My grandfather was an anarchist in the spanish civil war. He was a poor farmer and in the thirties found a group of like minded individuals that was based on mutual aid. That's how he learned how to read, got essential resources and picked up boxing. When war broke out he was captured in combat and became a POW, where he met my grandma. Cool guy pt. 2 in the comments
There are probably plenty, but the algorithms push shorts from tiktok & whatever else is the flavor of the moment instead of content that might actually improve the world
@@Bleilock1 word, I'm not saying they were wrong, just there is a ton of good anarchist content & analysis on here now, when it used to essentially just be submedia or bust
Beau of the Fifth Column is ancom and he's got a huge following When he's not covering current topics, he's often literally teaching things Kropotkin advocated for :D
It is so sad to me how much anxiety I and many people feel at the idea of "not knowing what to do" in an anarchic system. We are trained to look to an authority for guidance and permission before acting. The idea of a group of people going to fix a sewer without permission or central planning blew my mind. I am a teacher and in my classroom I have seen my students follow their impulses to solve problems. I hate how many times a day I stop students from doing so. I even stop them from helping each other. I have so much pressure to fit all that they need to learn into the school day and I don't have time for five kids to all dive to collect one student's fallen papers. But it's awful. I ask myself "how would the people in an anarchic society know what to do each day and what needs to get done?" But I know even within myself that I feel impulses to do things a certain way, like organize my class a certain way, but I'm constantly looking over my shoulder, checking in with my superiors, making sure I'm doing it the Right Way. I have lost the ability to trust my own judgement and I fear that my job is only to perpetuate the cycle to the next generation.
Worse yet, many treat the absence of permission from authority or central planning as the absence of organisation or planning in general. They treat hierarchy as synonymous with society. It's unfortunate, and your observation of your role as a teacher under the current system rings true, but there's a vibrant history of anarchism and education that I intend to explore soon. Stay tuned!
If we're just talking about what people would do in a civil engineering sense, there could be some natural turnover process like for most production work. Even if people are discouraged from forming a chain of command, there would at least have to be some sort of tracking for what work was or wasn't done to avoid duplicate or needlessly destructive work. Someone could literally compile a list of what was done and hand that over to whoever comes by next. Intuitive problem solving on your own will always be a thing unless you just need someone to hold your hand through a job due to a lack of competency in that specific job, but it wouldn't be that safe for people to just walk up out of nowhere and just start doing maintenance on something like a plane or train with no relevant context 100% of the time. Most workers, from what I've noticed, are capable of huddling together and deciding who can take care of what, but there's also less that could possibly lost in translation in terms of what does or doesn't actually need to be done when at least one person is specifically tasked to gather that information so that it can be dispersed the same way it was received. If I use my PTO to come in later for a work day, it's much more effective for me to just ask the floor lead what the status of the shop is instead of talking to 5 different people all focused on their specific task. That floor lead could still be out on the floor working as well if we absolutely can't have a leader of any sort, but I'm naturally going to go to them first since they will objectively know more than me in that moment about what tasks they were left with as the person with the role of information gathering that day. Some people may not even want that role as well. I personally know that all I feel like doing at work is my job and clocking out at the end of the day. I'll gladly stand aside and wait for whatever the group feels like doing because I'm virtually on autopilot when I show up to work.
@@normandy2501 A floor lead doesn't need to have authority in order to keep track of what's going on. A group of people can recognize "Oh, Jim always seems to know what everyone is doing, hey thanks Jim". And Jim can be like "Yeah, I can do a better job of that if you want; come tell me when you start a task, and I won't have to run around as much." Honestly I think anarchy is already in use way more than people seem to think. What work people do at their jobs is a blend between what they're ordered to do, and the things they alone recognize need done and then put in the effort to make happen. At my workplace at least there's plenty of spontaneous stuff-doing followed by "oh hey, thanks for doing that, it made a big difference". Businesses seek out employees who can set their own goals and take initiative on stuff ("spearhead"). The main non-anarchic thing is that of course, the benefits of this work are distributed by those in charge. But even then -- not all businesses run on tightly controlled, top-down budgets as we seem to imagine. Small businesses are improvisational. Also, there are people who go around voluntarily repairing public drinking fountains or even highway signs. But that kind of anarchy is not common.
