Park ranger: And over here we have old faithful, a geyser that miraculously erupts every 72 minutes! It should happen right now! Utsuho: Hey look more things to blow up!
The people who say they want to "abolish hierarchies" (leftoids) usually just want to reverse natural hierarchies with themselves ontop, rather than abolishing the concepts outright. Same goes for "equality", "inclusion", "fairness", and what have you. It's called "coalition of the fringes" for a reason.
Ironically enough, leftoids who want to abolish hierarchies are often at the top or in the upper middle of hierarchies. Twitch streamers, White liberal college students, Hollywood, any number of positions of power everywhere in the world, prominent entrepreneurs, you name it. It's kinda sad.
It's one of those cases where there is a distinct line between the useful idiots and the power grabbers. Some of them know exactly what they are doing, and use the fact that some of them do not to hide in the shadows.
@@greekifreekifan870 That's just virture signaling. It's important to understand that there is nothing genuine about leftist ideas. It's all just a power grab and nothing else.
Yep. They’re just lying to you, because collectivism is still a hierarchy of group over individual. Not only that, but most will admit that they are not actually against all hierarchy when pressed (such as a teacher-student hierarchy or parent-child hierarchy) and then pivot to “unjustified hierarchy” which only means “the kind I don’t like” to them.
Heirachies are often abused (e.g. rigid caste systems, acting like someone with higher overall status is better at a task they're worse at, inherited status, differences in legal status) A case can be made to attack those parts of heirachies Pretending they don't exist at all or can be totally removed is however very silly
Another problem are the Psychos that cheat and lie their way to the top (Like Trump, Stalin or H*tler) and the Lucky morons who trip and bumble their way to the top (Like Biden), (To be clear Im a centrist raised by moderate (but still very biased) Leftists so sometimes I have a hard time not being biased leftwards)
@@rgama1173We shouldn’t be promoting democracy, we should be promoting libertarianism and republicanism. The kinds of hierarchies that emerge from democracies are very bad
Like all things; if it violates natural rights it is unjust and should be abolished. If it does not violate natural rights it is morally neutral and should be left to its own devices. Hierarchies are just another distraction put out by people who think they have the right to engineer society.
Their argument is based on a flawed concept of egalitarianism. They assume everyone is equal and any inequality of outcomes is based on exploitation. The problem with that is they ignore individual choice. Collectivism seeks to force people to be the same and make the same choices for some unrealistic utopia. That's why when someone says anarchy is the rejection of government and hierarchies I have to ponder if they really consider that makes anarchy impossible as nature itself and personal interactions are always hierarchical.
the weird thing is, when you actually read marx's and hegel's literature, they actually say this in their faces that people will , by the quirk of nature, environment, and heritage, be different.
Imagine that you could put a computer chip in your brain that gives everyone with the chip access to the sum total of human knowledge. You still wouldn't get rid of hierarchy because 1. People will still have different body types and genetics so the chip wouldn't, for example, get rid of people being better or worse at sports. People's natural intelligence, life experience, diligence, capacity for reflection, and belief systems make them better or worse at interpreting and applying the information they had, and the chip wouldn't change that. If you could bio-engineer everyone into equality of body, and add the chip, and social engineer everyone into the same life experiences, congratulations, you just eliminated Diversity.
They also seem to omit the fact that being equal can also be about jobs and occupations. For example : i am not equal towards every pilot because i don't know how to fly a plane however we all deserve equal kindness (smth in that sense) or when talking about getting the same opportunity to be able to learn about a job or occupation (if you are interested in it ofcourse. Like you said individual choice). Whenever someone says ''we are not equal'' they always go the direction of ''oh so you are saying those people are inferior?'' , ''so they don't deserve that?'' or they instantly assume you are talking about certain labeled group and call you rahcist or a bigot They also expect woman to do certain jobs like plumbing and say like ''WE NEED more women in plumbing because its only men in there'' I'll be like: Are you gonna do plumbing then? Are you willing to advertise plumbing towards women and make them more interested in it? Or are you just forgetting that women do not gravitate towards jobs like plumbing? Because thats the reason its only men doing that (its the same with lots of other jobs).
When they complain about the 1%, aren't they appealing to the hierarchy of needs? They shouldn't have all that extra money because they don't need it whereas other people could need the excess.
In fantasy you can have utopias. And would it be great if there was a society with no crime, where everyone has all the material posessions they desire, and everyone is similar enough to be friends?
@@baltulielkungsgunarsmiezis9714 me too. There's no need to reply with all caps. Even in fantasy, you'd need a non-human population to pull it off. Even if all were similar enough to be friends, over time goals will drift apart and groups will form. So either the popation is non-human enough to prevent this, or it's human enough yet under a dystopia like I said.
Rather than rejecting or accepting hierarchies and presuming them to be naturally evolved in the manner which they occur, one ought to recognize the flexibility and overlap of hierarchies as they occur in different segments of society and for different persons. One may be economically more secure (i.e. wealthier) than his neighbors, placing him as dominant in the economic sphere of things, but is also low on numbers (i.e. his neighbors outnumber him and are more capable of exerting effective social pressures, boycotts, etc.). This all comes down to balancing power dynamics/relationships between people, and one begins to do this by recognizing their own self-worth and standing. If one is uncomfortable with their standing amongst others in a particular segment of society, he may work to improve his standing and those around him to provide for more balance. Communal strategies are not the only means of achieving this, nor are individual means the sole source, but rather each situation may require a different action to balance out social standing amongst those in a group. Pluralism is key.
It’s worth noting, it’s not just about the greater ability, it’s more so about the scarcity of an ability, in a position where there are a few factory owners, and thousands of workers, the owners are at an advantage, but if instead you had hundreds of factory owners, and only 10 workers who could each fully staff factory Then the workers would have a large advantage in negotiating. If there was only one of each, you could assume that they have equal bargaining power, and would need to reach a agreement that satisfies both of them.
The “few factory owners and lots of workers” world is the one we live in now and the only one that can actually exist (in a capitalist system at least). Owners aren’t at an advantage because their “ability is scare” or some dumb shit, it’s because of the control they have and the power their wealth gives them. Workers actually have the advantage if they are united in action because there are a lot more of them and the owner’s power doesn’t exist without the workers. Factories can also exist without owners, but they can’t exist without workers.
Does it follow that I reject all authority? Perish the thought. In the matter of boots, I defer to the authority of the bootmaker; concerning houses, canals, or railroads, I consult the architect or the engineer For such special knowledge I apply to such a "savant." But I allow neither the bootmaker nor the architect nor the "savant" to impose his authority on me. I listen to them freely and with all the respect merited by their intelligence, their character, their knowledge, reserving always my incontestable right of criticism and censure. I do not content myself with consulting a single authority in any special branch; I consult several; I compare their opinions and choose that which seems to me soundest. But I recognize no infallible authority, even m special questions; consequently, whatever respect I may have for the honesty and the sincerity of an individual, I have no absolute faith in any person. Such a faith would be fatal to my reason, to my liberty, and even to the success of my undertakings; it would immediately transform me into a stupid slave, the tool of other people's will and interests. Mikhail Bakunin
The argument against hierarchies would make sense in a legalistic sense where rank 1 is allowed to aggress on rank 2. But most ancoms seem to think mutually profitable exchanges are aggression by one of the parties, rendering their arguments flawed.
@@thefrenchareharlequins2743 if a king who owns all of the world offers you to become a slave to him in exchange for food and you will otherwise starve because he own all of the food and will only ever give people enough to survive is that a "mutually profitable exchanges"?
As a brocialist I agree 100% with this video. I get called a misogynist and not a real socialist because I think we can never get rid of hierarchies, but we still should take care of people especially men at the bottom of society. We also need to have ways to prevent inequality from getting so bad it collapses a nation, or results in mass traitorship because people only see the elites being served by government and not them.
I agree with your sentiment but I don’t have to agree with your prescriptions (being some kind of socialist). We ought to have social and economic mobility, as it’s a great indicator of a nations health and prosperity but that itself doesn’t necessitate nor should it require a government to fulfil that function, in fact, it (the policies put in place) often stifles economic mobility between the classes. For example, you as an individual will likely never be able to start a successful business because there’s a bunch of legal and financial barriers put in place by bigger corporate lobbyists using the gov/state as an unfair referee, keeping you from engaging in economic mobility. A kind of pulling the ladder up, so to speak. Monopolies have only ever emerged artificially (there has never been a natural monopoly) through the use of government. The state is the problem, it can never be the solution.
