While anarchism is broad in the sense of lots of different people thinking of themselves as anarchists, its also important to keep in mind that the majority of the anarchist movement since it emerged in the 1860s has been characterised by core basic commitments - anti-statism, anti-capitalism, direct action as a tactic, the oppressed emancipating themselves, and advocacy of a stateless classless society based on federally organised worker self-management. The changes over the course of anarchisms history have more been about different tactics - different versions of insurrectionism, syndicalism, platformism - and different areas of key focus - eco anarchism, anarcha-feminism, queer anarchism.
I think I am starting to get this. A stateless classless society based on self-management. This is a fancy way of saying you are going to replace one system of order with another. Whatever the details it will still be a system of human, voting, choosing, not buying, or trading, whatever - there will be rules or structures the human make to divide and share and coordinate. Just like in all civilizations that have ever existed, most people can never agree on anything. So there is going to be plenty of disagreement so there is going to have to be a lot of rule enforcement - these things just go hand in hand. You can call this self-management or the state, but its human solving the same problems with the same tools. I was ready to completely dismiss anarchism at this point, but if you wait you can see why I didn't. The very idea that you could ever get an entire society to buy into a system that tries to claim it not going to have state, is unrealistic to the core. We can't even get 100% of people to vote, and of those who do, at any point in history, never more than 50% give or take can even support one set of ideas, for one election, let alone agreeing one system. The amount of compromise that it takes to make America work okay-ish, but suddenly we are all gong to get on board with anarchism? Or capitalism? OR anything? No, we aren't, and that fact that anarchists exist today is proof of that. If you think we can be made to agree then you must be ready to start "helping" large parts of society see the light. The only problem is that even with modern machinery, this "helping" will involve a lot of tedious digging and back-filling. When a group of human organised together under rules is by definition a state, not going to have class, when the movement people take on any roles with a group and one person has a bread crumb more than another, you have class, and the moment workers begin to self manage, someone somewhere takes on more responsibility than someone else, and it's no longer self-management for some large proportion of the group. I am starting to see anarchism not as coherent idea that could actually be implemented, but an ideal to advocate for and inform society so as to influence how actual society changes. By this logic, it is constantly challenging power structures not because it will actually replace wholesale but because it can influence how things develop. It can force them to adapt or abandon particularly oppressive methods or it can cause local revolutions were bouts of creativity would be welcome. The only problem I see is the amount of violence inherent in this process. Because anarchist don't realize the are chaos monkeys, not order apes, they tend to resort to violence and killing to get there way. I wonder if they could ever accept their role as forcers and agents of change and not try to force their most unstable order on others?
anarchopac Sounds like what communists originally wanted. A stateless, classless, moneyless society. I guess that the emphasis on anti-statism would be a good way of avoiding the authoritarian trap communist countries fall into. I'm not sure how you would implement anarchism, especially given the lack of support, but the core values and goals sound cool. But how to achieve anarchy through peaceful, voluntary means?
Shane Kennedy Yes exactly. This is the central lie of everything from anarchism to marxism-leninism. They say they want a "stateless classless society", but any reasonably intelligent person knows this is impossible, and not even desirable. So what these people do is they take the state and social classes, and then mix them around with some words salad and some vaguely abstract ideas, and spit out something with a new name that functions exactly like _states_ and _social classes_ . The whole point of these ideologies isn't to remove the structure of power, it's simply to replace who controls it (effectively by breaking the system to allow people who generally are not considered high status to become high status). They're all simply power grabs, to seize control from the traditional elite. These people aren't worthy of many intellectual respect. The only people I can respect are those who understand that accept the necessity for a powerful centralized state, or those who genuinely advocate for literal *Lawless Anarchy* ( not that I think this is a good idea, but at least these people are honest). Everyone else is simply a fraud, and using their version of Anarco-"x" ("-feminism", "queer", "syndicalism", etc) as cover to advance their own power agenda. "Anarchy" means the absence of a system of government. Anyone who tries to use that word, but still suggest a functional system of governance, is a moron. These people are moral and intellectual children.
Okay I found your reasoning: " ANCAPISTAN™ is built on the inherently violent and oppressive system of capitalism. It's a system that can't function without disparity and power imbalance. " You know what? You are basically correct! This is rooted in one of the biggest differences we have: Nonarchists accept that people are greedy and in principle only want only to better their own lot. So equipped with economics and praxeology we try to conceive a system which uses the greed of people to do good things. Basic capitalism manages this in most cases: Usually you earn money by producing something someone else wants. But resources are limited (at least land, time, energy) and we need a mechanism to find the best use for them, prices do that. Currently nobody has found a better system than capitalism which is able to use that greed. And a general A.I. which is able to solve the resource allocation problem at least the same way prices do is still a dream.
Sure. Murray Rothbard, the founder of AnCap, cleared it out in his Are Libertarians "Anarchists"? essay the following: "We must therefore conclude that we are not anarchists, and that those who call us anarchists are not on firm etymological ground, and are being completely unhistorical." And here's another: "One gratifying aspect of our rise to some prominence is that, for the first time in my memory, we, “our side,” had captured a crucial word from the enemy . . . “Libertarians” . . . had long been simply a polite word for left-wing anarchists, that is for anti-private property anarchists, either of the communist or syndicalist variety. But now we had taken it over. . ." [The Betrayal of the American Right, p. 83, by Murray Rothbard] "Anarcho"-Capitalists, are neither true Libertarians, for Joseph Déjacque, an anarcho communist, was the first ever recorded person to employ the term Libertarian in the political sense that then Rothbard and the likes stole to get popularity for their Rothbardian ideology in recent history, but also that etymologically too, Rothbardianism is far from Anarchism, and its proponents are far from anarchists. If you look at Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin who are considered the fathers of modern Anarchism, you'd know that Anarchism has always been and will always remain anticapitalist and it's a form of Socialism like Communism.
Most ancaps don't even believe in intellectual "property", so the TM doesn't make any sense. Not sure if you understand capitalism as ancaps would hold it. But I get your point on "It's not anarchism", because ancaps define anarchy as non-government and not as non-power (also because most do not consider structural violence to be violence at all, so capitalism itself would not be violent in any way). This is mostly a case of semantic differences.
It's not mere semantic difference, although you're right that AnCaps try to redefine anarchism as mere anti-state, when it is in fact anti-coercion, and economic coercion is a thing too, which is nicely explicated by Bakunin in his essay titled "The Capitalist System." I'll quote the essay "What is Anarchism? An Introduction": "Anarchism is opposed to states, armies, slavery, the wages system, the landlord system, prisons, monopoly capitalism, oligopoly capitalism, state capitalism, bureaucracy, meritocracy, theocracy, revolutionary governments, patriarchy, matriarchy, monarchy, oligarchy, protection rackets, intimidation by gangsters, and every other kind of coercive institution. In other words, anarchism opposes government in all its forms." Intellectual Property is just a facet of the whole spectrum of society that we live in where everything is connected, and AnCaps fall for the fallacy of composition.
I also don't think Anarcho-Capitalism has anything to do with Anarchism. Anarchism did reject the very idea of legitimacy of private property since Prodhoun and I really don't see how Capitalism could work without theft (aka. property).
You can't have theft if the notion of property does not exist, so you cannot call property theft. Anarchy-absense of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal. No where in the definition does it include "opposition to capitalism". That is in anarchocommunism's definition, though.
@@frostburn5291 Ancaps don't want to bind society to their way of thinking and their utopia concepts. We don't want utopia, we want problems so we could improve ourselves off of them. We want more diversity of thought and we want small communities benefitial to every kind of though one may prefer, we want different communities for everyone. We want to create a society that fits man, not for man to fit some society. Principled Anarchists, that being anarchists who believe in the non-agression principle, are people who uphold every voluntary interaction whilst condemning every non-voluntary interaction, non-agression being the notion that you can only do harm to another if they are currently harming you, in self defense. We also think that threat of violence would evoke the state of nature, which means that A won't need to respect the rights of B anymore because when you say that you'll harm another person you're basically saying "Incoming!" so one has every right to take the first blow if a fight has been announced. I hope that you understand ancapism better now.
@@ancap-romania8495 you see the problem is you can tell me all about what you hope to achieve, i hear that alot. The real question is how do you achieve that society? Also what do you define voluntary as? Can you only be forced into something physically?
Interesting.. They way I thought of anarchism was that it resisted hierarchy, but resistance of power is a much better way to describe it. The next question I would ask is, is it possible to achieve anything in concert with other people or groups of people without someone having some kind of power over others?
Yup, there's co-operatives. But I think it's the idea of illegitimate power - so someone can be in charge of distributing the money, but they were put there because they're trusted and good at maths, and they're accountable to everyone else.
Yes. Sorta. He mentioned in the video that in order to justify having power you need to legitimize it. Well, how do legitimize something? The answer in this case, is propaganda. The funny thing is that technically this video is propaganda, it has power over people's thoughts. But the way you could transition to a truly anarchic society is for the first generation of anarchists in the revolution to create propaganda that incentivizes people to create more propaganda possibly by convincing them they're doing the work of the Supreme Being who existed in French Revolutionary philosophy. Anarchy is not without laws after all, merely without rulers with real power. In the end anarchisms weakness is that it's always easier to identify with a face rather than a name.
Praxis. I thank you for this new favorite word I have taken an autistic fancy to it and can't wait to annoy my husband and parents with how much I structure my sentences around it for the foreseeable future. Anyway my real reason for exiting my quiet binging of your content and braving the comments section was to state that as anarchists removing ourselves as far out of capitalism as humanly possible in America (we live in remote Eastern Oregon which does give us more of a chance to make this happen than most), my husband and I have taken to the concept of discovery of will to power in order to have a life in which the inevitable suffering becomes meaningful rather than soul consuming oppression that breeds resentment and physical deterioration while watching life pass by through a foggy goldfish bowl of dissociation, cognitive dissonance, and reality denial. I was most hoping to hear you discuss Beyond Good and Evil as your Nietzsche commentary was just over a minute and for the first time I saw a glimpse of someone reading his philosophy closer to the tune of how we have interpreted it. We haven't finished reading the book in it's entirety yet as we are both ADHD and can get to pausing the reading and into discussions that sometimes have us stumbling out of them into the light of the morning having spent another night sleepless and hyper fixated on goddamn Nietzsche. He states that those who want to control others are the weakest of humans, using priests as one of my favorite examples. His definition of a will to power is finding personal morality through solitude, arguing that within a society, an individual cannot know themselves as there are so many other people's opinions/laws/etc that influence every decision, thought, behavior, and so forth. A side note to this that is fitting as an example is a circulating notion by some feminists that as women, we do not get the opportunity to have autonomy over our bodies and lives within a patriarchal structure that has been ingrained in the societies in which we live. As a heretic learning science in my 30s having been raised in purity culture dominated evangelical bubble, I didn't even know what autonomy or consent was until I was 28 and my then therapist informed me I was allowed to not have sex with someone at any given point during intimate relations. Mind blown. I digress. It is so maddening to see some of my favorite TH-cam thinkers misinterpreting Nietzsche, his thoughts revolving around nihilism, and the concept of greatness as he defined it. Hitler having a breast of our dear Fredrick is laughable considering in Beyond Good and Evil, Nietzsche discusses those for whom he was writing the book are those with potential for greatness, and his ideas on how that may be achieved, if it is even possible. He goes on to note that be living within the will to power, it has to be your own choice and not suggested from outside parties, it must be beneficial for the individual and/ or their community, without exerting control over or causing harm anyone. People teaching his theories today have failed to contextualize time period and the language used to focus on how we define certain words in modern English. This is also a huge issue with the Bible but that is another part of this topic and I've overstayed my welcome in this comment 😅. Your channel has boomed and this is a relatively older video so I doubt you'll see it, but if you do, and feel like giving your opinion, it is one I would love to dissect. Either way though, I am enormously appreciative of your work, dedication, insights on complex societal concepts, along with the empathy and intelligence in which you frame your views. One might say, you've been very gracefully forging your path towards greatness.