@@normandy2501 Having a central contact for floor related info is just delegation, it doesn't become hierarchist until that floor lead gets followers, bigger awards, and a bigger vote on who should have his role. A delegate that can be easily replaced is anarchist, a delegate that cannot be easily replaced is hierarchist.
That's the crux of it. We _evolved_ to collaborate and work together, the instincts your children show are integral to our humanity. Yet they are instincts that the owning class needs trained out of people, if they are to continue to rule. We are all far more brainwashed and indoctrinated into dependence on authorities than we think, and it has beggared both our imaginations, and our collective confidence in our own skills and problem-solving capacities.
Holy Hell, here I was thinking that I'm not political, turns out pop-culture depictions of anarchism made me misunderstand the concept so badly I never looked closer into it, and thus didn't have the right framework to express my political beliefs. Thank you for giving me that Framework
Isn't it crazy how misinformative, impersonal media limits our thoughts? When we're told something, it's easy to take at face value until we're confronted with a contradiction. Something which informs a lot of my current beliefs is that I always strive to learn about a group from those that belong to it. Even if a group is not the most _reliable_ source of information on themselves, there is innate value in firsthand accounts. When a person speaks from the heart, they undoubtedly mean what they're saying, and they tend to come from a pretty well informed position!
This is very similar to how I feel. I didn’t relate to anyone around me whenever “political discussions” came up. Very glad to have found my way in this realm of ideas. Glad for you as well!
hell, i've been a socialist for a long time now & while i superficially loved my anarchist allies, i believed they were to politics as satanists are to religion: mostly focused on themselves or being (said lovingly) edge lords who also are super direct-action oriented with community gardens/support. for whatever reason, i finally did a deep dive the past two weeks & didn't realize how closely they were related. i was already decidedly not MLM, & seems i fall a lot more in love with anarcho-syndicalism; but knowing both socialist & anarchists have socialism as the end goal, im all for it - i also like the anarchic feelings towards hierarchies & focus on being anti-state. can't believe it took this long for me, but here we are.
@@Andrewism A world without rule is at risk of self-destruction.... if there is no one to enforce any rule, then what stops one individual from commiting an atrocity against orders..... Freedom does not guarantee peace and peace does not guarantee freedom... So anarchy needs a compromise.... but this compromise comes at the cost of anarchy loosing its meaning and purpose.... What most of us consider Anarchy to be can only exist in an ideal world were everybody can tolerate and trust each other.... realism always kicks in in the end and people fall back to archy.....
@@thequarter2That was always the case. What stops those at the top from commiting any atrocity? Nothing, it's worse now even given the amount of power a single individual can hold and the caste systems isolating them from others.
Hey @@Andrewism ever heard of commonism(with o not u)... ... Here are some sources to start: Capital redefined A commonist value theory for liberating life. Commonist tendencies Mutual aid beyond communism. Commonism A new astetics of the real.
Me: "I dunno about this whole 'Anarchy' business." 10 minutes later: "Wait... wait-wait-wait... there is a distinction between 'Issuing Orders' and 'Giving Instructions'?" Mind = Blown!!
Anarchy is a wonderful idea, yet has a quite a few hardcore weaknesses! These ones do need some consideration before it can ever have a kind of success, I fear. 1. Anarchists I met had often the most judgemental attitudes towards others, 'be part of the culture of be out' and no sense of humour. For me goes: If I can't play in it, I don't want to be part of the revolution. ;) 2.Freedom from state influence is often abused by big corporations or gangs. There's always people who'll consciously try the abuse the system and will exploit weaknesses. 3. This is a sad one, masculinity. The philosophy is too much a mental developed ideology that will only work when we all play along. Get it, anarchy demands playing along to work. Maybe not with authorities, but with the model, and everyone feeling able to judge others for breaking some rule. I support collaborative anarchy, or even better collaborative forms of regenerative design, as part of looking for a more human organic way to how people already love to organise and according to what nature needs. For if we fail to restore nature, or make space for it, all human squabble about how we should organise is a distraction, unless it seeks to help. For this is the one big indicator: are you seeking to help the bigger whole with your actions? And yes, democracy is sick and barbaric. It's ritual tribal warfare, with a lot of cheats. Yet how to grow above and beyond? Anarchy? For there is one last huge obstacle: convenience. A supermarket offers convenience. Run my own gardens, fruit orchard and have weekly meetings to make it work is just way too much fuzz. Nobody wants fuzz, and most are also caught in the abusive lie, that we don't have time for this, especially those caught in bullshit jobs. And at the same time, I love this channel, and its search for answers to huge social questions.