@@rhett3185Well what you provide as facts, are heavily loaded with values. All corporations that now lobby the government, were once competitors in the free market, and once they were victorious enough, they started to "break the ladders under themselves" to prevent any other company from becoming a threat and threatening their newly acquired place of power. It is not one-sided case, where some mustache-twirling government official decides that "Ooh, I shall pick that, that and that company to provide assistance" but it is a mutual cooperation between the company and the government, which starts from the company becoming a funder of one of the major parties or other kind of political factions, to get the faction depended on them. Even if Marxists are wrong on some things, one thing Lenin got right: State is a tool for any side to use. The one who uses the state, changes the whole game.
They do not desire to abolish rather invert, all under the guise of progressive humanitarianism which itself is anti-natal and human in practice. Just look at Western population birthrates from the 1920s to present day.
Just like in real life, the police man is there to enforce the wishes of the magical little girl. Just like in real life, your best choice is to strike out on your own.
You put it excellently. Even if everyone got to vote with equal say in every single issue somehow, you would *still* have a hierarchy of plurality. Whatever groups have the most people would have the most power. Now what about the minorities eh? Like gee, it’s almost as if people have thought and fought over this for millennia already, and we are lucky to live in a society where minorities get to live their lives pretty much as freely as you could ever hope. Hierarchy of plurality and of strength so not work so well at generating productive societies, so instead we orient our society, at least sort of, around hierarchy of merit. Turns out that is best for everyone, including minorities
The fact that what they really want is to invert the hierarchy and place themselves at the top (as some users state) is exactly what Kijin Seija attempted to do. They even manipulate the idealistic (like poor Sukuna) to do it.
If the most clueless and incompetant are at the top of government the country will be full of corruption and people good and bad bypass and ignore the governmentent wherever possible to make their own live barable.
This seems too vague. Like, sure, people are separated by their natural ability in different subjects, I don't think anybody is denying that, but the hierarchies people are talking about are ones that are separative in a random way rather than by ability. Take, for example, the Hindu caste system, which is completely random and gives people at the top a better life and oppourtunity than those at the bottom. Another problem is that people born low in the economic hierarchy don't *naturally* bubble towards the top, as you still actually need a place to apply your intelligence, which isn't always available to people. Take a person who, without interference, could go on to progress humanity, but instead has to spend a majority of their time working a low-paying hourly job wasting their life away.
or likewise a trust fund child, who as he has gotten older (and gone through the right/elite schools) landed himself a comfy job at a friends dads workplace despite being incompetent. One of the issues I have with many capitalist economic models is that they fail to properly account for generational wealth/power and the advantage that gives individuals in hierarchy, even if competing with someone far more competent than them. Not to say this is only something associated with capitalism, most ideologies when put into practice have to deal with the hard truth that it is human nature to look out and care for your family. But it seems odd to be logically aware of hierarchy being natural and thus applying said truth to your economic theory and at the same time not take into account natural external factors that affect it.
In a capitalist country, an incompetent worker will create tensions in the workplace. These tensions may get to the point of other workers leaving the incompetent one behind, which means less production and profits... or the job is simply good enough for them to not bother. If that's the case, the more competent candidate simply has more options available to him, because he is, well, more competent. This doesn't work IRL for many reasons (Clown World economic policies and cultural tendencies, but that's another subject), but it is close to working like this in developed capitalist countries, specially because they have better social and economic mobilities. And, as the other commentator said, you've just described the Carl the midwit, a privileged kid that proclaims to be a socialist lol.
He addresses it reasonably enough- there will always be gaps when we're used to egalitarianism with rejection of other ideals. In the modern, westernized world, we are trained to question hierarchy, but it historically served functional roles, even in classically rigid hierarchies. This is actually illustrated by the Hindu caste system, which is seen as rigid and oppressive but historically served a role adapted to the Indian Subcontinent, not just Hinduism. This is not to defend its many obsolete and oppressive characteristics, but the fact is that systems that don't work in SOME way to benefit the entire entity are selected out overtime. The Hindu caste system is not random or arbitrary. Caste is tribal and reflects a society in which there was immense diversity and in which firm political power structures never existed. India was continuously invaded overtime, and it had its own internal diversity of tribes and settled groups. The groups that could make themselves most prosperous given a set of political and economic conditions at a time would rise or be on the top end. It's commonly denied or ignored today, but many groups rose and fell throughout Indian history as a result of wars, regime shifts, and even religious movements, which opened/revealed niches that needed filling and increased demand for some jobs over others. There is a bias to see history through the view of the topmost caste, the Brahmins, but the only reason why Brahmins seem to have been on top throughout history is because A) they wrote down scriptures that placed themselves at the top and B) they appealed to a consistently in-demand need throughout history, namely religion. In reality, the scriptures, despite being treated valuable as sources of historical and sociological information, merely reflect a narrow view into Indian history and society, moreover, one strongly colored by Brahmin biases. The Hindu caste system is misunderstood, as is the functional use of hierarchy. The prizing of egalitarianism and fraternity is relevant today. But they color and limit our analysis of non-western and historical societies.
I'm aware of the Drama, but I don't really go to Kiwifarms because I am more interested in philosophy and economics and not so much the constant LOLDRAMA type of content that community seems to enjoy. However I do find it fairly cringe that the woke cancel mob went after an entire website and seems to have gotten away with it purely because of having correct™ opinions™.
Obviously the problem arises when the teleporter also wants to dictate how to manage the fauna or bake lovely pies. Of course, the ranger and the sweet old lady (who is an excellent cook) are better in their respective fields. So there are multiple hierarchies. And what happens when multiple hierarchies come into conflict? As the video says, there will be people best suited for any GIVEN purpose. But who gives the general purpose of a whole large group of people? What to do when purposes clash? That is what the art of politics is about. Politics is about arranging life together, and to pretend that there is a given purpose that some technical expert/powerful person is better suited at than you is just a lie. The only purpose of politics is to make us survive together as well as possible. And since we are all equally living human beings that want to live well, we are all equal under the domain of politics (even if we are unequal in the art of saving lost children).
When you first asked to chose who the kids meet, my first thought was "forest ranger". It somehow didn't occur to me that they might be helped by magical anime plushie girl.
I feel like the solution is rather than abolish the hierarchy it’s just to elevate the lowest part of the system to where the people at the bottom have a decent standard of living, then there is still incentive but also equality, as everyone will have access to everything they need to meet their basic needs
"Nobody will dominate each other, if someone tries to reinstate hierarchy and exert control, than the ancom society will defend itself."@@Anarchistnoa How such society allocate resources without hierarchy?
Good stuff, but I can already see the YT algorithm suppressing this guy. Been stuck in bread tube algorithmic hell for a while, so while I'm sure I'll disagree on some important issues, it's refreshing to hear a different take.
*The TL;DW version of this video* 1.) Hierarchies are bound to form to form due to the nature of how power works in human society, even if the goal is create a no-hierarchy society. Trying to abolish them is like trying to abolish the a scientific law or mathematical equation. 2.) A democracy is still a hierarchy, albeit an upside one where the majority make decisions that the minority have to follow, also called Mob Rule. 3.) Attempts to get rid of hierarchies have ironically resulted in the worst type of hierarchy imaginable, where you have a super-class of totalitarian elites wielding armed forced and propaganda to keep their powerless citizens in check, where the citizens are literally threatened with punishment if they try to leave or change the hierarchy. 4.) While you can't get rid of hierarchies, you can mitigate their negative effects and prop up their positive effects. That's right, hierarchies can actually have positive effects, they can motivate people to strive for greater heights and allow people who have the character to make decisions that most other people simply do not have the character to do so.
Be wary of anyone advocating "equality" as it indicates that, at best, they've never given much thought to what they believe, or at worst, they're actually the kind of totalitarian psycho who believes equality is a good thing. Equitable (fair and impartial) treatment is what we should strive for... and that's equity in the actual meaning of the word; not the "equal outcomes" meaning, which is such an Orwellian distortion of the actual meaning of equity that it's rendered the word radioactive.