I found this video really interesting, thank you so much for making it! I didn't know much about anarchism before this. This felt a lot like an introduction to it, I'd love it if you made more videos going into more depth about different types of anarchism, and maybe why some anarchists might be violent.
This video goes beyond common conceptions and how it's portrayed in mainstream culture and explains modestly that anarchy is a philosophy with many facets including personal,social,ecological etc
The degree to which you believe they have power over you is the degree to which you grant them their power. The authority always lies within you, whether you grant it to another or not.
Before this video, I didn't know exactly the definition of "anarchy" but despite do not share the idiology of my country I feel like identify of what's anarchy, I'm impressed.
It seems like violence is defined by limiting or taking away someone's choice, while choice itself is a fundamental property of freedom. So if someone tries to limit or take away your choice/freedom it seems like anarchism could be seen as another form of libertarianism. Really good video! :)
I don't speak german, but I think for a german it's easier to understand by his language: Gewalt = violence, power For a chinese or a korean or a japanese it could sound strange: 力 (lì, (r)yeok [him], riki [chikara]) = power, capacity, force 強 (qiáng, gang, gō) = power, strengthen, solidity etc. etc.
I was going to ask "What about Power as One's increased posibilities of thoughts, action and choice?" but then I realized that is not power as long as you're just becoming able to bypass the limits imposed on you (i.e. Your low financial condition limits you from hobbies, but more money means less limits on what you can buy and do).
Can you update this into a 3 hour video essay with a high visual production that I won't see because I'll listen at 1.5x speed and have it off screen while I'm at work?
To look-at Transhumanism/Posthumanism You must look-at Humanism and the Atheist League (Atheism, Irreligion, Agnosticism) which also involves a bit of Theology and Philosophy. They are best seen as a Trilogy (Humanism, then Transhumanism, and, Posthumanism) Though Most of these ideologies and philosophies make-up the Technosphere/Materosphere 1. Bettering Man through Emancipation-from-Religionism and Faithism 2. Recognizing/Noticing the flaws in Man (what make Humanity faulty) 3. Bettering Society/Nation/Culture at all costs This uses a bit of greek Mythology but - the concept of Athena - she is the god of Wisdom, amongst other things - Homer/Philosophers who made the belief of Noocracy (Rule of/from/by the Wise) and its daughter, Meritocracy (rule of the Talented) - Athens and Sparta - Hitler, Mussolini (somewhat) and Nietsche took more from Sparta (hence Spartanism) and other polemicists took from Athens - Technos, Demos and Kleptos got made (it is to my collection that Technos and Demos go hand and hand though Kleptos can be present in most Republics) Machivelli the Tyrant gave birth to Totalitarianism which upstarted the Deepstate. The founding basis for Ideology is Italic-Greco-Roman. Philosophers said "Democracy is Mob Rule," which is repeated to this very second by those who do not know Ideology. They made fallacies of supporting Philosopher-Kings and Warrior-Poets over presentday ideology (Pirates and Terrorists and Schemers and Kleptocrats and Barbarians and Soldier-statists) Technocratic Republicanism is semi-Pirate, because of the Pirate Party the Technocrat Party and eDemocracy. Pure Technocracy, Technomonarchism and Technosocialism are flawed Technoideology 1. Communism-Socialism is the antithesis of Technocrat. 2. Monarchists have been killing Intelligence, Talent and Reason since day one. 3. Pure Technocracy (Technate, or, Technoimperialism) is flawed from every pure Ideology being flawed - Purism/Purity is flawed in itself, but people choose to hold Stake in it. Pure Socialism (Anarcho-Communism) Pure Communism (Anarchy) Pure Anarchy (or, Anarchy for Anarchys' Sake - Chaos and Chaosism) Pure Democracy (Democratic Anarchism, or, Direct Democracy) Pure Fascism (Anarcho-Fascism, or Ethnostatism, or the Deranged Communism that is 𝚍𝚎𝚎𝚙𝚜𝚝𝚊𝚝𝚒𝚜𝚖) Pure Selfishness (Egotism/Egoism/Narcissism) Pure Capitalism (Anarcho-Capitalism) Pure Libertarianism (Anarcho-Libertarianism) Pure Nationstatism (National Anarchism) Pure Monarchism (Theomonarchism the Divine Right/Rule theory, or, Anarcho-Monarchism) *Anarchism is a good philosophy, but it's flawed* - I believe in Transitional Anarchism or Fawkesism - Anarchy is the flowstate from 𝚍𝚎𝚎𝚙𝚜𝚝𝚊𝚝𝚒𝚜𝚖 into Republicanism/City-Statism i.e Rome, Berlin, Washingtonium, New York City the new City-States that exist within Federated Democracy. Tech could fix both Anarchy and Commune/Syndicate - Robots/AI-ruled economy (Cybercracy) - Transhumanism/Posthumanism. She (calling tech "She," because most computers are Femme) can also fix Primalism and Ecology (Archeofuturism, Technoenvironmentalism, Technobarbarism) She resurrects old ideologies (Pirate Democratism/Piracy/Piratism) and births new ones (Technotheocracy - worshipping Computer as God) but also births Amish resentment of her, Technoism (a slur used against Technos) and Technology-Hatred (for lack of a better Term) _What can't Technologia fix?_
The funny thing is, we all (at least most of us) engage in a quasi-anarchist social construct unconsciously, and have accepted it as part of life to the point that we don't think about it. We can talk abstract theory and clarify points, but for anyone who needs a practical example of what an anarchist society might resemble, look to your circle of friends. Who's the leader of this social group? Chances are, no one. People come together and stay together based on shared interest and experience, and most circles of friends have unwritten rules and norms that are distinct from other circles. Enforcement of these rules doesn't rely on an official police mechanism either; if someone is being a jerk, people tell them to cut it out, or if they persist, people throw them out. If a friend needs help and others are able, nine times out of ten there will be a friend or friends who will help. The analogy isn't perfect as a friend circle doesn't tend to deal with the same issues as a wider society, but it is a close enough example to act as a primer.
A small nitpick, but it is not possible for governments to literally maintain a monopoly on violence if we also acknowledge there are other non-governmental sources of violence like hate speech, which the government can never entirely control. It's interesting that the word violence has come in to usage as the word for the force to limit the range of possible actions, as violence has highly negative connotations, yet we might not always consider the limiting of actions as negative. What is the word used for the force of expanding the set of actions? And what do we say if the set of actions is both expanded and contracted simultaneously? This last case seems most relevant, as almost all (if not all) actions result in tradeoffs, as the world's resources are finite and in high demand, and as many actions have negative externalities on other people.
Do you need power in order to fight power? I find it ironic that the very thing anarchism seems to (in general) be against is the very thing they would need to use in order to fight, in fact it seems to contradict with their beliefs on a fundamental level.
I love your videos! Could you make one about moral dilemmas (like other ones than the train one because that one is very overused at this point, and not very interesting in my opinion.)? I find them to be one of the hardest and most interesting parts of philosophy (I don't know if you've already made a video about it though..)
No, opposition to power is called "Akratism" which means anti-kratos (the Greek word for power). Anarchism on the other hand, means anti-archos (The Greek word for hierarchy). Don't confuse hierarchy and power.
Is there really a difference between hierarchy and power? Surely by definition hierarchy means some people having authority over other people, and isn't that exactly the sort of power that the video was talking about? And even if it's just the brief power of a thief attacking a person, we could see that as the thief having authority over the victim during that brief interaction.
Well no... ἀρχός means authority or the exercice of power. It's a purely political or at least social idea. For example Aristotle defines the citizens as a person who's capable of being άρχων και αρχόμενος, which means to be able to govern and to be governed. Akratism is not a word, you're probably thinking of the ancient greek akrasia (ακρασία) or akrateia (ακρατεια), which has no social or political aspect in it, it simply means that a person is incapable of controlling himself, his passions etc.
Johannes Climacus That looks a lot like a distinction without a difference, unless by power you mean natural law, and authority is being used synonymously with the outrageous claims of ownership that violent, geographically defined monopolies make over our very bodies. In that case, I completely agree.
Great video! Would love to see videos dedicated to specific leftist anarchist ideologies. I know a bit about anarcho-communism, collectivism, and anarcho-syndicalism. I'm an anarcho-syndicalist myself, but there are a lot of issues with the ideology and reading through theory and text can be daunting on a limited time schedule. In the mean time, do you have any suggestions for quick and easy texts?
Anarchism is not necessarily the removal of violence, to create a distinction, moreso the questioning of such violence and asking it whether it can make its case for being able to exist. As Chomsky says, if you are a parent and your child crosses a road in to the path of a car and you pull them away, you do commit the violence of limiting the choice of someone wishing not to be pulled and redirected (in that moment, I am sure in hindsight, they would be grateful for it) but that power/violence then must meet this burden of proof as you have saved the child's life in the process. Some of this idealism can be flawed, anarcho capitalism is about the veneration of wealth and giving you to ability to impact on other people, whether it be by selling goods or having them work for you and without a state, how would they be stopped from making their employees work till they drop (which does happen in some parts of the world, people falling asleep at their work stations due to pure exhaustion) and then hiring new people and through what must be a massive increase in productivity, they become more wealthy and able to destroy competition till you have monopolies popping up all over the place ruled over by oligarchs. Feel free to argue, if you wish to say I am bias, consider that I may have read some theory behind anarcho capitalism and rejected it with my on critical faculties and that I did not just jump in the first bed I found, keep it civil though.
V was a proper depiction rather than Heath Ledger's Joker. TDK's Joker was all praxis and no theory. Joaquin Phoenix's Joker, while an accidental symbol of class warfare in Gotham, stands as a true anarchist like V.
I was triggered because you included "anarcho"-capitalism in your sea creature slideshow :( any philosophical lense of anarchism is inherently anti-capitalist, therefore the term is contradictory. Everything else in the video is amazing! Thank you!