Anarchy is so misunderstood, even by those on the left. We need more accessible videos like this to help people understand what anarchy really means (hint: it's not chaos) and what it can look like. Thank you for your valuable work!
@@treboleekem499 Anarchy is only a left wing idea. Anarchy means, simply, no rulers. Under "Anarcho-Capitalism" CEO's and the wealthy are the rulers, therefore it is not an anarchist ideology. They merely adopt the aesthetics of Anarchy as an attempt to cheapen true Anarchism, in much the same way as Libertarianism was stolen from the Left by American right wingers.
@@RD-oj4jw I think it depends on your definition of left and right but I will say neither. I see anarchism as without government but it also doesn’t endorse a specific economic ideology. So like hypothetically if people chose for a more capitalist based economic system that would be fine. Or a socialist one is fine too. As long as the people can choose it. Like localized communities with their own sets of economic experimentation. To be super clear I came to anarchist by my own but when I got into it I was introduced to the “anarcho-capitalist” side of it. So my background was different. I cant stand ancaps tho because they have no motive to try to come to a general understanding with the left wing anarchists. And to be fair the left wing ones can be aholes too. But yeah basically anarchism is neither.
with the sheer amount of (quality) content focused primarily or entirely on what is _wrong_ (which is necessary information, if a bit depressing) it is refreshing to take an hour out to consider what would be _right._ i struggle to find good content that gives me what to chew on in terms of building the world i want to see, and i very much appreciate the time, energy, and heart you put in to these pieces.
As a burnt-out, tired audhd person, I appreciate so much that you are breaking down these concepts for us in a clear, concise way, with further readings suggested. I can’t do all the reading and studying that I wish right now, but these videos still help me learn and keep me in touch with my interests. The concepts in anarchy make me feel more human and more hopeful than anything else I’ve experienced and I appreciate that you make this videos, I can access different affirming ideas in a way that works for my disabilities
As another burnt-out, tired audhd person, I can really relate to that whole not reading as much as I want to and having to watch videos like these. I used to read audiobooks while doing other stuff but now I do nothing. It really does feel like the hierarchies of today are the only reason we are disordered (Which is a word I like because it's sort of like we oppose the current order) and our conflicts with society's mold are the symptoms, so anarchy gives me a lot of hope too. I hope we both find ways to cope and liberate ourselves even if there is no revolution in our time.
Hope you all feel better. Remember, it’s not the ADHD that slows you down. It’s the burn out. I tell ADHD people all the time- you can read and enjoy studying books just as much as the next person. You’re not dumb. It’s about overcoming burn out and depression. If I told myself, “I have ADHD, so I can’t read,” then I might as well say I can’t read because I’m too dumb.
@@wellesradio ADHD is very often comorbid with dyslexia. Also have you tried reading a book while also having an argument with the author/yourself? I know reading is not passive for anyone, but it is a maze of off-ramps for anyone with ADHD. {edit} I should have said minefield instead of maze. For what it's worth. More interesting == more off-ramps. Better writing == fewer off-ramps.
@@thumper8684 Definitely relate to getting "off-ramped" as you say when reading. Honestly looking into dyslexia I relate pretty well, I just managed it well enough to not notice it was a problem. Story of my life, add that to the list of comorbidities!
The necessity of hierarchy have been so ingrained on all of us, that it is so difficult for people to imagine a world without it. Every time I talk to people about this, they say "But then nothing will get done!". We are so used to having other people tell us what to do, that we cannot imagine a world without someone leading us. I think that the problem is that having a leader actually comforts a lot of people, because it means they do not have to take responsibility for their actions in particular or for the state of the world in general. I think that is why hierarchical structures appeal to people that are not leaders themselves.
My gut instinct is kind of the opposite of "nothing will get done!". I think "nobody will get paid!" People are often very willing to do work they see needs done, and much less willing to ask for some form of compensation.