Still going through the video but from my days when I dabbled in leftism the view of the (non-retarded) anarchists was to abolish “unjust” hierarchies acknowledging that many just hierarchies exist. Definition of unjust is very subjective but the point I’m trying to make is this video seems to be attacking more of a straw man of anarchism than anarchism itself (though it does suffer from much of the same flaws)
3:12 Isn't that what they claim for LGB, Too though that since homosemxcialilty is found in animals that it is perfectly fine to have in human --society-- rights?
True, but you can eliminate SOME hierarchies. You can get rid of hierarchy of authority, or flatten it and distribute it, that's ancap. You can cut all the straws to be the same length. You just can't get rid of all hierarchies.
i like hierarchies. The problem is when people are prevented from moving between levels because of their skin color or because big corporations lobbied big barriers to competition to prevent people from moving up. (I'm sure you'd agree with me)
The issue isn't hierarchies. We don't need to accept them or denounce them. This is not something we should concern ourselves with. So long as there is no authoritarianism, so long as those engaged in the hierarchy have their natural rights intact and engage with said hierarchies as willing participants then there is no issue. The same is true if they wish to form a collective, so long as every member is willing there is no issue. The whole argument is two bean-counters arguing how best to count spherical chickens in a vacuum and then thinking this means something to humanity. It does not. To even assume you can try and engineer society to have this or that hierarchy is the ultimate form of hubris and anti-humanism and reeks of the odious concept that is "central planning." As if humans are cogs in a machine all serving a function, instead of individuals for whom the machine was invented to benefit.
Not all ways to make money are good for society. One of my countries cities, Rēzekne, has been bankrupted by the corrupt, propably russijan, mayork hiring a company owned by his extended family to build a stadium nobody asked for. You should learn more about game theory, especially how there are different incentives for different players. The fact that dishonor and corruptiuon screws the whole, doesnt mean individuals wont try to be parrasides hoping everyone else will do their share. Corruption in government is most obvious, but dont go thinking companies are benevolent, they are just as suseptable to dishonor.
The example of people voting that 1+1=9 is not a criticism of 'tyranny of the majority'. If we had the reverse where society was an extreme hierarchy then the person at the top could still decide 1+1=9 and nothing could be done. By not pointing this I out I think you've just argued against democracy as a system because the majority being in charge is not inherently bad.
Uuuh you know that most anarcho-communists (or at least all I have had interactions with) oppose majority rule, right? In our assemblies it was always either everyone agrees, or no decision is taken. My critique of this concept, formed by actual experience engaging with it for 10 years and not just some polemic half-knowledge of it, is that people would have to recognise the authority of these assemblies in order for them to have any impact on society whatsoever. Who enforces this authority and how? Look I'm not trying to be mean. I started watching your videos because I actually agree on some of your criticisms of the left. For example when leftists claim that libertarians are nazis or vice versa. But if you criticize the left for their incapability to really try and understand what ideologies different from their own propose in the way that you do, please return the favour. Because thinking that anarchists want majority rule is honestly quite an embarassing mistake ngl.
No offense, but that sounds even dumber than majority rule. How will anything ever get done if every person has veto power over the entire assembly? Maybe in like, groups of less than one-hundred people that can work. But it is in no way applicable to the scale of modern society
Refers to shit like “natural law” for property rights and then immediately in the next sentence proclaims that equality cannot be magically good. Your whole argument seems to be based on “It can’t be done so you’re wrong.” Even though plenty of hierarchies have been abolished in the past. “It’s only natural that there be kings, lords, and serfs. Any dissent to this idea is utopian. You are using a moralistic fallacy when you claim that abolishing noble titles is good.” And no serious person thinks you can or should abolish literally all hierarchy. “You think noble titles and privileges are bad? Have you considered that it is INEVITABLE for some people to be faster runners than others?” It’s like saying it’s useless to want to minimize the amount of people who die in earthquakes because earthquakes are inevitable. Of course earthquakes are gonna happen, but we can do things to minimize their effect.
I think "Anarcho"-communism wants to create communism over night while socialism wants to progress to it in a certain time span. That's why "Anarcho"-communism is incopatible with Marx's opinions on communism. I dare say it's worse than socialism cause socialists at least acknowledge that their ideology inherently needs an authoritarian state to function, as Marx understood it - capitalism creates wealth, authoritarian government redestributes said wealth, government withers away, communist utopia ensues. Basically the goal is the same - communism, but the means to get there are different, socialists want to do it through strong state that eventually withers away into communism, while "Anarcho"-communists want to accelerate the process and jump straight into communism. How they wanna do it? Usually they say they want to get rid of the government and create some kind of a group of people that will redestribute everything. And no that's not government because uhhh, cause because.
I really have to say , these videos aren’t much better than Ben Shapiro videos. You make a caricature of the views of the other side then fight that caricature. I don’t think there’s ANYONE who would refute the hierarchy (grandma, ranger, witch) at the start of the video. Even analogies need to have similarities with what they describe. So the hierarchy in your analogy needs to criticizable(defensible). Secondly you don’t give any concrete example of someone from the opposite side who believes in what you’re criticizing, you just assume they exist and move on . I need to see a real person with some level of credibility and influence (not some nobody on twitter)from the other side who believes the caricature you painted . Without it your video is meaningless.
Anti-Hierarchy doesn’t mean nobody is better than anyone at anything, hierarchy refers to systems of domination and coercion, such as, capitalism, statism, and patriarchy. Anarchists want to establish a horizontal power structure, yes people will still have different skills and knowledge on differing things, but nobody forcefully dominates, or coerces anyone else, society works on equal cooperation, trust and mutual respect, and yes society will still work, if you build a home for someone you will gain respect within the community, and receive things from it back. Also anarchists do not support “democratic” systems of coercion and domination like you assume, we support consensus democracy, and for things such as building a new subway line or a new building, anarchist communes wouldn’t “ban” weed or anything of that sort. Also for the two people deciding they own the shrine, this straight up would not happen, again it would be based on voluntary mutual aid and consensus democracy, not on everyone forcefully taking personal property from each other involuntarily. What this video is a bad faith, low quality and ultimately bad video based on straw-man arguments, bad definitions and fake examples, with a bunch of fake wojak drawings to make people who disagree with you and your false interpretation of anarchism look bad and ugly.
The issue isn’t hierarchies themselves - which as you say, are inescapable - but with what the hierarchies are based on. If the hierarchies are oriented towards competence, then no problem. But it’s hard to be competent, and trivially easy to be part of some broad class. So the grifters of the world will always be attempting to get the hierarchies redrawn along class lines. Now a leftist will tell you that the grifters have already succeeded and have drawn up the hierarchies in favor of white men. I respect the impulse to be examining the hierarchies for distortions, but the solution - to the extent there even is a problem - isn’t more class grifting. It’s equality under the law and a free market.
Sorry, equality under the law is useless if there are individuals with millions of times more power than you because they have a networth of 200 billion and you were born to a poor family in Mississippi.
Hierarchy is intrinsic to and a fundamental component of the Universe and Reality. It is expressed in the hierarchy of planetary bodies (stars orbit supermassive black holes to produce galaxies, planets/comets/asteroids/meteors orbit stars to produce solar systems, and moons orbit planets to produce a local planetary system). In Biological Life, there is the simplest of hierarchies universal to all life forms, being the Living Who Have Not Yet Successfully Reproduced, The Living Who Have Successfully Reproduced above them in the hierarchy, the Dead Who Reproduced and Have Living Descendants below them in the hierarchy, and the Dead Who Failed to Reproduce at the bottom of the hierarchy. That isn't even addressing social hierarchies found in most species of animals, particularly higher mammals including canines (wolf packs), various apes (harems), and dolphins (pods). As Thomas Sowell said in his famous speech on Cosmic Justice [paraphrased], "What I call Cosmic Justice has been called by some people "Social Justice". But I think they're unduly modest. Because they're trying to correct not only the Inequities they see in society; they're trying to correct the oversights of God, or the defects of the cosmos." And hierarchy is one of those concepts which they treat as a flaw and not a feature of Reality.
Most people who oppose "hierarchy" as such don't actually oppose all hierarchies as they appear in nature etc. At least anarchists believe in opposition to hierarchical power structures, which are hierarchies which involve some form of coercion, or oppression of those lower down as such. Hierarchies will... mostly always exist. Hierarchical power structures are those which are unnatural and have only existed in very recent times. They do not exist in nature. As long as power is bottom up, and there is consent among the governed, then there is no reason why a hierarchy cannot exist. Most of this video is a strawman as such. Not deliberately, but just because Mentis doesn't understand the point entirely.