Institutions are bureaucratic, which means they are oppressive. They use procedures and laws to enforce their will on the people they govern. Few of the people who are their gatekeepers and monitors would be oppressive to others, if they were left to their own devices. They aren't just workers within, they're also potential users. But some of the systems have things like quotas and incentives that build bigotry within the members. And sometimes it's frustration with the system they went into, hoping to change for the better, and arrived at burnout when they realized they couldn't. Partly due to the institution itself and partly due to the membership of it's own staff. Ennui and status quo are effective tools of control too. Eventually most workers just want to get thru their work day without a hassle. And they don't take kindly to colleagues who increase their work load or make them look lazy. Which is how the status quo gets held. I love that you include Galtung BTW!
I was literally just thinking "why haven't any ancoms (anarcho-communists) tried to convince me that I should be an ancom?" All I seem to see from them is that "we would both only benefit from working together to dismantle capitalism," which seems to be a bit of a "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" fallacy. I still don't know why I haven't seen them try to explain their philosophy to me (unless you're an anarcho-communist), but what a coincidence that you would upload this video just when I was thinking about that.
That's the thing! They've never even tried to explain their theory to me, so I don't know if I agree or not. I haven't exactly known a lot of ancoms, but the ones I've had have only gone so far as to say "we both hate capitalism, so we should work together."
I would say Anarchism the underlying assumption that systems of power, domination, and heirarchy, are not self justifying. It's a tradition that grew out of the enlightenment and classical liberalism.
I'm pretty happy that the options available to my fellow human beings are somewhat restricted. So yay for power, as long as it's democratically controlled.
I dont think its about resisting power or resisting government. Its about realising that any government is immoral because it is violence against anyone who doesnt comply. And its initiated violence not defensive. You basicly dont need to resist it you rather should ignore it. In practical terms this is almost impossible because you are extorded by people that have all the guns. Its more about realising that the people who opress everyone are criminals and not legitimate. You dont need to resist because you will be punished for that. All that needs to happen is that a critical number of people realise this and the world will change automatically. Because the politicians need the population to enforce their will and they cant do it without them. If people think of them as criminals most people would stop working for them and so it all collapses by itself. You only need education nothing else.
The redefinition of violence does "violence" to the English language. It allows Libertarians to make a false equivalence between being pistol whipped and paying their fair share of money for running the government. I have always found this a specious argument. Would a Libertarian really find being pistol whipped on a par with paying taxes? Perhaps we should give them a choice between the two and see which they choose. It is this kind of recklessness with words that gives the outsider the impression that philosophy is mostly ineffectual word games. It also makes dialog with Libertarians impossible. I have had so many talks with Libertarians end up with the other person explaining their special jargon to me. What's to stop me from redefining words for my own ends? Should I say this results in "anarchy"? I mistakenly thought philosophy was suppose to be about precise definitions. I have less respect for philosophy after seeing this episode. I think I will tell the judge that her or him expecting me to serve jury duty is violence on her or his part. How far do you think I will get?
people like ancaps & anarcho-egoists while they may share in common that the societies they want to build in some way approximate governmentlessness "capital A" anarchism is much narrower than you're presenting here (although still pretty broad)
Thank you for expending some ink on anarchy and for acknowledging it as a legitimate, comprehensive, multi-faceted and most importantly serious political ideology. Do you think it is possible for land to ever be used communally on a large(ish) scale so long as there are neighbouring nation states vying for power and, by extension, land? Just a question
There is a certain power, in being able to resist violence or another's power - I think you fail to mention this in your speech, in fact i think modern anarchism is focused on being unbound by the powers and thus violence of others; and this is really relevant now days for many reasons, mostly because of the way the world is and many people fail to see how young this society actually is, and this sprouts onto (majority) teenagers and young adults who don't want to be chained down, and want to follow their passions, yet cannot because of the inequity.
The presentation itself, is really insightful - you mentioned some names that allows people to get more involved and do research so they actually know what they're talking about not just rebelling hahaha
I'd have to disagree with the definition of 'violence' as the removal of choice of the agent. It presupposes a freedom of indifference. Take for example John the drug dealer and user. If I were to use the means at my disposal to curtail his availability of drugs, sure I'm being violent if freedom meant leaving him alone to do as he wishes. However, freedom to excellence means someone should be free to pursue the good of their own authentic will. Although, removing drugs from society does not violence make on this ubderstanding, because his will is being lead to what is good for him.
Thanks for making anarchist theory comprehensible for people unfamiliar with it. However the condescending tone & the smug look doesn't really help to convey the message.
@Khaine I only half understood that, use commas. If you mean what I think I mean, then A. I'm an anarchist and B. You guys would literally make it legal so it will be way worse. The best argument you could make would be that everyone would be to poor to afford it and that isn't too great either.
"Ancaps have proven to be one of the greatest tools for anarchist unity in living memory, as more or less every single major anarchist group and tendency stands united in despising them." - RationalWiki
I like Chomsky's broad definition: "The core of the anarchist tradition, as I understand it, is that power is always illegitimate, unless it proves itself to be legitimate. So the burden of proof is always on those who claim that some authoritarian hierarchic relation is legitimate. If they can’t prove it, then it should be dismantled." That means anarchism is about challenging power and authority to prove its legitimacy, and not that power and authority are inherently illegitimate. In practice, it's illegitimate by assumption, until it meets the burden of proof.
There's an unstated problem with "it should be dismantled". Mainly that power usually benefits others beyond immediate, so there's always supporters and defenders of power. Resisting and the act of dismantling almost certainly requires organized violence, or some very clever strategy of implied violence (Alinsky's witty wedges deployed against power to change a no to a yes), else we are left with asking "please allow me to dismantle this" or "please dismantle yourself, thank you".
What about the grey area, you can’t prove anything 100%. So sense no power can be 100% proven to be legitimate, does that mean all power should be abolished. Also I don’t think you defined power in a way people actually use it. You defined it as limiting someone’s choices. Why does it have be a “one” you are limiting, and not a thing. Like I’d say I was powerful if I could lift a heavy rock. You can also have power over your environment, if you can change it to allow you to live off it. Also with your definition of violence as the force that limits other people options. So if someone wants to kill me, and I run away faster then he can chase me, I have removed his option of killing me. Did I commit violence against him because I removed his option of killing me. Also with the hate speech being violence, because it changes the options you have about how people view you. If I state that a certain cook makes better food then another cook, have I committed violence against the cook I said was worse. I removed some options people had to see him has the better cook. So you are using absurd and uncommon definitions of the words power and violence, and then acting surprised when they end up being similar. You wanted evidence that power was bad, so you changed a bunch of definitions. Then poof. If only evidence was that easy to make.
@@gg_rider Exactly. I'm about 70% satisfied with the power structures I live in right now *bc they are legitimate.* They protect me from far worse infringements on my person and my privacy. Anarchism seems to be a young dude (and sometimes his gf) sort of thing. I don't see many old women or disabled people fighting for a stateless society *- shudders at the thought -*
Thank you for making anarchist theory clearer for people unfamiliar with it. Anarchists are often considered to be violent teenagers with no true goals. I hope you make more videos about Anarchism and its different schools of thought.
Probobly because it's not really something that people think of as a good thing. Anarchisim isn't really touched on in public schools, other than many a breif mention of the most general idea of what anarchisim is (no goverment), when talking about the diffrent forms of government. (I'm not advocating for schools to spend tons of time teaching about anarchisim, and anarchist philosophy, i'm just stating an observation that i've made).
Shall we start then? Anarchist mutualism believes that to the greatest possible extent, relationships should be based on mutual benefit. All actors that decide to be in a relationship have a good reason to invest in their actions and the relationship, and should commonly decide. We actually see this today in many ways, credit unions and cooperatives are a huge section of the economy, 10% of the Finnish economy for example, and Mondragon Cooperative Corporation is one of the largest cooperatives in the world with billions in revenue. They believe that to the greatest extent possible, a price for something should be what the cost to make it was (including all expenses down to the retailer's level), and if there is profit, it should be given back to the one who caused the profit to exist. They believe that power can be challenged effectively by challenging the state and providing the services ourselves as much as possible and have cooperatives and freelance individuals take on the tasks that we ask of capitalism and the state. We make our own argument resolution processes, we make our own healthcare, we provide our own education, gas, electricity, food, cars, etc. The state does not have to go away tomorrow, in fact, without another voluntary institution to put our communities into, it could be chaos, but it should be challenged, limited, and made to do less whenever possible. Land and buildings and similar things we'd call private property should be owned based on use, although a cooperative can own a larger building or private property. We aren't entirely certain as to how to define use though. Anarchist communists believe that because all the things that exist in the world came to be by the actions of a literally uncountable number of things and the actions of everyone, nobody can assign private property to be the cause of any individual's actions alone, or even actions by an identifiable enslaved or oppressed population like black slaves in the US or by the ingenuity of an entrepreneur or even the state. The things of society should be owned by a commune, or if an individual wishes to go their own way, they can make their own things. A commune is not a state, it's a bit like membership in a library, just that all things can be obtained via that membership. You don't have to live in any particular area to be part of a commune, nor does being in a particular area make you subject to a commune's rules. You must be using the things owned in common by the commune's members in order to be subject to it (like how a library can make you be quiet when others are reading). A commune will not make all the things in a set geographic area belong to it. Internal currency is abolished, no person earns wages, no person charges wages. All that is asked is that you work at some sort of useful and productive task for some amount of hours per year within some of the association's independent cooperatives within, or be a freelance provider, perhaps writing independently on your own, unless you have a good reason not to work. The hours needed to be worked by everyone will be reduced if automation or machinery causes there to be less need of human labour. Anarchist egoism believes that all humans are absolutely free of moral duties of any kind. However, all other people are free to do the same. It is in your best interests to not upset other people unreasonably, as they may find it expedient to hurt you. If some kind of advantage is found in some association, then it must always be voluntary and if all members can exist without any one of them feeling silently or openly repressed, it can be called a union of egoists and thus be ethical, otherwise, it should be abolished or changed so as to be a free association. There are many other kinds, but these are the big three, aside from anarchist capitalism which many anarchists don't think is real anarchism (it abolishes the state, but doesn't advocate for abolishing other kinds of hierarchy and power where possible.
Mostly they don't. It's safe to say that governments have generally tended to take a pretty dim view of educational establishments that teach too much unfettered reason and open mindedness. They shot poor old Francisco Ferrer for that.
@@averagecommunist3456 Consider the Politburo's Beria and his child molestation for the greater glory of Socialism, anarcho-commie. In fact there is no such thing as Anarcho-Communism - first you need Socialism and Socialism is oppression. Anarchy is liberty. Consider the leader of the National Socialists getting his half-niece to piss and crap on his face. Consider the National Socialists and the Socialists signed a Non-Aggression Pact to divide a Free Poland. Sounds like these two parties of Socialists would like to be packing a whole lot more up their bums. Beria of course raped and molested young children across the length and breadth of Soviet Socialist Russia for many years unmolested himself. It was programmed into the Socialist system. Socialism = Rape. And Anarcho-Communism is a Jumbo Shrimp, a binary oppostiion, an oxymoron as Socialism = exploitation. And this is not even going into the Rape-Gulags of the USSR, China and Kampuchea. Or the number of Spanish Catholic nuns raped by Anarcho-Syndicalists in their concentration camps. So the only bunch of violators are YOU ...