Are those all the kind of people who have been socialized to do nothing but work and binge watch garbage? Have they never met people with hobbies or causes? Nothing will get done? These are people who have never been to a makerspace or volunteered at a shelter or a food bank or taken their kids to a neighbourhood play group- I know a ton of people who "Get more done" outside the realm of paid labour than inside it. And none of them need anyone to tell them what to do. They see a thing, and they do it.
@@FunkyLittlePoptartwhat about people who cant get stuff done such as the disabled, elderly, children, etc.? Sure, theres no guarantee they get taken care of in current societies, but I'm still concerned about their chances in an anarchy.
I agree. Before I was in my current job I thought management and bosses were useless. But now being in that position I’ve realized that most people haven’t been taught how to lead themselves and be self directed. It would take a whole re-education for most people because everyone grows up without the responsibility of thinking for themselves because of our school system. I didn’t realize how deep that went for a long time because i was homeschooled. I think under the current mindset a boss is necessary, but I think mindsets could be changed
thank you for the language around expertise. for years ive been saying "deferring is not the same as obeying" to describe the difference between taking direction from someone who has important skills or knowledge versus going along with an authority's demands. this is a much more concise way to describe it. we are forever in your debt. thank you.
this is a really good video, both rhetorically, artistically and theoretically. ive always supposed anarchic ideals to be the ultimate form of liberation, but have been dubious of the practicality of such and this video begins to help show that.
Interesting video. I have one slightly pedantic point and I hope I don't come across as aggressive. You claim at 23:00 that "early in his politics anarchist Errico Malatesta was in favour of majority voting within anarchist organisations when there was no consensus. Yet he still conceded that decisions should only be binding on those who favour them. Later on he would reject the rule of the majority entirely." I'm not aware of any evidence to support this interpretation. In the quote you cite Malatesta is just making a point he'd been making since he became an anarchist and which was just a standard position among anarchists within the 1st international and beyond: anarchism is against all forms of government, including democractic government/majority rule, and advocates free association. Italian anarchism emerged within the revolutionary republican movement and so was full of people who had initially been supporters of a democratic republic but now rejected it in favour of anarchy. So Malatesta rejected majority rule when he abandoned republicanism and became an anarchist at the age of 17/18. Malatesta consistently advocates the same position on anarchist decision-making over and over again: unanimous agreement/majority voting + decisions are only binding for those who vote in favour of them + free association. In 1884, when he was 31, he wrote, "in practice one would do what one could; everything is done to reach unanimity, and when this is impossible, one would vote and do what the majority wanted, or else put the decision in the hands of a third party who would act as arbitrator, respecting the inviolability of the principles of equality and justice which the society is based on." (Malatesta 1884) I wouldn't call this early in his politics. Elsewhere he clarified that he advocated majority voting under two circumstances. He explained in 1907 in response to anarchists who rejected all forms of voting: "the vote used to record opinions certainly has nothing anti-anarchist about it, just as the vote is not anti-anarchist when it is only a practical and freely accepted means to resolve practical issues that do not allow for multiple solutions at the same time, and when the minority is not obliged to submit to the majority, if this does not suit or please them" (Malatesta 2023, 258-9). In other words, majority voting as polling and as decision-making when one decision must be made and multiple solutions cannot co-exist eg if a person should be made editor of a newspaper or not. He did not regard either form of majority voting as a form of majority rule providing it occurs within a free association and does not consist of relations of domination. Compare the following quotes: 1897: "If a railroad, for instance, were under consideration, there would be a thousand questions as to the line of the road, the grade, the material, the type of the engines, the location of the stations, etc., etc., and opinions on all these subjects would change from day to day, but if we wish to finish the railroad we certainly cannot go on changing everything from day to day, and if it is impossible to exactly suit everybody, it is certainly better to suit the greatest possible number; always, of course, with the understanding that the minority has all possible opportunity to advocate its ideas, to afford them all possible facilities and materials to experiment, to demonstrate, and to try to become a majority. So in all matters not amenable to several solutions running simultaneously, or where differences of opinion are not so great as to make it worthwhile parting company, with each faction doing as it will, or where the duty of solidarity imposes unity, it is reasonable, fair, and necessary for the minority to defer to the majority. But the submission of the minority must be the effect of free will determined by a consciousness of necessity, must never be made a principle, a law, which must, therefore, be applied in all cases, even when there is no necessity for it. And just here is the difference between Anarchy and any kind of government" (Malatesta 2016, 18-19). 