Yup. Uses a scenario where people are stuck in unfamiliar lands with people who have expertise to “debunk” anti hierarchies. Reminds me of when people debate vegans and say “but what if you were stuck on a stranded island”. Attacks direct democracy as if that’s what anarchists advocate for (it’s not.) Attacks people who claim many hierarchies are social constructs and should be abolished.
what to do when someone is at the bottom of every relevant hierarchy, and doesn't provide any value to anyone, not through his own fault. He can't help what he is.
Remember when you mocked Adam Something for his example of a man controlling access to resources and extorting the shipwrecked guy? Now you're using a non-example to try and water down the definition of hierarchy to include anyone more qualified given consent to lead children to safety. And your ice fairy example is even worse. Consensus mechanisms ensure that an agreement can be mediated between dissenting parties so that there isn't just one decision, and it's not one or another.
The example can be used on many things, it's not a non-example as you say because it actually maps onto reality. For example gender; males have for all history been dominant, and females have always been subserviant, this is because males have the physical strength to inforce laws; so trying to acheive equality won't work and the only way to acheive it would be trying to make males more weak. And striking a compromise between every single faction in a democracy wouldn't work, because think if 99,9% agree on that there should be no tariffs and 0,1% disagree, then if you make an agreement that only 0,1% of the tariffs should be implomented then the 99,9% still has the advantage and has basically gotten what it wanted (i.e. hiearchy), and if 50% of the tariffs get inplomented then wouldn't that be totally unfair?
@elliotbacklund8529 any cooperative society would either come to a compromise, leave out the dissenting parties if possible, or abstain but allow the motion to pass out of respect for the benefit of the cooperative as a whole. But the very nature of a horizontal organisation is that it systemically ensures no one can accumulate power over another, which tariffs as a restriction of power and resources through the middleman medium of currency, is a tool of hierarchical power. There's no tax on acquiring goods from abroad when the trading polities are cooperatives evaluating exchange based on needs being fulfilled as a priority. Qualified individuals may be voted to a temporary delegation of authority, but that is to grant more access to a greater number of people the ability to influence decisions in a chosen field because these roles are fluid and democratically decided based on who is affected, which as mentioned also includes minority voices to amend motions that affect them.
Собственно, все аргументы в видео заканчиваются на том, что определение иерархии у анархистов не сходится с определением в видео. анархизм строится на неприятии НАСИЛЬНО навязываемой власти сверху вниз и в видео создали соломенное чучело, дескать анархисты хотят всех вообще во всём уравнять, хотя это не так. Отказ от иерархии в теории анархизма означает отказ от организационной иерархии, а не от иерархии вообще во всех её проявлениях; Но это не значит, что не может быть авторитетов заслуживших доверие коллектива, которые будучи грамотными в той или иной сфере, являются лидерами мнений и способны убедить в рациональности предложенных ими действий и им не надо никого к чему-то принуждать. Потому даже пример в начале видео с колдуньей, сотрудником заповедника и бабушкой абсолютно не корректен и никак не опровергает реализуемость отказа от иерархии в теории анархизма.
What organisation would be able to enforce this democratic system in every company other than a massive government? Saying that a massive government isn't needed would be saying that democracy arrises naturally which it does not, rather the strong rise to the top and lead with force, the same way that the manager of a company rises to the top and leads the company with force. Please explain to me why using force to remain in power is bad, and it the answer is that it is unfair then tell me why unfair treatment in this situation is unethical.
And you very well know that democracy doesn't work, this is because the average human is dumb and they get subverted. Some truths are just too complicated for an average human to understand and therefore they just choose an easy answer. Think, why is the military structured as it is?
Ok, great. Now can we make it as easy as possible to go up the social ladder by implementing policies such as free education, free healthcare, social security, etc?
free lol you mean subsidized? no thanks, have you seen the people that are eager to educate the children these days? how did you think we ended up with these pinko retards in the first place?
That’s not hierarchy. Not in any way at all. Hierarchy involves force and coercion. If the park ranger was ordering the old lady around or making the kids manufacture shoes, that would be hierarchy.
@@kacperfrontczak1257 You need to be less sloppy with concepts. Be precise. A hierarchy isn’t some general term for “one thing is better than another”. “Status and authority” imply that there is a subordinate/authority relationship. In other words two must know each other and they must have an understanding in which the subordinate one in some way is subject to the will of the dominant one.
@@kashphlinktu How is the old lady manufacturing shoes for money forcefull? And if it is then why is it bad? And if the answer is that it is unfair then why is being unfair in this situation bad?
I can't help but note the irony of this video. For a youtuber standardly known for preaching Libertarianism actually acknowledges why it doesn't work. The need for Authority REQUIRES somebody rules over you and I could have sworn Libertarianism is the freedom of that Authority and only self-authority. 😂
I have issues with how Petersons of the world represent hierarchies not with hierarchies themselves because Petersons of the world are simpletons with no ability to hold more than one variable in their mind.
I uh...actually would trust the park ranger to get the kids to safety unharmed and unrobbed more than I would trust Marisa.
Park ranger: And over here we have old faithful, a geyser that miraculously erupts every 72 minutes! It should happen right now!
Utsuho: Hey look more things to blow up!
as a woman, id trust the bear
I find it hilarious this video covers an actual topic and you slam touhou into this like this, comedy gold
Are right wingers not allowed to like anime or reference it?
@@baltulielkungsgunarsmiezis9714 nobody said that
@@baltulielkungsgunarsmiezis9714 Quite the contrary thoughbeit, it shows a sign of maturity and resolve
The people who say they want to "abolish hierarchies" (leftoids) usually just want to reverse natural hierarchies with themselves ontop, rather than abolishing the concepts outright. Same goes for "equality", "inclusion", "fairness", and what have you. It's called "coalition of the fringes" for a reason.
Ironically enough, leftoids who want to abolish hierarchies are often at the top or in the upper middle of hierarchies.
Twitch streamers, White liberal college students, Hollywood, any number of positions of power everywhere in the world, prominent entrepreneurs, you name it.
It's kinda sad.
It's one of those cases where there is a distinct line between the useful idiots and the power grabbers. Some of them know exactly what they are doing, and use the fact that some of them do not to hide in the shadows.
@@greekifreekifan870 That's just virture signaling. It's important to understand that there is nothing genuine about leftist ideas. It's all just a power grab and nothing else.
Yep. They’re just lying to you, because collectivism is still a hierarchy of group over individual. Not only that, but most will admit that they are not actually against all hierarchy when pressed (such as a teacher-student hierarchy or parent-child hierarchy) and then pivot to “unjustified hierarchy” which only means “the kind I don’t like” to them.
I mean that's Marxism ina nutshell that's the whole dictatorship of the proletariat thing they got going on.
Ancom: Nooooooo that’s not how it works!!!!!!
Soulist: Yeah, exactly, abolish the laws of physics
IM GUNNA VOOOOOOOTE!!!!111!!!!11
Shalom
Every functioning society has a hierarchy.
Every functioning society has touhou
@@ShadowLurker334 True.
Heirachies are often abused (e.g. rigid caste systems, acting like someone with higher overall status is better at a task they're worse at, inherited status, differences in legal status)
A case can be made to attack those parts of heirachies
Pretending they don't exist at all or can be totally removed is however very silly
The thing is, we did, that's why we font have those on the west, and try to promote democracy in other places
Another problem are the Psychos that cheat and lie their way to the top (Like Trump, Stalin or H*tler) and the Lucky morons who trip and bumble their way to the top (Like Biden), (To be clear Im a centrist raised by moderate (but still very biased) Leftists so sometimes I have a hard time not being biased leftwards)
@@rgama1173We shouldn’t be promoting democracy, we should be promoting libertarianism and republicanism. The kinds of hierarchies that emerge from democracies are very bad
@@rhett3185 Democracy is akin to mob rule after all, the only difference between them is the emotional state.
Like all things; if it violates natural rights it is unjust and should be abolished. If it does not violate natural rights it is morally neutral and should be left to its own devices.
Hierarchies are just another distraction put out by people who think they have the right to engineer society.