@@fatcontroller7931If anarchism is incompatible with socialism but works fine with capitalism than the majority of anarchist history and theory isn't anarchist, and the wide majority of anarchists aren't anarchists. Anarchism has and always will be anti-capitalist, if not always on the far left.
The Unabomber Manifesto, while not a core component of all anarchist thought, is still a major read that must be undertaken. It outlines the worst hierarchy of them all, the Industrial Revolution /s
Abigail, I would love to see another longer, more in depth examination of anarchist philosophy and the practicality vs. the idealism of anarchism. Since I'm commenting I'm just gonna fangirl a little bit here. I love your content and the representation you offer for the trans community. Because of you I've began putting more serious effort into my own transition and self-acceptance. Genuinely, thank you.
Me too! I clicked on this thinking it was a big ass video like the ones I’ve watched. And then it ended after mentioning patreon and I was like wtf?!? Ahah ❤
Joshua Gannon-Salomon Seems like it. Any kind of resistance stronger than lighting a few candles and sitting in a circle nets you a disapproving stare from liberals.
Ne.Ve. Armiya just wanted to recommend some channels that talk about it more and delve further: NonCompete, Thought Slime, Libertarian Socialist Rants, Anarchist Spectacle, Anarchopac, Anactualjoke, Angie Speaks, and Radical Reviewer
When I was in middle school, I had a teacher get on my case because I had an anarchy symbol drawn on my binder... I just really liked the idea of small, organized, local governments supporting themselves...
It’s part of the deal. :/ I walk around with anarchist & anti-fascist pins on my bag and often face some awkwardness for it. But it’s a chance to explain anarchism the way Abby does here, not as some violent movement but the opposition of the state which enforces violence!
after having a right-wing libertarian teach my "government" class, it's been really refreshing to watch your videos and relearn about anarchy and other leftist political philosophy without right-wing bias. because of that i really can't thank you enough for making your videos
There will always be ppl who lean more left and right. Under an anarchy with no laws, I’m sure a war between the two would start. There’s nothing that would prevent it, no government to interfere. It would be like the Wild West but on a wider scale.
Philosophy Tube Perhaps this may seem sensationalistic given the myriad of more pressing subjects with respect to anarchist thought, particularly with respect to rethinking hegemonic conceptions in everyday life, but I would be really interested to see you discuss the role of Nihilism as a response to structural violence in Imperial Russian and Japanese society during the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. The way that a society's values can define the form and function of the movements which seek to alter or abolish it never cease to fascinate me.
I was living with Anarchists in France. I told my dad and I had to explain to him they basically weren't terrorists. haha True Story! Yeah so there are a lot of misconceptions.
i was hoping for something a little more substantial, like a broad comparison between the various school's, but this still a very good vid, and a good leaping off point for more videos on anarchism
This worked well as an introduction for me, who knew virtually nothing about anarchism before I watched. I would be very pleased if James made a series covering anarchism in more depth. I'm seeing a lot of people suggesting that, so I hope he will.
As an anarchist, this makes me happy. People I know are making co-ops, feeding homeless people, deplatforming and exposing nazis, hosting zine nights, all kinds of stuff. It's great. I always appreciate your concise explanations of the theoretical points behind this stuff.
Something that I've liked about your channel that you've had quite a few discussions on power, hierarchy, class, inequality, gender, race, ect. Being an anarchist myself, it's been fun watching these videos and finding a lot to incorporate into my own perspective. Falguni's perspective on racialization was something I found particularly helpful, especially for the fact that I was already influenced by Post-Colonial Theory. So as one anarchist to an awesome youtuber, a thanks is due for making a video about Anarchism. Also since this is an intro video, I'm curious what you might post next about the subject! Anyway, thanks Olly! (By the way, I have to be one of those Anarchists you mentioned in the video and say: You mentioned Anarcho-Capitalism and not Mutualism! I say this considering Mutualism was arguably the first strain of Anarchism while many would argue that Anarcho-Capitalism isn't actually anarchism because of the fact that historically, Anarchism has been anti-capitalist. Not only that but Pierre Joseph Proudhon, the first to proclaim "Je Suis Anarchiste!" and his followers, like myself, were called the Mutualists.)
"Many would argue that Anarcho-Capitalism isn't actually anarchism because of the fact that historically, Anarchism has been anti-capitalist." Anarchists argue against each other all the time; this is to be expected of anarchy. It makes no sense to say that X can't be anarchism because other anarchists are against X. Everyone wants a total absence of power, but since that's impossible most anarchists accept some power and fight against other power. We can't change the world without exercising power, and whatever power we accept will bring us naturally into conflict with the anarchists who oppose that kind of power. Even government itself can be viewed as a kind of anarchy because it brings structure and order to the power in the world so that power can be controlled. Without government we naturally get people taking power for themselves just because there is no one to stop it. Without government there are no checks and balances, just people taking what they want and hurting who they choose, and it's easy to see why an anarchist might find that situation intolerable and create a government just to put a stop to random people taking power. With a government the power is centralized and open, so everywhere else we can be free from power since the government will put a stop to anyone else taking power, and we'll be able to see if government starts abusing its power. Ideally the government can even be democratic, so the power of the government can be evenly distributed through the population, so we all get a tiny equal piece of the power through our vote and therefore none of us has power over any of us.
Anasatz66 I laughed out loud at "Anarchists argue against each other all the time; this is to be expected of anarchy." You also perfectly articulated how I feel about the role government should ideally play. I would love it if James made a followup video about which types of power different anarchists are willing to accept, and why.
Ansatz No matter how you turn it, anarcho-capitalism has its "anarcho" meaning stateless without the other attributes of anarchism. People see the prefixe anarcho and just like anarcho-fascism argue that there's no way they represent anarchy is a single other way that the absence of state, and that's boring to see this among us. If libertarianism or at least the main trends were called minarcho-capitalism (maybe not all kinds can be considered to be, but probably most? I'm not an expert tho), it would appear easily to derive of this, and in no way from anarchy, which would end the war.
@@26yd1actually, anarchy derrived and had always meant no ruler, even tho it's come to theorize many other aspects, it has historically and currently been on the basis of no ruler and the abolition of hierarchy. And due to that fact, Anarcho capitalism is not considered anarchism by the majority. Capitalists are rulers of the working class, therefore establishing a hierarchy and thus contradicting anarchism.
not me being like, 14 or something and trying to learn about anarchy and watching this video.... *AND THEN NOT UNDERSTANDING SHIT BECAUSE I DONT KNOW BIG WORDS AND I DONT KNOW SHIT ABOUT POLOTICS*
Olly thanks for being the bourgeoisie intellectual who is extremely ugly in a dress and make-up. Thanks for conflating trans with anti-semiticism so Zionism is never talked about. Thanks for being so intellectually dishonest and pushing your socialist line. And thanks for having your hand out when you claim your information is free. Doesn't that make you a capitalist? Or just a beggar?
WHY DIDN'T YOU MENTION THIS PERSON OR THIS THEORY
THOSE R MY FAV 1S!!! GGRRRRRR!!!
Leonardo Celente I DONT KNOW! WHY ARE YOU ASKING ME AND WHY ARE WE TALKNG IN ALL CAPS?!
You anarchist!
So sick and tired of Thisists. They really take the This. The only thing worse than the Thisists are the Thatists.
Cause that theory is stupid, you son of a leftist
While anarchism is broad in the sense of lots of different people thinking of themselves as anarchists, its also important to keep in mind that the majority of the anarchist movement since it emerged in the 1860s has been characterised by core basic commitments - anti-statism, anti-capitalism, direct action as a tactic, the oppressed emancipating themselves, and advocacy of a stateless classless society based on federally organised worker self-management.
The changes over the course of anarchisms history have more been about different tactics - different versions of insurrectionism, syndicalism, platformism - and different areas of key focus - eco anarchism, anarcha-feminism, queer anarchism.
You just have an elegant way of putting things. love your channel by the way
I think I am starting to get this. A stateless classless society based on self-management. This is a fancy way of saying you are going to replace one system of order with another.
Whatever the details it will still be a system of human, voting, choosing, not buying, or trading, whatever - there will be rules or structures the human make to divide and share and coordinate. Just like in all civilizations that have ever existed, most people can never agree on anything. So there is going to be plenty of disagreement so there is going to have to be a lot of rule enforcement - these things just go hand in hand. You can call this self-management or the state, but its human solving the same problems with the same tools.
I was ready to completely dismiss anarchism at this point, but if you wait you can see why I didn't. The very idea that you could ever get an entire society to buy into a system that tries to claim it not going to have state, is unrealistic to the core. We can't even get 100% of people to vote, and of those who do, at any point in history, never more than 50% give or take can even support one set of ideas, for one election, let alone agreeing one system.
The amount of compromise that it takes to make America work okay-ish, but suddenly we are all gong to get on board with anarchism? Or capitalism? OR anything? No, we aren't, and that fact that anarchists exist today is proof of that. If you think we can be made to agree then you must be ready to start "helping" large parts of society see the light. The only problem is that even with modern machinery, this "helping" will involve a lot of tedious digging and back-filling.
When a group of human organised together under rules is by definition a state, not going to have class, when the movement people take on any roles with a group and one person has a bread crumb more than another, you have class, and the moment workers begin to self manage, someone somewhere takes on more responsibility than someone else, and it's no longer self-management for some large proportion of the group.
I am starting to see anarchism not as coherent idea that could actually be implemented, but an ideal to advocate for and inform society so as to influence how actual society changes. By this logic, it is constantly challenging power structures not because it will actually replace wholesale but because it can influence how things develop. It can force them to adapt or abandon particularly oppressive methods or it can cause local revolutions were bouts of creativity would be welcome.
The only problem I see is the amount of violence inherent in this process. Because anarchist don't realize the are chaos monkeys, not order apes, they tend to resort to violence and killing to get there way. I wonder if they could ever accept their role as forcers and agents of change and not try to force their most unstable order on others?
anarchopac Sounds like what communists originally wanted. A stateless, classless, moneyless society. I guess that the emphasis on anti-statism would be a good way of avoiding the authoritarian trap communist countries fall into.
I'm not sure how you would implement anarchism, especially given the lack of support, but the core values and goals sound cool.
But how to achieve anarchy through peaceful, voluntary means?
In my head, I read this whole comment the way that you narrate your videos. Great channel, great voice, and great comment. Have a nice day.
Shane Kennedy
Yes exactly. This is the central lie of everything from anarchism to marxism-leninism. They say they want a "stateless classless society", but any reasonably intelligent person knows this is impossible, and not even desirable. So what these people do is they take the state and social classes, and then mix them around with some words salad and some vaguely abstract ideas, and spit out something with a new name that functions exactly like _states_ and _social classes_ . The whole point of these ideologies isn't to remove the structure of power, it's simply to replace who controls it (effectively by breaking the system to allow people who generally are not considered high status to become high status). They're all simply power grabs, to seize control from the traditional elite. These people aren't worthy of many intellectual respect.