1927: "Certainly anarchists recognise that where life is lived in common it is often necessary for the minority to come to accept the opinion of the majority. When there is an obvious need or usefulness in doing something and, to do it requires the agreement of all, the few should feel the need to adapt to the wishes of the many. And usually, in the interests of living peacefully together and under conditions of equality, it is necessary for everyone to be motivated by a spirit of concord, tolerance and compromise. But such adaptation on the one hand by one group must on the other be reciprocal, voluntary and must stem from an awareness of need and from goodwill to prevent the running of social affairs from being paralysed by obstinacy. It cannot be imposed as a principle and statutory norm. This is an ideal which, perhaps, in daily life in general, is difficult to attain in entirety, but it is a fact that in every human grouping anarchy is that much nearer where agreement between majority and minority is free and spontaneous and exempt from any imposition that does not derive from the natural order of things." (Malatesta 2014, 488). Notice that the points are exactly the same and expressed in almost the same words. This includes the position you emphasize when citing the quote from his platformism critique: "the submission of the minority must be the effect of free will determined by a consciousness of necessity, must never be made a principle, a law, which must, therefore, be applied in all cases, even when there is no necessity for it." Malatesta, Errico. 1884. Between Peasants. Malatesta, Errico. 2014. The Method of Freedom: An Errico Malatesta Reader. Edited by Davide Turcato. Oakland, CA: AK Press. Malatesta, Errico. 2016. A Long and Patient Work: The Anarchist Socialism of L’Agitazione 1897-1898. Edited by Davide Turcato. Chico, CA: AK Press. Malatesta, Errico. 2023. The Armed Strike: The Long London Exile of 1900-1913. Edited by Davide Turcato. Chico, CA: AK Press.
You wrote a whole essay with a works cited page 😭 No shade, though. I get the point that you're making. I love your videos btw. I also bought and read your book. It helped me better understand the concept of means and ends unity. You do great work :)
I love both your work. @anarchozoe is your personal position the same as Malatesta? I also wonder if free association has limitations where there is large disagreement especially over things like allocation of resources and projects that affect an entire society, etc?
A world without rule is at risk of self-destruction.... if there is no one to enforce any rule, then what stops one individual from commiting an atrocity against orders..... Freedom does not guarantee peace and peace does not guarantee freedom... So anarchy needs a compromise.... but this compromise comes at the cost of anarchy loosing its meaning and purpose.... What most of us consider Anarchy to be can only exist in an ideal world were everybody can tolerate and trust each other.... realism always kicks in in the end and people fall back to archy.....
@@thequarter2 If you were in front of me i'll like to talk about it. But on the internet i believe it's quite impossibile to make a point that's not misunderstood in five seconds. I'm just curious: what do you think a just, fair world would look like? What is "good control"?
@@johncoltranesethic18 As stated before:: as a realist, all ideologies ever developed can only be practiced or purely executed in an ideal world where everybody can tolerate and trust each other (without fear, anger or hate).. but as humans, we are complex... so complex that our ideologies are rarely consistent. A just and fair world cannot exist because every ideology has its protesters, rioters, warmongers and detractors. My hope is for humans to come together and agree to work together for the greater good.... As humans, our complexity is both our biggest flaw and biggest strength.... we are unpredictable from the moment we are born... we want peace and freedom... but our versions and visions of such goal differs from individual to individual.... we call ourself the human race, but we refuse to run together or run on different lanes at different speeds... we all have our personal motive, some of which clash with others.... Tolerance is the only way Anarchy can come about... but until then... we are stuck with idealism... and the need to compromise.... Social Revolution is a slow and continuous process that compromises to adapt to different environments and ideals... hence, it will never reach a conclusion or a proper and acceptable destination.... What do you think... Freedom and peace are two ideals that we struggles to reconcile....
A world without rule is at risk of self-destruction.... if there is no one to enforce any rule, then what stops one individual from commiting an atrocity against orders..... Freedom does not guarantee peace and peace does not guarantee freedom... So anarchy needs a compromise.... but this compromise comes at the cost of anarchy loosing its meaning and purpose.... What most of us consider Anarchy to be can only exist in an ideal world were everybody can tolerate and trust each other.... realism always kicks in in the end and people fall back to archy.....