Their argument is based on a flawed concept of egalitarianism. They assume everyone is equal and any inequality of outcomes is based on exploitation. The problem with that is they ignore individual choice. Collectivism seeks to force people to be the same and make the same choices for some unrealistic utopia. That's why when someone says anarchy is the rejection of government and hierarchies I have to ponder if they really consider that makes anarchy impossible as nature itself and personal interactions are always hierarchical.
the weird thing is, when you actually read marx's and hegel's literature, they actually say this in their faces that people will , by the quirk of nature, environment, and heritage, be different.
Come back to this comment and read it again, seems like you forgot about your own logic for whatever reason.
Imagine that you could put a computer chip in your brain that gives everyone with the chip access to the sum total of human knowledge. You still wouldn't get rid of hierarchy because 1. People will still have different body types and genetics so the chip wouldn't, for example, get rid of people being better or worse at sports. People's natural intelligence, life experience, diligence, capacity for reflection, and belief systems make them better or worse at interpreting and applying the information they had, and the chip wouldn't change that.
If you could bio-engineer everyone into equality of body, and add the chip, and social engineer everyone into the same life experiences, congratulations, you just eliminated Diversity.
Nice pfp
They also seem to omit the fact that being equal can also be about jobs and occupations.
For example : i am not equal towards every pilot because i don't know how to fly a plane however we all deserve equal kindness (smth in that sense) or when talking about getting the same opportunity to be able to learn about a job or occupation (if you are interested in it ofcourse. Like you said individual choice).
Whenever someone says ''we are not equal'' they always go the direction of ''oh so you are saying those people are inferior?'' , ''so they don't deserve that?'' or they instantly assume you are talking about certain labeled group and call you rahcist or a bigot
They also expect woman to do certain jobs like plumbing and say like ''WE NEED more women in plumbing because its only men in there''
I'll be like: Are you gonna do plumbing then?
Are you willing to advertise plumbing towards women and make them more interested in it?
Or are you just forgetting that women do not gravitate towards jobs like plumbing? Because thats the reason its only men doing that (its the same with lots of other jobs).
“Or, in other words, a Fumarchy.”
I would not trust Marisa to get herself out of the forest without hurting someone
The moment you have scarcity, you have to manage it. The moment you have management, you have hierarchy
No way am I going with a magical witch to help children lost in the woods. Source: every children's fairy tale ever.
When they complain about the 1%, aren't they appealing to the hierarchy of needs? They shouldn't have all that extra money because they don't need it whereas other people could need the excess.
Bro explained Tocqueville with fumos. We’ve achieved peak internet
"...Utopian and unrealistic..." Funny way to say "dystopian and unrealistic"
Utopian as in naive
In fantasy you can have utopias. And would it be great if there was a society with no crime, where everyone has all the material posessions they desire, and everyone is similar enough to be friends?
@@baltulielkungsgunarsmiezis9714 would need a dystopia to pull it off.
@@sakikhakihaki1267 WE ARE TALKING ABOUT FANTASY. HERE YOU DONT NEED ANYTHING.
@@baltulielkungsgunarsmiezis9714 me too. There's no need to reply with all caps. Even in fantasy, you'd need a non-human population to pull it off. Even if all were similar enough to be friends, over time goals will drift apart and groups will form. So either the popation is non-human enough to prevent this, or it's human enough yet under a dystopia like I said.
Oh yeah! now you're speaking my language
FUMO FUMO FUMO FUMO FUMO FUMO FUMO FUMO FUMO FUMO FUMO FUMO FUMO FUMO FUMO
Rather than rejecting or accepting hierarchies and presuming them to be naturally evolved in the manner which they occur, one ought to recognize the flexibility and overlap of hierarchies as they occur in different segments of society and for different persons. One may be economically more secure (i.e. wealthier) than his neighbors, placing him as dominant in the economic sphere of things, but is also low on numbers (i.e. his neighbors outnumber him and are more capable of exerting effective social pressures, boycotts, etc.). This all comes down to balancing power dynamics/relationships between people, and one begins to do this by recognizing their own self-worth and standing. If one is uncomfortable with their standing amongst others in a particular segment of society, he may work to improve his standing and those around him to provide for more balance. Communal strategies are not the only means of achieving this, nor are individual means the sole source, but rather each situation may require a different action to balance out social standing amongst those in a group. Pluralism is key.
Thanks for making good content as usual mentis
It’s worth noting, it’s not just about the greater ability, it’s more so about the scarcity of an ability, in a position where there are a few factory owners, and thousands of workers, the owners are at an advantage, but if instead you had hundreds of factory owners, and only 10 workers who could each fully staff factory Then the workers would have a large advantage in negotiating. If there was only one of each, you could assume that they have equal bargaining power, and would need to reach a agreement that satisfies both of them.
The “few factory owners and lots of workers” world is the one we live in now and the only one that can actually exist (in a capitalist system at least).
Owners aren’t at an advantage because their “ability is scare” or some dumb shit, it’s because of the control they have and the power their wealth gives them.
Workers actually have the advantage if they are united in action because there are a lot more of them and the owner’s power doesn’t exist without the workers.
Factories can also exist without owners, but they can’t exist without workers.
There is a difference between authority and expertise.
the same people who hate hierarchies constantly tell you to "trust the experts".
Supposedly dislike hierarchies.
Does it follow that I reject all authority? Perish the thought. In the matter of boots, I defer to the authority of the bootmaker; concerning houses, canals, or railroads, I consult the architect or the engineer For such special knowledge I apply to such a "savant." But I allow neither the bootmaker nor the architect nor the "savant" to impose his authority on me. I listen to them freely and with all the respect merited by their intelligence, their character, their knowledge, reserving always my incontestable right of criticism and censure. I do not content myself with consulting a single authority in any special branch; I consult several; I compare their opinions and choose that which seems to me soundest. But I recognize no infallible authority, even m special questions; consequently, whatever respect I may have for the honesty and the sincerity of an individual, I have no absolute faith in any person. Such a faith would be fatal to my reason, to my liberty, and even to the success of my undertakings; it would immediately transform me into a stupid slave, the tool of other people's will and interests.
Mikhail Bakunin
The argument against hierarchies would make sense in a legalistic sense where rank 1 is allowed to aggress on rank 2. But most ancoms seem to think mutually profitable exchanges are aggression by one of the parties, rendering their arguments flawed.
define "mutually profitable exchanges"
@@colorpg152 both parties profit i.e. satisfy unease from the exchange i.e. a mutual title transfer
@@thefrenchareharlequins2743 if a king who owns all of the world offers you to become a slave to him in exchange for food and you will otherwise starve because he own all of the food and will only ever give people enough to survive is that a "mutually profitable exchanges"?
@@colorpg152 Yes - I acquire food on the condition that I perform labour for him
@@thefrenchareharlequins2743 oh so you are fine with king communism's mutually profitable exchanges?
*earth the only planet known to have life
The rest of the universe:
Youn have Earth privilege
As a brocialist I agree 100% with this video. I get called a misogynist and not a real socialist because I think we can never get rid of hierarchies, but we still should take care of people especially men at the bottom of society. We also need to have ways to prevent inequality from getting so bad it collapses a nation, or results in mass traitorship because people only see the elites being served by government and not them.
I agree with your sentiment but I don’t have to agree with your prescriptions (being some kind of socialist). We ought to have social and economic mobility, as it’s a great indicator of a nations health and prosperity but that itself doesn’t necessitate nor should it require a government to fulfil that function, in fact, it (the policies put in place) often stifles economic mobility between the classes.
For example, you as an individual will likely never be able to start a successful business because there’s a bunch of legal and financial barriers put in place by bigger corporate lobbyists using the gov/state as an unfair referee, keeping you from engaging in economic mobility. A kind of pulling the ladder up, so to speak. Monopolies have only ever emerged artificially (there has never been a natural monopoly) through the use of government. The state is the problem, it can never be the solution.
@@rhett3185Well what you provide as facts, are heavily loaded with values. All corporations that now lobby the government, were once competitors in the free market, and once they were victorious enough, they started to "break the ladders under themselves" to prevent any other company from becoming a threat and threatening their newly acquired place of power. It is not one-sided case, where some mustache-twirling government official decides that "Ooh, I shall pick that, that and that company to provide assistance" but it is a mutual cooperation between the company and the government, which starts from the company becoming a funder of one of the major parties or other kind of political factions, to get the faction depended on them.
Even if Marxists are wrong on some things, one thing Lenin got right: State is a tool for any side to use. The one who uses the state, changes the whole game.