The only people I can respect are those who understand that accept the necessity for a powerful centralized state, or those who genuinely advocate for literal *Lawless Anarchy* ( not that I think this is a good idea, but at least these people are honest). Everyone else is simply a fraud, and using their version of Anarco-"x" ("-feminism", "queer", "syndicalism", etc) as cover to advance their own power agenda.
"Anarchy" means the absence of a system of government. Anyone who tries to use that word, but still suggest a functional system of governance, is a moron. These people are moral and intellectual children.
I was going to complain about how you'd mention ANCAPS™ despite them not being Anarchism, but I love the fish you chose.
Honest question: Why would you consider us not to be anarchists?
Okay I found your reasoning:
"
ANCAPISTAN™ is built on the inherently violent and oppressive system of capitalism. It's a system that can't function without disparity and power imbalance.
"
You know what? You are basically correct!
This is rooted in one of the biggest differences we have: Nonarchists accept that people are greedy and in principle only want only to better their own lot.
So equipped with economics and praxeology we try to conceive a system which uses the greed of people to do good things.
Basic capitalism manages this in most cases: Usually you earn money by producing something someone else wants.
But resources are limited (at least land, time, energy) and we need a mechanism to find the best use for them, prices do that.
Currently nobody has found a better system than capitalism which is able to use that greed.
And a general A.I. which is able to solve the resource allocation problem at least the same way prices do is still a dream.
Sure.
Murray Rothbard, the founder of AnCap, cleared it out in his Are Libertarians "Anarchists"? essay the following:
"We must therefore conclude that we are not anarchists, and that those who call us anarchists are not on firm etymological ground, and are being completely unhistorical."
And here's another:
"One gratifying aspect of our rise to some prominence is that, for the first time in my memory, we, “our side,” had captured a crucial word from the enemy . . . “Libertarians” . . . had long been simply a polite word for left-wing anarchists, that is for anti-private property anarchists, either of the communist or syndicalist variety. But now we had taken it over. . ." [The Betrayal of the American Right, p. 83, by Murray Rothbard]
"Anarcho"-Capitalists, are neither true Libertarians, for Joseph Déjacque, an anarcho communist, was the first ever recorded person to employ the term Libertarian in the political sense that then Rothbard and the likes stole to get popularity for their Rothbardian ideology in recent history, but also that etymologically too, Rothbardianism is far from Anarchism, and its proponents are far from anarchists.
If you look at Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin who are considered the fathers of modern Anarchism, you'd know that Anarchism has always been and will always remain anticapitalist and it's a form of Socialism like Communism.
Most ancaps don't even believe in intellectual "property", so the TM doesn't make any sense. Not sure if you understand capitalism as ancaps would hold it. But I get your point on "It's not anarchism", because ancaps define anarchy as non-government and not as non-power (also because most do not consider structural violence to be violence at all, so capitalism itself would not be violent in any way). This is mostly a case of semantic differences.
It's not mere semantic difference, although you're right that AnCaps try to redefine anarchism as mere anti-state, when it is in fact anti-coercion, and economic coercion is a thing too, which is nicely explicated by Bakunin in his essay titled "The Capitalist System."
I'll quote the essay "What is Anarchism? An Introduction":
"Anarchism is opposed to states, armies, slavery, the wages system, the landlord system, prisons, monopoly capitalism, oligopoly capitalism, state capitalism, bureaucracy, meritocracy, theocracy, revolutionary governments, patriarchy, matriarchy, monarchy, oligarchy, protection rackets, intimidation by gangsters, and every other kind of coercive institution. In other words, anarchism opposes government in all its forms."
Intellectual Property is just a facet of the whole spectrum of society that we live in where everything is connected, and AnCaps fall for the fallacy of composition.
it would be nice to see you delve deeper into that ocean of anarchist philosophy for us...
I also don't think Anarcho-Capitalism has anything to do with Anarchism. Anarchism did reject the very idea of legitimacy of private property since Prodhoun and I really don't see how Capitalism could work without theft (aka. property).
You can't have theft if the notion of property does not exist, so you cannot call property theft. Anarchy-absense of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal. No where in the definition does it include "opposition to capitalism". That is in anarchocommunism's definition, though.
@@thenew4559 no anarchy is oppisition to heirachy of any kind, including in the work force.
@@frostburn5291 Ancaps don't want to bind society to their way of thinking and their utopia concepts. We don't want utopia, we want problems so we could improve ourselves off of them. We want more diversity of thought and we want small communities benefitial to every kind of though one may prefer, we want different communities for everyone. We want to create a society that fits man, not for man to fit some society.
Principled Anarchists, that being anarchists who believe in the non-agression principle, are people who uphold every voluntary interaction whilst condemning every non-voluntary interaction, non-agression being the notion that you can only do harm to another if they are currently harming you, in self defense.
We also think that threat of violence would evoke the state of nature, which means that A won't need to respect the rights of B anymore because when you say that you'll harm another person you're basically saying "Incoming!" so one has every right to take the first blow if a fight has been announced.
I hope that you understand ancapism better now.
@@ancap-romania8495 you see the problem is you can tell me all about what you hope to achieve, i hear that alot. The real question is how do you achieve that society?
Also what do you define voluntary as? Can you only be forced into something physically?
There in not "The Anarchy" the very concept is crazy.
Interesting.. They way I thought of anarchism was that it resisted hierarchy, but resistance of power is a much better way to describe it. The next question I would ask is, is it possible to achieve anything in concert with other people or groups of people without someone having some kind of power over others?
Yup, there's co-operatives. But I think it's the idea of illegitimate power - so someone can be in charge of distributing the money, but they were put there because they're trusted and good at maths, and they're accountable to everyone else.
Yes. Sorta. He mentioned in the video that in order to justify having power you need to legitimize it. Well, how do legitimize something? The answer in this case, is propaganda. The funny thing is that technically this video is propaganda, it has power over people's thoughts. But the way you could transition to a truly anarchic society is for the first generation of anarchists in the revolution to create propaganda that incentivizes people to create more propaganda possibly by convincing them they're doing the work of the Supreme Being who existed in French Revolutionary philosophy. Anarchy is not without laws after all, merely without rulers with real power. In the end anarchisms weakness is that it's always easier to identify with a face rather than a name.
Only in an AnCap society.
Only in an AnCap society.
@@XPimKossibleX it's basically democracy and you just created a class of rullers
OMG baby Abigail in my recommendations 🥺💖
Why have I been into this channel for so long yet only now discovered this video??!
Praxis. I thank you for this new favorite word I have taken an autistic fancy to it and can't wait to annoy my husband and parents with how much I structure my sentences around it for the foreseeable future. Anyway my real reason for exiting my quiet binging of your content and braving the comments section was to state that as anarchists removing ourselves as far out of capitalism as humanly possible in America (we live in remote Eastern Oregon which does give us more of a chance to make this happen than most), my husband and I have taken to the concept of discovery of will to power in order to have a life in which the inevitable suffering becomes meaningful rather than soul consuming oppression that breeds resentment and physical deterioration while watching life pass by through a foggy goldfish bowl of dissociation, cognitive dissonance, and reality denial. I was most hoping to hear you discuss Beyond Good and Evil as your Nietzsche commentary was just over a minute and for the first time I saw a glimpse of someone reading his philosophy closer to the tune of how we have interpreted it. We haven't finished reading the book in it's entirety yet as we are both ADHD and can get to pausing the reading and into discussions that sometimes have us stumbling out of them into the light of the morning having spent another night sleepless and hyper fixated on goddamn Nietzsche. He states that those who want to control others are the weakest of humans, using priests as one of my favorite examples. His definition of a will to power is finding personal morality through solitude, arguing that within a society, an individual cannot know themselves as there are so many other people's opinions/laws/etc that influence every decision, thought, behavior, and so forth. A side note to this that is fitting as an example is a circulating notion by some feminists that as women, we do not get the opportunity to have autonomy over our bodies and lives within a patriarchal structure that has been ingrained in the societies in which we live. As a heretic learning science in my 30s having been raised in purity culture dominated evangelical bubble, I didn't even know what autonomy or consent was until I was 28 and my then therapist informed me I was allowed to not have sex with someone at any given point during intimate relations. Mind blown. I digress. It is so maddening to see some of my favorite TH-cam thinkers misinterpreting Nietzsche, his thoughts revolving around nihilism, and the concept of greatness as he defined it. Hitler having a breast of our dear Fredrick is laughable considering in Beyond Good and Evil, Nietzsche discusses those for whom he was writing the book are those with potential for greatness, and his ideas on how that may be achieved, if it is even possible. He goes on to note that be living within the will to power, it has to be your own choice and not suggested from outside parties, it must be beneficial for the individual and/ or their community, without exerting control over or causing harm anyone. People teaching his theories today have failed to contextualize time period and the language used to focus on how we define certain words in modern English. This is also a huge issue with the Bible but that is another part of this topic and I've overstayed my welcome in this comment 😅. Your channel has boomed and this is a relatively older video so I doubt you'll see it, but if you do, and feel like giving your opinion, it is one I would love to dissect. Either way though, I am enormously appreciative of your work, dedication, insights on complex societal concepts, along with the empathy and intelligence in which you frame your views. One might say, you've been very gracefully forging your path towards greatness.
I found this video really interesting, thank you so much for making it! I didn't know much about anarchism before this. This felt a lot like an introduction to it, I'd love it if you made more videos going into more depth about different types of anarchism, and maybe why some anarchists might be violent.
This video goes beyond common conceptions and how it's portrayed in mainstream culture and explains modestly that anarchy is a philosophy with many facets including personal,social,ecological etc
The degree to which you believe they have power over you is the degree to which you grant them their power. The authority always lies within you, whether you grant it to another or not.
Before this video, I didn't know exactly the definition of "anarchy" but despite do not share the idiology of my country I feel like identify of what's anarchy, I'm impressed.
I'd love to see a longer form video on this.
youtube recommended me this just now... seems fitting...
PLEASE do more videos on anarchism!
that was a SMOOTH plug for your patreon.
I love analogies and metaphors, which allow me to visualize the matter in my head.
We need one on this subject in those long form ones you do.
I like how we all can agree to collectively shit on ancaps.
I really loved the fish you used to show anarcocapitalist. Such a detail.
Best day to post this
as an anarchist, i tend to float between mutual group sharing & the family tie down that is widely considered as Protective Parental Care.
You gotta do more of this. That said, on the point of violence, a good old fashioned riot is beautiful
Kinda wild to see a video by philosophy tube before she transitioned
I love this and the last video's (on Aesthetics) format much better. Keep up the good work!
It seems like violence is defined by limiting or taking away someone's choice, while choice itself is a fundamental property of freedom. So if someone tries to limit or take away your choice/freedom it seems like anarchism could be seen as another form of libertarianism. Really good video! :)
Give us more anarchism plz Abigail
Power, quite succinctly is the ability to inflict.
It's very important people learn about this stuff
I don't speak german, but I think for a german it's easier to understand by his language:
Gewalt = violence, power
For a chinese or a korean or a japanese it could sound strange:
力 (lì, (r)yeok [him], riki [chikara]) = power, capacity, force
強 (qiáng, gang, gō) = power, strengthen, solidity
etc. etc.
