly my point. The show ended up making people believe that Monarchy was Zaheer's problem. But if you ever rewatch it, listen to what zaheer is actually saying. He constantly also criticizes democracies & their presidents as well. He was going to assassinate the republic city president as well after all. Anarchists believe that a rule of the majority that rules over the minority is just a different form of tyranny.
I disagree with you on the role and purpose of government. The purpose and role of the government is to provide for the best possible quality of life of it's people. Usually by organizing and administering the various products and services a society needs but individual people can't manage on their own.
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree then, which is totally fine. Personally I just don't believe that to be government's role simply because I don't believe it to actually be capable of that & so it just ends up using the people's money that they would've used to create a good life for themselves, to keep their control over people.
I just don't believe governments should be anyone's parents that's all.
In theory, yes, that's the role government should have. But for that it wouldn't need top-down hierarchical power. Anarchists don't advocate for the complete dissolution of society, if anything, we do the opposite: Mutual aid and horizontal organisation are at the heart of the modern anarchist framework. We advocate for a grassroots "government", and against any form of top-down state power.