They do not desire to abolish rather invert, all under the guise of progressive humanitarianism which itself is anti-natal and human in practice.
Just look at Western population birthrates from the 1920s to present day.
They don't want to invert; they want to bisect the top off so that nobody else is above them despite their value to society remaining unchanged.
Nice to see someone who say agreeable things for once
Just like in real life, the police man is there to enforce the wishes of the magical little girl. Just like in real life, your best choice is to strike out on your own.
This comment section is a hierarchy
Bb but you didn’t debunk my theory and the world I think would happen in abolition of hierarchy
You put it excellently. Even if everyone got to vote with equal say in every single issue somehow, you would *still* have a hierarchy of plurality. Whatever groups have the most people would have the most power. Now what about the minorities eh? Like gee, it’s almost as if people have thought and fought over this for millennia already, and we are lucky to live in a society where minorities get to live their lives pretty much as freely as you could ever hope. Hierarchy of plurality and of strength so not work so well at generating productive societies, so instead we orient our society, at least sort of, around hierarchy of merit. Turns out that is best for everyone, including minorities
"if you want to get back i'm gonna need some shrine donations" -reimu
The fact that what they really want is to invert the hierarchy and place themselves at the top (as some users state) is exactly what Kijin Seija attempted to do. They even manipulate the idealistic (like poor Sukuna) to do it.
If the most clueless and incompetant are at the top of government the country will be full of corruption and people good and bad bypass and ignore the governmentent wherever possible to make their own live barable.
My brain is a hierarchy.
This seems too vague. Like, sure, people are separated by their natural ability in different subjects, I don't think anybody is denying that, but the hierarchies people are talking about are ones that are separative in a random way rather than by ability. Take, for example, the Hindu caste system, which is completely random and gives people at the top a better life and oppourtunity than those at the bottom. Another problem is that people born low in the economic hierarchy don't *naturally* bubble towards the top, as you still actually need a place to apply your intelligence, which isn't always available to people. Take a person who, without interference, could go on to progress humanity, but instead has to spend a majority of their time working a low-paying hourly job wasting their life away.
or likewise a trust fund child, who as he has gotten older (and gone through the right/elite schools) landed himself a comfy job at a friends dads workplace despite being incompetent. One of the issues I have with many capitalist economic models is that they fail to properly account for generational wealth/power and the advantage that gives individuals in hierarchy, even if competing with someone far more competent than them. Not to say this is only something associated with capitalism, most ideologies when put into practice have to deal with the hard truth that it is human nature to look out and care for your family. But it seems odd to be logically aware of hierarchy being natural and thus applying said truth to your economic theory and at the same time not take into account natural external factors that affect it.
@@tobystime5806congratulations, you just described the champagne socialist to a T.
In a capitalist country, an incompetent worker will create tensions in the workplace. These tensions may get to the point of other workers leaving the incompetent one behind, which means less production and profits... or the job is simply good enough for them to not bother. If that's the case, the more competent candidate simply has more options available to him, because he is, well, more competent. This doesn't work IRL for many reasons (Clown World economic policies and cultural tendencies, but that's another subject), but it is close to working like this in developed capitalist countries, specially because they have better social and economic mobilities.
And, as the other commentator said, you've just described the Carl the midwit, a privileged kid that proclaims to be a socialist lol.
He addresses it reasonably enough- there will always be gaps when we're used to egalitarianism with rejection of other ideals. In the modern, westernized world, we are trained to question hierarchy, but it historically served functional roles, even in classically rigid hierarchies. This is actually illustrated by the Hindu caste system, which is seen as rigid and oppressive but historically served a role adapted to the Indian Subcontinent, not just Hinduism. This is not to defend its many obsolete and oppressive characteristics, but the fact is that systems that don't work in SOME way to benefit the entire entity are selected out overtime.
The Hindu caste system is not random or arbitrary. Caste is tribal and reflects a society in which there was immense diversity and in which firm political power structures never existed. India was continuously invaded overtime, and it had its own internal diversity of tribes and settled groups. The groups that could make themselves most prosperous given a set of political and economic conditions at a time would rise or be on the top end. It's commonly denied or ignored today, but many groups rose and fell throughout Indian history as a result of wars, regime shifts, and even religious movements, which opened/revealed niches that needed filling and increased demand for some jobs over others. There is a bias to see history through the view of the topmost caste, the Brahmins, but the only reason why Brahmins seem to have been on top throughout history is because A) they wrote down scriptures that placed themselves at the top and B) they appealed to a consistently in-demand need throughout history, namely religion. In reality, the scriptures, despite being treated valuable as sources of historical and sociological information, merely reflect a narrow view into Indian history and society, moreover, one strongly colored by Brahmin biases.
The Hindu caste system is misunderstood, as is the functional use of hierarchy. The prizing of egalitarianism and fraternity is relevant today. But they color and limit our analysis of non-western and historical societies.
Mentis, have you been keeping an eye on the Keffals/Kiwi Farms saga? Btw, love the Touhou references.
I'm aware of the Drama, but I don't really go to Kiwifarms because I am more interested in philosophy and economics and not so much the constant LOLDRAMA type of content that community seems to enjoy. However I do find it fairly cringe that the woke cancel mob went after an entire website and seems to have gotten away with it purely because of having correct™ opinions™.
Masterful use of fumos.
Obviously the problem arises when the teleporter also wants to dictate how to manage the fauna or bake lovely pies. Of course, the ranger and the sweet old lady (who is an excellent cook) are better in their respective fields.
So there are multiple hierarchies.
And what happens when multiple hierarchies come into conflict?
As the video says, there will be people best suited for any GIVEN purpose. But who gives the general purpose of a whole large group of people? What to do when purposes clash?
That is what the art of politics is about. Politics is about arranging life together, and to pretend that there is a given purpose that some technical expert/powerful person is better suited at than you is just a lie.
The only purpose of politics is to make us survive together as well as possible. And since we are all equally living human beings that want to live well, we are all equal under the domain of politics (even if we are unequal in the art of saving lost children).
They generally get very mad when I point that their "perfect utopian equality" is ruint as soon as someone makes a friend.
I’ve read enough Animal Farm to know whats gonna happen
Fumos are objectively the better option.
Yes.
When you first asked to chose who the kids meet, my first thought was "forest ranger". It somehow didn't occur to me that they might be helped by magical anime plushie girl.
The only ones that don't like hierarchies are the ones nearest the bottom.
I can image that what some people might mean when they say we should remove hierarchies is that we shouldn't let incompetent people get to the top
I feel like the solution is rather than abolish the hierarchy it’s just to elevate the lowest part of the system to where the people at the bottom have a decent standard of living, then there is still incentive but also equality, as everyone will have access to everything they need to meet their basic needs
Lore of Muh Hierarchies momentum 100
Ancom: "Ancap is wrong because they are not against hierarchies".
Also Ancom: never explain how their system get rid of hierarchies
“Never explain how their system gets rid of hierarchy”
Kropotkin wrote a whole book on that.
"Kropotkin wrote a whole book on that."@@Anarchistnoa
So how he propose to do that?
@@arofhoof Nobody will dominate each other, if someone tries to reinstate hierarchy and exert control, than the ancom society will defend itself.
"Nobody will dominate each other, if someone tries to reinstate hierarchy and exert control, than the ancom society will defend itself."@@Anarchistnoa
How such society allocate resources without hierarchy?
@@arofhoof Mutual Aid :D
Good stuff, but I can already see the YT algorithm suppressing this guy. Been stuck in bread tube algorithmic hell for a while, so while I'm sure I'll disagree on some important issues, it's refreshing to hear a different take.
I’m only Fumo after all….
Find yourself in the great chain of being 😀
*The TL;DW version of this video*
1.) Hierarchies are bound to form to form due to the nature of how power works in human society, even if the goal is create a no-hierarchy society. Trying to abolish them is like trying to abolish the a scientific law or mathematical equation.
2.) A democracy is still a hierarchy, albeit an upside one where the majority make decisions that the minority have to follow, also called Mob Rule.
3.) Attempts to get rid of hierarchies have ironically resulted in the worst type of hierarchy imaginable, where you have a super-class of totalitarian elites wielding armed forced and propaganda to keep their powerless citizens in check, where the citizens are literally threatened with punishment if they try to leave or change the hierarchy.