I always suspected Dolphins were Marxists. Great channel by the way. Subbed.
Great video as always! Although I wish you had made a distinction between violence in self-defense and violence in earnest.
I prefer to define power as the ability to add, remove, or vary constraints of a system, but that doesn't particularly conflict with the philosophy.
I was going to ask "What about Power as One's increased posibilities of thoughts, action and choice?" but then I realized that is not power as long as you're just becoming able to bypass the limits imposed on you (i.e. Your low financial condition limits you from hobbies, but more money means less limits on what you can buy and do).
Can you update this into a 3 hour video essay with a high visual production that I won't see because I'll listen at 1.5x speed and have it off screen while I'm at work?
To look-at Transhumanism/Posthumanism
You must look-at Humanism and the Atheist League (Atheism, Irreligion, Agnosticism) which also involves a bit of Theology and Philosophy. They are best seen as a Trilogy (Humanism, then Transhumanism, and, Posthumanism)
Though
Most of these ideologies and philosophies make-up the Technosphere/Materosphere
1. Bettering Man through Emancipation-from-Religionism and Faithism
2. Recognizing/Noticing the flaws in Man (what make Humanity faulty)
3. Bettering Society/Nation/Culture at all costs
This uses a bit of greek Mythology but - the concept of Athena - she is the god of Wisdom, amongst other things - Homer/Philosophers who made the belief of Noocracy (Rule of/from/by the Wise) and its daughter, Meritocracy (rule of the Talented) - Athens and Sparta - Hitler, Mussolini (somewhat) and Nietsche took more from Sparta (hence Spartanism) and other polemicists took from Athens - Technos, Demos and Kleptos got made (it is to my collection that Technos and Demos go hand and hand though Kleptos can be present in most Republics)
Machivelli the Tyrant gave birth to Totalitarianism which upstarted the Deepstate. The founding basis for Ideology is Italic-Greco-Roman.
Philosophers said "Democracy is Mob Rule," which is repeated to this very second by those who do not know Ideology. They made fallacies of supporting Philosopher-Kings and Warrior-Poets over presentday ideology (Pirates and Terrorists and Schemers and Kleptocrats and Barbarians and Soldier-statists) Technocratic Republicanism is semi-Pirate, because of the Pirate Party the Technocrat Party and eDemocracy.
Pure Technocracy, Technomonarchism and Technosocialism are flawed Technoideology
1. Communism-Socialism is the antithesis of Technocrat.
2. Monarchists have been killing Intelligence, Talent and Reason since day one.
3. Pure Technocracy (Technate, or, Technoimperialism) is flawed from every pure Ideology being flawed - Purism/Purity is flawed in itself, but people choose to hold Stake in it.
Pure Socialism (Anarcho-Communism)
Pure Communism (Anarchy)
Pure Anarchy (or, Anarchy for Anarchys' Sake
- Chaos and Chaosism)
Pure Democracy (Democratic Anarchism, or, Direct Democracy)
Pure Fascism (Anarcho-Fascism, or Ethnostatism, or the Deranged Communism that is 𝚍𝚎𝚎𝚙𝚜𝚝𝚊𝚝𝚒𝚜𝚖)
Pure Selfishness (Egotism/Egoism/Narcissism)
Pure Capitalism (Anarcho-Capitalism)
Pure Libertarianism (Anarcho-Libertarianism)
Pure Nationstatism (National Anarchism)
Pure Monarchism (Theomonarchism the Divine Right/Rule theory, or, Anarcho-Monarchism)
*Anarchism is a good philosophy, but it's flawed* - I believe in Transitional Anarchism or Fawkesism - Anarchy is the flowstate from 𝚍𝚎𝚎𝚙𝚜𝚝𝚊𝚝𝚒𝚜𝚖 into Republicanism/City-Statism i.e Rome, Berlin, Washingtonium, New York City the new City-States that exist within Federated Democracy.
Tech could fix both Anarchy and Commune/Syndicate - Robots/AI-ruled economy (Cybercracy) - Transhumanism/Posthumanism.
She (calling tech "She," because most computers are Femme) can also fix Primalism and Ecology (Archeofuturism, Technoenvironmentalism, Technobarbarism)
She resurrects old ideologies (Pirate Democratism/Piracy/Piratism) and births new ones (Technotheocracy - worshipping Computer as God) but also births Amish resentment of her, Technoism (a slur used against Technos) and Technology-Hatred (for lack of a better Term)
_What can't Technologia fix?_
Saw The Necromonicon in the background and I was like, "yeah I'll give this guy 8 minutes of my time".
More videos on anarchy please.
The funny thing is, we all (at least most of us) engage in a quasi-anarchist social construct unconsciously, and have accepted it as part of life to the point that we don't think about it. We can talk abstract theory and clarify points, but for anyone who needs a practical example of what an anarchist society might resemble, look to your circle of friends. Who's the leader of this social group? Chances are, no one. People come together and stay together based on shared interest and experience, and most circles of friends have unwritten rules and norms that are distinct from other circles. Enforcement of these rules doesn't rely on an official police mechanism either; if someone is being a jerk, people tell them to cut it out, or if they persist, people throw them out. If a friend needs help and others are able, nine times out of ten there will be a friend or friends who will help. The analogy isn't perfect as a friend circle doesn't tend to deal with the same issues as a wider society, but it is a close enough example to act as a primer.
Dude, thank you so much for this channel!
Someone called me Anarchist, so I'm here.
A small nitpick, but it is not possible for governments to literally maintain a monopoly on violence if we also acknowledge there are other non-governmental sources of violence like hate speech, which the government can never entirely control.
It's interesting that the word violence has come in to usage as the word for the force to limit the range of possible actions, as violence has highly negative connotations, yet we might not always consider the limiting of actions as negative. What is the word used for the force of expanding the set of actions? And what do we say if the set of actions is both expanded and contracted simultaneously? This last case seems most relevant, as almost all (if not all) actions result in tradeoffs, as the world's resources are finite and in high demand, and as many actions have negative externalities on other people.
Do you need power in order to fight power? I find it ironic that the very thing anarchism seems to (in general) be against is the very thing they would need to use in order to fight, in fact it seems to contradict with their beliefs on a fundamental level.
I love your videos! Could you make one about moral dilemmas (like other ones than the train one because that one is very overused at this point, and not very interesting in my opinion.)? I find them to be one of the hardest and most interesting parts of philosophy (I don't know if you've already made a video about it though..)
Excellent, excellent video!!
No, opposition to power is called "Akratism" which means anti-kratos (the Greek word for power). Anarchism on the other hand, means anti-archos (The Greek word for hierarchy). Don't confuse hierarchy and power.
Is there really a difference between hierarchy and power? Surely by definition hierarchy means some people having authority over other people, and isn't that exactly the sort of power that the video was talking about? And even if it's just the brief power of a thief attacking a person, we could see that as the thief having authority over the victim during that brief interaction.
Well no... ἀρχός means authority or the exercice of power. It's a purely political or at least social idea. For example Aristotle defines the citizens as a person who's capable of being άρχων και αρχόμενος, which means to be able to govern and to be governed. Akratism is not a word, you're probably thinking of the ancient greek akrasia (ακρασία) or akrateia (ακρατεια), which has no social or political aspect in it, it simply means that a person is incapable of controlling himself, his passions etc.
Johannes Climacus dosent that mean communism then?
Johannes Climacus That looks a lot like a distinction without a difference, unless by power you mean natural law, and authority is being used synonymously with the outrageous claims of ownership that violent, geographically defined monopolies make over our very bodies. In that case, I completely agree.
I'm pretty sure they are the same.
Great video! Would love to see videos dedicated to specific leftist anarchist ideologies. I know a bit about anarcho-communism, collectivism, and anarcho-syndicalism. I'm an anarcho-syndicalist myself, but there are a lot of issues with the ideology and reading through theory and text can be daunting on a limited time schedule. In the mean time, do you have any suggestions for quick and easy texts?
Anarchism is not necessarily the removal of violence, to create a distinction, moreso the questioning of such violence and asking it whether it can make its case for being able to exist. As Chomsky says, if you are a parent and your child crosses a road in to the path of a car and you pull them away, you do commit the violence of limiting the choice of someone wishing not to be pulled and redirected (in that moment, I am sure in hindsight, they would be grateful for it) but that power/violence then must meet this burden of proof as you have saved the child's life in the process. Some of this idealism can be flawed, anarcho capitalism is about the veneration of wealth and giving you to ability to impact on other people, whether it be by selling goods or having them work for you and without a state, how would they be stopped from making their employees work till they drop (which does happen in some parts of the world, people falling asleep at their work stations due to pure exhaustion) and then hiring new people and through what must be a massive increase in productivity, they become more wealthy and able to destroy competition till you have monopolies popping up all over the place ruled over by oligarchs. Feel free to argue, if you wish to say I am bias, consider that I may have read some theory behind anarcho capitalism and rejected it with my on critical faculties and that I did not just jump in the first bed I found, keep it civil though.
I mean Alan Moore is an anarchist so V is very on point for an anarchist example.
6:33 should have a drumroll because that was really shocking.
V was a proper depiction rather than Heath Ledger's Joker. TDK's Joker was all praxis and no theory. Joaquin Phoenix's Joker, while an accidental symbol of class warfare in Gotham, stands as a true anarchist like V.
I love this channel
Discord and sexuality, you're damn right about that connection!
The state is bad
I was triggered because you included "anarcho"-capitalism in your sea creature slideshow :( any philosophical lense of anarchism is inherently anti-capitalist, therefore the term is contradictory. Everything else in the video is amazing! Thank you!
Institutions are bureaucratic, which means they are oppressive. They use procedures and laws to enforce their will on the people they govern. Few of the people who are their gatekeepers and monitors would be oppressive to others, if they were left to their own devices. They aren't just workers within, they're also potential users. But some of the systems have things like quotas and incentives that build bigotry within the members. And sometimes it's frustration with the system they went into, hoping to change for the better, and arrived at burnout when they realized they couldn't. Partly due to the institution itself and partly due to the membership of it's own staff. Ennui and status quo are effective tools of control too. Eventually most workers just want to get thru their work day without a hassle. And they don't take kindly to colleagues who increase their work load or make them look lazy. Which is how the status quo gets held. I love that you include Galtung BTW!
I was literally just thinking "why haven't any ancoms (anarcho-communists) tried to convince me that I should be an ancom?"
All I seem to see from them is that "we would both only benefit from working together to dismantle capitalism," which seems to be a bit of a "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" fallacy.
I still don't know why I haven't seen them try to explain their philosophy to me (unless you're an anarcho-communist), but what a coincidence that you would upload this video just when I was thinking about that.
what parts of anarchocommunism don't you agree with?
That's the thing! They've never even tried to explain their theory to me, so I don't know if I agree or not. I haven't exactly known a lot of ancoms, but the ones I've had have only gone so far as to say "we both hate capitalism, so we should work together."