@@thequarter2 The threat of retaliation usually is what stops them. Same reason we don't use atomic bombs. We could use them technically but it would also likely be the last time we use them haha!
Thank you for your work Andrew, it is truly aspiring. Great timing too with International Worker's Day, and the recent Pro-Palestine protests at American Universities. You all give us all hope, and we can all work together to achieve a better work
I'm pretty sure that this isn't what was meant (since you do talk about intentional organizing), but the repeated emphasis on things being "organic" felt reminiscent of how some activists will have a romantic ideal of movements developing spontaneously and thus neglect to put in the long-term, methodical work of active organizing that's necessary for movements to not just fizzle out or be co-opted. Regardless, I enjoyed the video and your perspective, as always.
Yeah, it feels like this side of the theory desperately needs to be coupled with AnRel's remarks that activities that don't get us closer to The Goal (liberation of all, or whatever you want to call it) aren't the right Direct Action, taking 3 steps forward and 3 steps back isn't the right Direct Action, stagnating politically isn't the right Direct Action etc.
Oh my god Andrew. I've been studying anarchism and engaging in anarchist projects for close to two decades now, and still you've taught me something new here. You've made some space for me to reevaluate some of my own ways of thinking. Well done and thank you!
I really really really want to believe in this. But listening to this gave me a 1000 more questions than it answered. And raised some serious concerns. I dont say that from malice but genuine concern and desire to find common ground
Honestly, that is something I love about anarchism. I'm never in full agreement and I am very skeptical of a lot of the concepts I hear about- but pulling thst discomfort, disagreement, and skepticism apart is fascinating. I find even completely outside of ideological anarchism, in a society with a state and everything, anarchist concepts have so much value and that's what motivates me to learn more and explore those differences and questions, rather than finding an ideology that I 100% agree with or anything
i found this channel after someone posted a comment that Aaron Bushnell made on a Reddit thread naming this channel as one very educational source that he loved and recommended. i’ve fallen in love with this content, because it has given me the hope that the world will be brighter one day. the seeds of revolution have been sowed, we will not be crushed. long live the resistance ✊
I am also here because of Aaron. May he rest in peace and power. Ive been a longtime anarchist. I have complex feelings about everything happening and that has happened over the last few months, but am happy to be in good company with Aaron and Andrew and many others.
I've been here for a bit longer than that, but this is super sweet to hear that Aaron brought you here. I also recommend Zoe Baker and Anark. They are also anarchist youtubers
@@jessica_s9651 i did find Anark when his videos came up in my recommended! i will absolutely look into Zoe Baker as well though :) thank you for the recommendation
As a Marxist, I love your videos; your personal experiences used as examples for well-researched and thought out points that I can never disagree with. A problem I’ve often despised from my camp has been an obsession with beating capitalism at its own game - raving about the explosion of industrial productivity in the USSR for example instead of focusing on what that goal that was done for. A true revolutionary is fueled by love for mankind and I think you embody that completely. When Revolution comes I wish it looks like yours. And the Caribbean accent is always great to listen to lol
@@tankiegirl Ok, then why not support social democracy? At least social democracy can give the quality of life improvements that ML states have, without the genocides and authoritarianism.
I thought I had a pretty good grasp on Anarchist thought until I watched this video. Now I realize I have so much more to learn. Thank you for your work and voice!
I feel like the strong combination of prioritizing community connection/gathering, and self reflection/self inquiry, would gradually materialize anarchy as the common way of life.
Communication and innovation are just as important for social structures as it is for technological advancement. Love your work, always gets me to see things in new ways!
I've always felt that Anarchy as you define it, Andrew, is exactly as our world is supposed to be. It's how our ancestors in the deep past lived. I may concede to living in the world today as society demands, but in every corner of my life I practice anarchist principles.