4.) While you can't get rid of hierarchies, you can mitigate their negative effects and prop up their positive effects. That's right, hierarchies can actually have positive effects, they can motivate people to strive for greater heights and allow people who have the character to make decisions that most other people simply do not have the character to do so.
What I got out of this is that ice fairies are extremely stupid and obnoxious.
FUMO!
*insert pogging soyjak*
Please could you dunk on Ben Burgis? He calls everything which refutes his ultra leftism "a right wing thought experiment".
C'mon, you and I know perfectly well that the ⑨ is the pinnacle of hierarchy. : }
Good hiarchies are good, bad hiarchies are bad. The wise thing to do is to make sure the best people are at the top and the worst people are not.
Be wary of anyone advocating "equality" as it indicates that, at best, they've never given much thought to what they believe, or at worst, they're actually the kind of totalitarian psycho who believes equality is a good thing.
Equitable (fair and impartial) treatment is what we should strive for... and that's equity in the actual meaning of the word; not the "equal outcomes" meaning, which is such an Orwellian distortion of the actual meaning of equity that it's rendered the word radioactive.
Still going through the video but from my days when I dabbled in leftism the view of the (non-retarded) anarchists was to abolish “unjust” hierarchies acknowledging that many just hierarchies exist. Definition of unjust is very subjective but the point I’m trying to make is this video seems to be attacking more of a straw man of anarchism than anarchism itself (though it does suffer from much of the same flaws)
It is attacking a strawman of what anarchists advocate for
@@lolnyanterts Anarchists when theyre ideology inevitibly leads to a monarchy being established.
3:12
Isn't that what they claim for LGB, Too though that since homosemxcialilty is found in animals that it is perfectly fine to have in human --society-- rights?
make sure to youse a ratial exampl insted of a helper to children lost in a fortres
True, but you can eliminate SOME hierarchies. You can get rid of hierarchy of authority, or flatten it and distribute it, that's ancap. You can cut all the straws to be the same length. You just can't get rid of all hierarchies.
Very cool
would not trust Marisa with anything
Hierarchy is good
Even if you don't like Shapiro it is true that facts don't care about yout feelings
i like hierarchies. The problem is when people are prevented from moving between levels because of their skin color or because big corporations lobbied big barriers to competition to prevent people from moving up. (I'm sure you'd agree with me)
Everyone has a weakness and a strength
someone can be bad at coding but good at making music
The issue isn't hierarchies. We don't need to accept them or denounce them. This is not something we should concern ourselves with.
So long as there is no authoritarianism, so long as those engaged in the hierarchy have their natural rights intact and engage with said hierarchies as willing participants then there is no issue. The same is true if they wish to form a collective, so long as every member is willing there is no issue.
The whole argument is two bean-counters arguing how best to count spherical chickens in a vacuum and then thinking this means something to humanity. It does not. To even assume you can try and engineer society to have this or that hierarchy is the ultimate form of hubris and anti-humanism and reeks of the odious concept that is "central planning." As if humans are cogs in a machine all serving a function, instead of individuals for whom the machine was invented to benefit.
can you go over right wing critiques of capitalism?
Also may I ask, which Touhou character is your favorite?
th-cam.com/users/shorts7TIJFY0LWv8
Park Ranger is the best. He’s trustworthy unlike a cringe anime witch who will hansel and gretel them.
Not all ways to make money are good for society. One of my countries cities, Rēzekne, has been bankrupted by the corrupt, propably russijan, mayork hiring a company owned by his extended family to build a stadium nobody asked for. You should learn more about game theory, especially how there are different incentives for different players. The fact that dishonor and corruptiuon screws the whole, doesnt mean individuals wont try to be parrasides hoping everyone else will do their share.
Corruption in government is most obvious, but dont go thinking companies are benevolent, they are just as suseptable to dishonor.
The example of people voting that 1+1=9 is not a criticism of 'tyranny of the majority'. If we had the reverse where society was an extreme hierarchy then the person at the top could still decide 1+1=9 and nothing could be done. By not pointing this I out I think you've just argued against democracy as a system because the majority being in charge is not inherently bad.
1 рік тому ,( до речі цей коментар був написаний 17.05.2024 о 13:59 )
its sad you even needed to make this vid.
Uuuh you know that most anarcho-communists (or at least all I have had interactions with) oppose majority rule, right? In our assemblies it was always either everyone agrees, or no decision is taken.
My critique of this concept, formed by actual experience engaging with it for 10 years and not just some polemic half-knowledge of it, is that people would have to recognise the authority of these assemblies in order for them to have any impact on society whatsoever. Who enforces this authority and how?
Look I'm not trying to be mean. I started watching your videos because I actually agree on some of your criticisms of the left. For example when leftists claim that libertarians are nazis or vice versa. But if you criticize the left for their incapability to really try and understand what ideologies different from their own propose in the way that you do, please return the favour. Because thinking that anarchists want majority rule is honestly quite an embarassing mistake ngl.
No offense, but that sounds even dumber than majority rule. How will anything ever get done if every person has veto power over the entire assembly? Maybe in like, groups of less than one-hundred people that can work. But it is in no way applicable to the scale of modern society
Refers to shit like “natural law” for property rights and then immediately in the next sentence proclaims that equality cannot be magically good.
Your whole argument seems to be based on “It can’t be done so you’re wrong.” Even though plenty of hierarchies have been abolished in the past.
“It’s only natural that there be kings, lords, and serfs. Any dissent to this idea is utopian. You are using a moralistic fallacy when you claim that abolishing noble titles is good.”
And no serious person thinks you can or should abolish literally all hierarchy. “You think noble titles and privileges are bad? Have you considered that it is INEVITABLE for some people to be faster runners than others?”
It’s like saying it’s useless to want to minimize the amount of people who die in earthquakes because earthquakes are inevitable. Of course earthquakes are gonna happen, but we can do things to minimize their effect.
He also attacks direct democracy as if that’s what anarchists advocate for (it’s not)
FUMO FUMO FUMO FUMO
Mentis whats your stance on abortion
Isn't Anarcho-Communism is a tautology? What the hell is the difference between Communism and Anarcho-Communism?
I think "Anarcho"-communism wants to create communism over night while socialism wants to progress to it in a certain time span. That's why "Anarcho"-communism is incopatible with Marx's opinions on communism. I dare say it's worse than socialism cause socialists at least acknowledge that their ideology inherently needs an authoritarian state to function, as Marx understood it - capitalism creates wealth, authoritarian government redestributes said wealth, government withers away, communist utopia ensues.
Basically the goal is the same - communism, but the means to get there are different, socialists want to do it through strong state that eventually withers away into communism, while "Anarcho"-communists want to accelerate the process and jump straight into communism.
How they wanna do it? Usually they say they want to get rid of the government and create some kind of a group of people that will redestribute everything. And no that's not government because uhhh, cause because.
I really have to say , these videos aren’t much better than Ben Shapiro videos. You make a caricature of the views of the other side then fight that caricature. I don’t think there’s ANYONE who would refute the hierarchy (grandma, ranger, witch) at the start of the video. Even analogies need to have similarities with what they describe. So the hierarchy in your analogy needs to criticizable(defensible).
Secondly you don’t give any concrete example of someone from the opposite side who believes in what you’re criticizing, you just assume they exist and move on .
I need to see a real person with some level of credibility and influence (not some nobody on twitter)from the other side who believes the caricature you painted . Without it your video is meaningless.
Don't they also rationalize homosexuality by pointing to it occurring "in nature"? Hmm! 🤔
Anti-Hierarchy doesn’t mean nobody is better than anyone at anything, hierarchy refers to systems of domination and coercion, such as, capitalism, statism, and patriarchy.
Anarchists want to establish a horizontal power structure, yes people will still have different skills and knowledge on differing things, but nobody forcefully dominates, or coerces anyone else, society works on equal cooperation, trust and mutual respect, and yes society will still work, if you build a home for someone you will gain respect within the community, and receive things from it back.
Also anarchists do not support “democratic” systems of coercion and domination like you assume, we support consensus democracy, and for things such as building a new subway line or a new building, anarchist communes wouldn’t “ban” weed or anything of that sort.
Also for the two people deciding they own the shrine, this straight up would not happen, again it would be based on voluntary mutual aid and consensus democracy, not on everyone forcefully taking personal property from each other involuntarily.