I would say Anarchism the underlying assumption that systems of power, domination, and heirarchy, are not self justifying. It's a tradition that grew out of the enlightenment and classical liberalism.
Thanks
I'm pretty happy that the options available to my fellow human beings are somewhat restricted. So yay for power, as long as it's democratically controlled.
I dont think its about resisting power or resisting government. Its about realising that any government is immoral because it is violence against anyone who doesnt comply. And its initiated violence not defensive. You basicly dont need to resist it you rather should ignore it. In practical terms this is almost impossible because you are extorded by people that have all the guns. Its more about realising that the people who opress everyone are criminals and not legitimate. You dont need to resist because you will be punished for that. All that needs to happen is that a critical number of people realise this and the world will change automatically. Because the politicians need the population to enforce their will and they cant do it without them. If people think of them as criminals most people would stop working for them and so it all collapses by itself. You only need education nothing else.
The redefinition of violence does "violence" to the English language. It allows Libertarians to make a false equivalence between being pistol whipped and paying their fair share of money for running the government. I have always found this a specious argument. Would a Libertarian really find being pistol whipped on a par with paying taxes? Perhaps we should give them a choice between the two and see which they choose.
It is this kind of recklessness with words that gives the outsider the impression that philosophy is mostly ineffectual word games. It also makes dialog with Libertarians impossible. I have had so many talks with Libertarians end up with the other person explaining their special jargon to me. What's to stop me from redefining words for my own ends? Should I say this results in "anarchy"?
I mistakenly thought philosophy was suppose to be about precise definitions. I have less respect for philosophy after seeing this episode.
I think I will tell the judge that her or him expecting me to serve jury duty is violence on her or his part. How far do you think I will get?
I have watched _V for Vendetta_ but I never saw V as an Anarchist figure.
people like ancaps & anarcho-egoists while they may share in common that the societies they want to build in some way approximate governmentlessness "capital A" anarchism is much narrower than you're presenting here (although still pretty broad)
Your definition of violence would be violence against its true definition if we granted it.
Thank you for expending some ink on anarchy and for acknowledging it as a legitimate, comprehensive, multi-faceted and most importantly serious political ideology.
Do you think it is possible for land to ever be used communally on a large(ish) scale so long as there are neighbouring nation states vying for power and, by extension, land? Just a question
There is a certain power, in being able to resist violence or another's power - I think you fail to mention this in your speech, in fact i think modern anarchism is focused on being unbound by the powers and thus violence of others; and this is really relevant now days for many reasons, mostly because of the way the world is and many people fail to see how young this society actually is, and this sprouts onto (majority) teenagers and young adults who don't want to be chained down, and want to follow their passions, yet cannot because of the inequity.
The presentation itself, is really insightful - you mentioned some names that allows people to get more involved and do research so they actually know what they're talking about not just rebelling hahaha
All taxation is enforced at the point of a gun. Taxation is that. Taxation is slavery with extra steps.
I'd have to disagree with the definition of 'violence' as the removal of choice of the agent. It presupposes a freedom of indifference. Take for example John the drug dealer and user. If I were to use the means at my disposal to curtail his availability of drugs, sure I'm being violent if freedom meant leaving him alone to do as he wishes. However, freedom to excellence means someone should be free to pursue the good of their own authentic will. Although, removing drugs from society does not violence make on this ubderstanding, because his will is being lead to what is good for him.
Thanks for making anarchist theory comprehensible for people unfamiliar with it.
However the condescending tone & the smug look doesn't really help to convey the message.
I like that the anarcho-capitalists™ were represented by an angler fish.
Most ancaps don't believe in intellectual property rights.
I was just gonna say that!
"Ooh pretty lights/capital!"
@Khaine I only half understood that, use commas. If you mean what I think I mean, then A. I'm an anarchist and B. You guys would literally make it legal so it will be way worse. The best argument you could make would be that everyone would be to poor to afford it and that isn't too great either.
@Khaine cause it is literally the aids of political theory
@Khaine I thought ancaps wanted to eliminate a state. Wouldn't everything be legal then
"Ancaps have proven to be one of the greatest tools for anarchist unity in living memory, as more or less every single major anarchist group and tendency stands united in despising them." - RationalWiki
Inkswitch Amen to that
That means we are doing something right.
They are despised because they're the only ones who believe theft is wrong
Ancaps are not real anarchists their just libertarians playing dressup -_- it's just an oligarchy
Except stealing the surplus value of workers, that theft is alright...
I like Chomsky's broad definition: "The core of the anarchist tradition, as I understand it, is that power is always illegitimate, unless it proves itself to be legitimate. So the burden of proof is always on those who claim that some authoritarian hierarchic relation is legitimate. If they can’t prove it, then it should be dismantled."
That means anarchism is about challenging power and authority to prove its legitimacy, and not that power and authority are inherently illegitimate. In practice, it's illegitimate by assumption, until it meets the burden of proof.
There's an unstated problem with "it should be dismantled". Mainly that power usually benefits others beyond immediate, so there's always supporters and defenders of power.
Resisting and the act of dismantling almost certainly requires organized violence, or some very clever strategy of implied violence (Alinsky's witty wedges deployed against power to change a no to a yes), else we are left with asking "please allow me to dismantle this" or "please dismantle yourself, thank you".
What about the grey area, you can’t prove anything 100%.
So sense no power can be 100% proven to be legitimate, does that mean all power should be abolished.
Also I don’t think you defined power in a way people actually use it. You defined it as limiting someone’s choices. Why does it have be a “one” you are limiting, and not a thing. Like I’d say I was powerful if I could lift a heavy rock. You can also have power over your environment, if you can change it to allow you to live off it.
Also with your definition of violence as the force that limits other people options. So if someone wants to kill me, and I run away faster then he can chase me, I have removed his option of killing me. Did I commit violence against him because I removed his option of killing me. Also with the hate speech being violence, because it changes the options you have about how people view you. If I state that a certain cook makes better food then another cook, have I committed violence against the cook I said was worse. I removed some options people had to see him has the better cook.
So you are using absurd and uncommon definitions of the words power and violence, and then acting surprised when they end up being similar. You wanted evidence that power was bad, so you changed a bunch of definitions. Then poof. If only evidence was that easy to make.
@@gg_rider Exactly. I'm about 70% satisfied with the power structures I live in right now *bc they are legitimate.* They protect me from far worse infringements on my person and my privacy. Anarchism seems to be a young dude (and sometimes his gf) sort of thing. I don't see many old women or disabled people fighting for a stateless society *- shudders at the thought -*
@@XenaBe25 because we learn to blend in, and become closer to socialism...
@@charliebucket8053 So are you a young dude? Or his sometimes girlfriend? Or both?
Him: mentions anarchist sexuality
Him: **keeps talking**
Me: *the conquest of head* *the conquest of head* *the conquest of head* *the conq*
"The most important question to be answered in the revolution is how the workers shall get their head"
Want to like but it has 69 likes already.
Friendly message from the future: ^her.
@@stm7810 cooooooooolllliiiiiooooo
Such a shame he did that to himself...@@stm7810
Thank you for making anarchist theory clearer for people unfamiliar with it. Anarchists are often considered to be violent teenagers with no true goals. I hope you make more videos about Anarchism and its different schools of thought.
Probobly because it's not really something that people think of as a good thing. Anarchisim isn't really touched on in public schools, other than many a breif mention of the most general idea of what anarchisim is (no goverment), when talking about the diffrent forms of government. (I'm not advocating for schools to spend tons of time teaching about anarchisim, and anarchist philosophy, i'm just stating an observation that i've made).
Shall we start then?
Anarchist mutualism believes that to the greatest possible extent, relationships should be based on mutual benefit. All actors that decide to be in a relationship have a good reason to invest in their actions and the relationship, and should commonly decide. We actually see this today in many ways, credit unions and cooperatives are a huge section of the economy, 10% of the Finnish economy for example, and Mondragon Cooperative Corporation is one of the largest cooperatives in the world with billions in revenue. They believe that to the greatest extent possible, a price for something should be what the cost to make it was (including all expenses down to the retailer's level), and if there is profit, it should be given back to the one who caused the profit to exist. They believe that power can be challenged effectively by challenging the state and providing the services ourselves as much as possible and have cooperatives and freelance individuals take on the tasks that we ask of capitalism and the state. We make our own argument resolution processes, we make our own healthcare, we provide our own education, gas, electricity, food, cars, etc. The state does not have to go away tomorrow, in fact, without another voluntary institution to put our communities into, it could be chaos, but it should be challenged, limited, and made to do less whenever possible. Land and buildings and similar things we'd call private property should be owned based on use, although a cooperative can own a larger building or private property. We aren't entirely certain as to how to define use though.
Anarchist communists believe that because all the things that exist in the world came to be by the actions of a literally uncountable number of things and the actions of everyone, nobody can assign private property to be the cause of any individual's actions alone, or even actions by an identifiable enslaved or oppressed population like black slaves in the US or by the ingenuity of an entrepreneur or even the state. The things of society should be owned by a commune, or if an individual wishes to go their own way, they can make their own things. A commune is not a state, it's a bit like membership in a library, just that all things can be obtained via that membership. You don't have to live in any particular area to be part of a commune, nor does being in a particular area make you subject to a commune's rules. You must be using the things owned in common by the commune's members in order to be subject to it (like how a library can make you be quiet when others are reading). A commune will not make all the things in a set geographic area belong to it. Internal currency is abolished, no person earns wages, no person charges wages. All that is asked is that you work at some sort of useful and productive task for some amount of hours per year within some of the association's independent cooperatives within, or be a freelance provider, perhaps writing independently on your own, unless you have a good reason not to work. The hours needed to be worked by everyone will be reduced if automation or machinery causes there to be less need of human labour.
Anarchist egoism believes that all humans are absolutely free of moral duties of any kind. However, all other people are free to do the same. It is in your best interests to not upset other people unreasonably, as they may find it expedient to hurt you. If some kind of advantage is found in some association, then it must always be voluntary and if all members can exist without any one of them feeling silently or openly repressed, it can be called a union of egoists and thus be ethical, otherwise, it should be abolished or changed so as to be a free association.
There are many other kinds, but these are the big three, aside from anarchist capitalism which many anarchists don't think is real anarchism (it abolishes the state, but doesn't advocate for abolishing other kinds of hierarchy and power where possible.
@@robertjarman3703 You, my friend. I like you.
*+Parker*
Why would a government school teach about the enemy of the system?
Mostly they don't. It's safe to say that governments have generally tended to take a pretty dim view of educational establishments that teach too much unfettered reason and open mindedness. They shot poor old Francisco Ferrer for that.
"Anarcho Capitalist" [Shows an anglerfish]
*Slow clap*
"anarcho-"capitalists are disgusting pedophiles
@@averagecommunist3456 Consider the Politburo's Beria and his child molestation for the greater glory of Socialism, anarcho-commie. In fact there is no such thing as Anarcho-Communism - first you need Socialism and Socialism is oppression. Anarchy is liberty. Consider the leader of the National Socialists getting his half-niece to piss and crap on his face. Consider the National Socialists and the Socialists signed a Non-Aggression Pact to divide a Free Poland. Sounds like these two parties of Socialists would like to be packing a whole lot more up their bums. Beria of course raped and molested young children across the length and breadth of Soviet Socialist Russia for many years unmolested himself. It was programmed into the Socialist system. Socialism = Rape. And Anarcho-Communism is a Jumbo Shrimp, a binary oppostiion, an oxymoron as Socialism = exploitation. And this is not even going into the Rape-Gulags of the USSR, China and Kampuchea. Or the number of Spanish Catholic nuns raped by Anarcho-Syndicalists in their concentration camps. So the only bunch of violators are YOU ...
@@fatcontroller7931If anarchism is incompatible with socialism but works fine with capitalism than the majority of anarchist history and theory isn't anarchist, and the wide majority of anarchists aren't anarchists. Anarchism has and always will be anti-capitalist, if not always on the far left.
@@Jockster109 " the majority of anarchist history and theory isn't anarchist, and the wide majority of anarchists aren't anarchists"
@@dangeroussnek8932 You seriously believe that? God you're insane
Anarcho-Capitalists
AAARRRGGGHHHH
Well at least it was an Evil Angler Fish haha
***** Haha yeah. I'm going to assume that was deliberate.
Yeah, they're whales who thinks they're fishes.
Fucking fruit juice
Contradiction man
"Anarcho"-capitalism isn't anarchism, it's ultraliberalism...
Neo-feudalism with bitcoin
Bitcoinism
Fabio Duarte Ok. Do you have a name for someone who opposes the initiation of force and coercion?
Only from State? Ancap...
Every form of coercion? Anarchist...
It's the most voluntary school of anarchist thought
When there is a video on anarchism but you don't tell people to read the bread book 😞
CreamerLad Google bookchin
Bread book.
Bottom text.
Wassa breadbook?
Kristopher Dunham peter kropotkin, conquest of bread, I think
The Unabomber Manifesto, while not a core component of all anarchist thought, is still a major read that must be undertaken. It outlines the worst hierarchy of them all, the Industrial Revolution
/s
Abigail, I would love to see another longer, more in depth examination of anarchist philosophy and the practicality vs. the idealism of anarchism. Since I'm commenting I'm just gonna fangirl a little bit here. I love your content and the representation you offer for the trans community. Because of you I've began putting more serious effort into my own transition and self-acceptance. Genuinely, thank you.
Me too! I clicked on this thinking it was a big ass video like the ones I’ve watched. And then it ended after mentioning patreon and I was like wtf?!? Ahah ❤
For an in-depth examination of anarchism, I can definitely recommend the channels of Anark and Anarchopac :)
Just finished watching the trump inauguration, then see : intro to anarchy . Well time to get started then
I was just watching TYT's coverage of it, and I heard what was probably the worst description of anarchism that I've ever heard.
Hoooo boy. What prompted them to go down that road?
Joshua Gannon-Salomon Something about the anti-Trump protests. I head-desked several times.
Faaaack. Let me guess, they were triggered at the merest hint of smashy-smashy.
Joshua Gannon-Salomon Seems like it. Any kind of resistance stronger than lighting a few candles and sitting in a circle nets you a disapproving stare from liberals.
turns out theres a lot more to anarchism than i first thought.... thanks!
Kit Yeah, it was a bit surprising for me as well, when i started reading up on it.
welp i’m an anarchist now thanks!👌🏿👌🏿😂💯
Ne.Ve. Armiya just wanted to recommend some channels that talk about it more and delve further: NonCompete, Thought Slime, Libertarian Socialist Rants, Anarchist Spectacle, Anarchopac, Anactualjoke, Angie Speaks, and Radical Reviewer
Welcome!
When I was in middle school, I had a teacher get on my case because I had an anarchy symbol drawn on my binder... I just really liked the idea of small, organized, local governments supporting themselves...
It’s part of the deal. :/ I walk around with anarchist & anti-fascist pins on my bag and often face some awkwardness for it. But it’s a chance to explain anarchism the way Abby does here, not as some violent movement but the opposition of the state which enforces violence!
after having a right-wing libertarian teach my "government" class, it's been really refreshing to watch your videos and relearn about anarchy and other leftist political philosophy without right-wing bias. because of that i really can't thank you enough for making your videos
Challenge their authority.
Reality has a right-wing bias.
Changing right-wing bias for left-wing bias is truly refreshing for me as well!
There will always be ppl who lean more left and right.
Under an anarchy with no laws, I’m sure a war between the two would start. There’s nothing that would prevent it, no government to interfere.
It would be like the Wild West but on a wider scale.
Ps and there would be no big gov or MSM to protect liberalism as they currently do.
All open hunting season
Will there be further videos about Anarchism, or is this intro all we get?
Not gonna rule it out!
I'd love to see more videos on Anarchism.
I would love like a month-long survey course like you did with Marx on anarchism.
Philosophy Tube Perhaps this may seem sensationalistic given the myriad of more pressing subjects with respect to anarchist thought, particularly with respect to rethinking hegemonic conceptions in everyday life, but I would be really interested to see you discuss the role of Nihilism as a response to structural violence in Imperial Russian and Japanese society during the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. The way that a society's values can define the form and function of the movements which seek to alter or abolish it never cease to fascinate me.
Joshua Storrs Same!
I was living with Anarchists in France. I told my dad and I had to explain to him they basically weren't terrorists. haha True Story! Yeah so there are a lot of misconceptions.
Why is ancap represented by an anglerfish and not something worthless and detestable?
Why aren't all anarchists represented as rats?
@@henriconfucius5559 because they don't make a point of stealing people's food
It has finally arrived! The most anticipated Philosophy Tube episode of all time?
watching Philosophy Tube as praxis
That's... learning theory. The literal opposite of praxis?
@@fuckenps3 It was a joke.
TH-cam anarchists be wildin
This came in my feed just as I'm started to get interested in anarchism
Jacob Lippold Oh cool. How's it going?
Google knows
Jacob Lippold watch out the feds know
Damn TH-cam algorithm
Out of interest have you radicalised in these past 2 years (not a bad thing)?
More videos on Anarchism please! Maybe telling/explaining about the broader movements within it.
i was hoping for something a little more substantial, like a broad comparison between the various school's, but this still a very good vid, and a good leaping off point for more videos on anarchism
This worked well as an introduction for me, who knew virtually nothing about anarchism before I watched. I would be very pleased if James made a series covering anarchism in more depth. I'm seeing a lot of people suggesting that, so I hope he will.
As an anarchist, this makes me happy. People I know are making co-ops, feeding homeless people, deplatforming and exposing nazis, hosting zine nights, all kinds of stuff. It's great. I always appreciate your concise explanations of the theoretical points behind this stuff.
Hey how have You been?
More relevant than ever in America after Mr, Floyd.
Something that I've liked about your channel that you've had quite a few discussions on power, hierarchy, class, inequality, gender, race, ect. Being an anarchist myself, it's been fun watching these videos and finding a lot to incorporate into my own perspective. Falguni's perspective on racialization was something I found particularly helpful, especially for the fact that I was already influenced by Post-Colonial Theory. So as one anarchist to an awesome youtuber, a thanks is due for making a video about Anarchism. Also since this is an intro video, I'm curious what you might post next about the subject! Anyway, thanks Olly!
(By the way, I have to be one of those Anarchists you mentioned in the video and say: You mentioned Anarcho-Capitalism and not Mutualism! I say this considering Mutualism was arguably the first strain of Anarchism while many would argue that Anarcho-Capitalism isn't actually anarchism because of the fact that historically, Anarchism has been anti-capitalist. Not only that but Pierre Joseph Proudhon, the first to proclaim "Je Suis Anarchiste!" and his followers, like myself, were called the Mutualists.)
"Many would argue that Anarcho-Capitalism isn't actually anarchism because of the fact that historically, Anarchism has been anti-capitalist."
Anarchists argue against each other all the time; this is to be expected of anarchy. It makes no sense to say that X can't be anarchism because other anarchists are against X. Everyone wants a total absence of power, but since that's impossible most anarchists accept some power and fight against other power. We can't change the world without exercising power, and whatever power we accept will bring us naturally into conflict with the anarchists who oppose that kind of power.
Even government itself can be viewed as a kind of anarchy because it brings structure and order to the power in the world so that power can be controlled. Without government we naturally get people taking power for themselves just because there is no one to stop it. Without government there are no checks and balances, just people taking what they want and hurting who they choose, and it's easy to see why an anarchist might find that situation intolerable and create a government just to put a stop to random people taking power.
With a government the power is centralized and open, so everywhere else we can be free from power since the government will put a stop to anyone else taking power, and we'll be able to see if government starts abusing its power. Ideally the government can even be democratic, so the power of the government can be evenly distributed through the population, so we all get a tiny equal piece of the power through our vote and therefore none of us has power over any of us.
Anasatz66 I laughed out loud at "Anarchists argue against each other all the time; this is to be expected of anarchy." You also perfectly articulated how I feel about the role government should ideally play. I would love it if James made a followup video about which types of power different anarchists are willing to accept, and why.
Ansatz
No matter how you turn it, anarcho-capitalism has its "anarcho" meaning stateless without the other attributes of anarchism. People see the prefixe anarcho and just like anarcho-fascism argue that there's no way they represent anarchy is a single other way that the absence of state, and that's boring to see this among us.
If libertarianism or at least the main trends were called minarcho-capitalism (maybe not all kinds can be considered to be, but probably most? I'm not an expert tho), it would appear easily to derive of this, and in no way from anarchy, which would end the war.
@@26yd1actually, anarchy derrived and had always meant no ruler, even tho it's come to theorize many other aspects, it has historically and currently been on the basis of no ruler and the abolition of hierarchy. And due to that fact, Anarcho capitalism is not considered anarchism by the majority. Capitalists are rulers of the working class, therefore establishing a hierarchy and thus contradicting anarchism.
not me being like, 14 or something and trying to learn about anarchy and watching this video....
*AND THEN NOT UNDERSTANDING SHIT BECAUSE I DONT KNOW BIG WORDS AND I DONT KNOW SHIT ABOUT POLOTICS*
politics*
You'll get there buddy
Start with the basic stuff like mutual aid and work from there.
Olly thanks for making the bourgeoisie individualists the ugly fish, but you didn't even have to mention them.
Anarchism is individualistic. Collective anarchism is literally anarcho totalitarism
@@henriconfucius5559 collective anarchism is collective freedom
@@henriconfucius5559 Even individualist anarchism is anti-capitalist.
Olly thanks for being the bourgeoisie intellectual who is extremely ugly in a dress and make-up. Thanks for conflating trans with anti-semiticism so Zionism is never talked about. Thanks for being so intellectually dishonest and pushing your socialist line. And thanks for having your hand out when you claim your information is free. Doesn't that make you a capitalist? Or just a beggar?
@@henriconfucius5559 lmfao thanks for the laugh
Tranarchy! Tranarchy!
UwU
UwU
@@googleacount3611 FFN