What this video is a bad faith, low quality and ultimately bad video based on straw-man arguments, bad definitions and fake examples, with a bunch of fake wojak drawings to make people who disagree with you and your false interpretation of anarchism look bad and ugly.
The issue isn’t hierarchies themselves - which as you say, are inescapable - but with what the hierarchies are based on.
If the hierarchies are oriented towards competence, then no problem. But it’s hard to be competent, and trivially easy to be part of some broad class. So the grifters of the world will always be attempting to get the hierarchies redrawn along class lines.
Now a leftist will tell you that the grifters have already succeeded and have drawn up the hierarchies in favor of white men.
I respect the impulse to be examining the hierarchies for distortions, but the solution - to the extent there even is a problem - isn’t more class grifting. It’s equality under the law and a free market.
Sorry, equality under the law is useless if there are individuals with millions of times more power than you because they have a networth of 200 billion and you were born to a poor family in Mississippi.
Hierarchy is intrinsic to and a fundamental component of the Universe and Reality. It is expressed in the hierarchy of planetary bodies (stars orbit supermassive black holes to produce galaxies, planets/comets/asteroids/meteors orbit stars to produce solar systems, and moons orbit planets to produce a local planetary system).
In Biological Life, there is the simplest of hierarchies universal to all life forms, being the Living Who Have Not Yet Successfully Reproduced, The Living Who Have Successfully Reproduced above them in the hierarchy, the Dead Who Reproduced and Have Living Descendants below them in the hierarchy, and the Dead Who Failed to Reproduce at the bottom of the hierarchy.
That isn't even addressing social hierarchies found in most species of animals, particularly higher mammals including canines (wolf packs), various apes (harems), and dolphins (pods).
As Thomas Sowell said in his famous speech on Cosmic Justice [paraphrased], "What I call Cosmic Justice has been called by some people "Social Justice". But I think they're unduly modest.
Because they're trying to correct not only the Inequities they see in society; they're trying to correct the oversights of God, or the defects of the cosmos."
And hierarchy is one of those concepts which they treat as a flaw and not a feature of Reality.
Hierarchies are good, but should be reconstructed to a more rational structure
Most people who oppose "hierarchy" as such don't actually oppose all hierarchies as they appear in nature etc. At least anarchists believe in opposition to hierarchical power structures, which are hierarchies which involve some form of coercion, or oppression of those lower down as such.
Hierarchies will... mostly always exist. Hierarchical power structures are those which are unnatural and have only existed in very recent times. They do not exist in nature.
As long as power is bottom up, and there is consent among the governed, then there is no reason why a hierarchy cannot exist.
Most of this video is a strawman as such. Not deliberately, but just because Mentis doesn't understand the point entirely.
Yup.
Uses a scenario where people are stuck in unfamiliar lands with people who have expertise to “debunk” anti hierarchies. Reminds me of when people debate vegans and say “but what if you were stuck on a stranded island”.
Attacks direct democracy as if that’s what anarchists advocate for (it’s not.)
Attacks people who claim many hierarchies are social constructs and should be abolished.
@@kacperfrontczak1257 when did I say that?
what to do when someone is at the bottom of every relevant hierarchy, and doesn't provide any value to anyone, not through his own fault. He can't help what he is.
That’s a good question. What IS a man under 30 supposed to do with himself?
Why are American Touhou fans always based?
Remember when you mocked Adam Something for his example of a man controlling access to resources and extorting the shipwrecked guy? Now you're using a non-example to try and water down the definition of hierarchy to include anyone more qualified given consent to lead children to safety. And your ice fairy example is even worse. Consensus mechanisms ensure that an agreement can be mediated between dissenting parties so that there isn't just one decision, and it's not one or another.
The example can be used on many things, it's not a non-example as you say because it actually maps onto reality. For example gender; males have for all history been dominant, and females have always been subserviant, this is because males have the physical strength to inforce laws; so trying to acheive equality won't work and the only way to acheive it would be trying to make males more weak.
And striking a compromise between every single faction in a democracy wouldn't work, because think if 99,9% agree on that there should be no tariffs and 0,1% disagree, then if you make an agreement that only 0,1% of the tariffs should be implomented then the 99,9% still has the advantage and has basically gotten what it wanted (i.e. hiearchy), and if 50% of the tariffs get inplomented then wouldn't that be totally unfair?
@elliotbacklund8529 any cooperative society would either come to a compromise, leave out the dissenting parties if possible, or abstain but allow the motion to pass out of respect for the benefit of the cooperative as a whole. But the very nature of a horizontal organisation is that it systemically ensures no one can accumulate power over another, which tariffs as a restriction of power and resources through the middleman medium of currency, is a tool of hierarchical power. There's no tax on acquiring goods from abroad when the trading polities are cooperatives evaluating exchange based on needs being fulfilled as a priority. Qualified individuals may be voted to a temporary delegation of authority, but that is to grant more access to a greater number of people the ability to influence decisions in a chosen field because these roles are fluid and democratically decided based on who is affected, which as mentioned also includes minority voices to amend motions that affect them.
Собственно, все аргументы в видео заканчиваются на том, что определение иерархии у анархистов не сходится с определением в видео. анархизм строится на неприятии НАСИЛЬНО навязываемой власти сверху вниз и в видео создали соломенное чучело, дескать анархисты хотят всех вообще во всём уравнять, хотя это не так. Отказ от иерархии в теории анархизма означает отказ от организационной иерархии, а не от иерархии вообще во всех её проявлениях; Но это не значит, что не может быть авторитетов заслуживших доверие коллектива, которые будучи грамотными в той или иной сфере, являются лидерами мнений и способны убедить в рациональности предложенных ими действий и им не надо никого к чему-то принуждать. Потому даже пример в начале видео с колдуньей, сотрудником заповедника и бабушкой абсолютно не корректен и никак не опровергает реализуемость отказа от иерархии в теории анархизма.
What organisation would be able to enforce this democratic system in every company other than a massive government? Saying that a massive government isn't needed would be saying that democracy arrises naturally which it does not, rather the strong rise to the top and lead with force, the same way that the manager of a company rises to the top and leads the company with force.
Please explain to me why using force to remain in power is bad, and it the answer is that it is unfair then tell me why unfair treatment in this situation is unethical.
And you very well know that democracy doesn't work, this is because the average human is dumb and they get subverted. Some truths are just too complicated for an average human to understand and therefore they just choose an easy answer. Think, why is the military structured as it is?
Ok, great. Now can we make it as easy as possible to go up the social ladder by implementing policies such as free education, free healthcare, social security, etc?
free lol
you mean subsidized?
no thanks, have you seen the people that are eager to educate the children these days? how did you think we ended up with these pinko retards in the first place?
@@klontjespap "pinko"
Ha!
I have not heard that in ages...
It’s “free” intil you see everyone gets equally garbage health care, and you are still paying for it with higher taxes
Mentis, can you criticize Laura Flanders
That’s not hierarchy. Not in any way at all. Hierarchy involves force and coercion. If the park ranger was ordering the old lady around or making the kids manufacture shoes, that would be hierarchy.
@@kacperfrontczak1257 You need to be less sloppy with concepts. Be precise. A hierarchy isn’t some general term for “one thing is better than another”. “Status and authority” imply that there is a subordinate/authority relationship. In other words two must know each other and they must have an understanding in which the subordinate one in some way is subject to the will of the dominant one.
@@kashphlinktu How is the old lady manufacturing shoes for money forcefull? And if it is then why is it bad? And if the answer is that it is unfair then why is being unfair in this situation bad?
I can't help but note the irony of this video.
For a youtuber standardly known for preaching Libertarianism actually acknowledges why it doesn't work.
The need for Authority REQUIRES somebody rules over you and I could have sworn Libertarianism is the freedom of that Authority and only self-authority. 😂
Right libertarians are always only a few steps away from discovering they are actually just fascist Social Darwinists.
shoutout *lucas werner* u weird af my man
just read lord of the flies. problem solved.
Fumo
There is a reason why hierarchy-based societies have worked for so long and not communist ones
All communism does is destroys the middle class and force everyone to completely rely on a dictator government
Anime is cringe
🤓
@@greekifreekifan870 He's not wrong
Correct.
sneed
yes
I have issues with how Petersons of the world represent hierarchies not with hierarchies themselves because Petersons of the world are simpletons with no ability to hold more than one variable in their mind.
are you aware of Turd Flinging Monkey?