Just when I’ve been realizing that being at my painfully centrist college has almost deradicalized me by just not having other anarchists there, you come out with this banger, perfect timing (they do have a pro-Palestine movement though but it’s very small and outnumbered and forced by the college to be more moderate than it is, I do give them a ton of credit for existing here though)
@@N1ghthavvk "i just hope the south african and algerian resistance arent pro terrorist" "i just hope the slaves revolting chattel slavery dont cross my liberal sensibilities"
@@af8828 I'm sorry, but were you actually there, on the ground in Gaza? I am basing my opinion on the facts I've been told by people who actually experienced what happened. And consequently there's only one side that I can reasonably empathize with: The civilian population victimized by both of their respective rulers. Anything else and you're falling for propaganda and lies by people who like to choose their truths. Hamas and Netanyahu (rightwing Israeli politics) have to go, if there's to be lasting peace. I recommend "Tom David Frey" here on YT, if you'd like to have some insight into ordinary perspectives (you don't need to understand the language - just watch).
@@N1ghthavvk people who experienced which event? Over 120 years of colonialism, multiple mass expulsions and 75 years of apartheid? Ohh or do you mean the literal extreme-right settlers (keyword: settlers, not civilians) squatting on kibbutzes attained illegally by violation of international law and immense violence, who were peft unprotected? Settlers who actively serve in the colonial occupation force? Riight.
@@N1ghthavvk you may have trouble defining terrorism without it including the united states, israel, and most other "first-world" nations; it is more useful to look at this conflict as oppression and resistance. we dont have to like the full set of values the resistance holds as individuals or as an organization, we just have to acknowledge that they are the ones resisting the oppressive power. when the oppression ends, we can address the problematic values that arise afterwards, but today our focus must remain on the oppression.
I do think there’s more nuance here depending on how you define religion. Spiritual beliefs and practices have been some of the strongest ways of holding communities together, and resisting the continuous assault of capitalism. Obviously top down hierarchical religion that exerts control and limits freedom are bad.
Yea it was crazy when the Crusades happened and all the men stayed home cooking food and raising the kids and the women went to die in a foreign land, right?
@@PhantasmalBlast I’m not aware of any current religions that work without hierarchy of some form. Religion inevitably turns into a tool to abuse and gain power over people.
This video could also be titled "Anarchy: what it actually is and how to build it" Too many people think Anarchy is The Joker (TM) or Zaheer from the worst Avatar series, and that therefore, as a political ideology, should be mocked and dismissed, while clinging to the exploitative ways of capital and its enslaving nature. I hope your vid changes many minds, and helps people break out of the neo-liberal mind prison.
Anarchy most certainly should be mocked and dismissed. It has no feasible way of actually developing in the world and even less of a chance of remaining on any large scale. It is a pipe dream at best for those who want to be their own boss while disregarding everyone else.
@brandonmercado8438 Democacy should be mocked and dismissed. The "great image" of the large-scale Society (Capital S) you're touting builds itself on the backs of the proletarians (capitalism), patriarchy, settler-colonialism, needless destruction of environments and the animals living there, etc. etc. etc.
Can you talk about how people who inflict serious harm will be able to freely associate without people just deciding to lynch them? Can you talk about how bouncers are different to cops? Can you also talk about how food production, raw materials collection, distribution of food and materials, and water distribution can and or is being made more anarchic?
Regarding democracy, my views against it were really solidified when I read about how democratic bodies and populations are almost always formed through political actors centralizing and consolidating power within a particular sphere. It is through the centralizing efforts of monarchs in Europe that bodies and identities were created that later went on to struggle against monarchs but within the polity that they created. Same applies to the democracy of the Greeks, and so on. And when these bodies are threatened, figures with remarkably undemocratic central powers come back into the fold (think dictators, etc). Democracy has always revolved around significant centralization around an abstract view of "the people", which is sometimes said to be "represented" by representatives, which in good times might be less centralized but in worse times under figures like dictators. This is inescapable because the priority and authority is given to an abstract representation of people, not real relationships and people.
seems like you're talking about what Marxists would call bourgeois democracy. it's narrowly defined societally as the one true Democracy by the west but I think small-d democracy could come in many forms/technologies (social and otherwise)
You're heavily generalizing bourgeois representative democracy as democracy broadly. Anarchism cannot exist or meaningfully function without democratic organization of society.
You characterization of democracy is true within the context of capitalism. Your reference to democracy's new formation under monarchic rule is accurate, however its formation was precipitated by the bourgeoisie - take England during the 17th and 18th centuries for example. Thus, I think your characterization of democracy, while true historically, is only true within the context of capitalism's formation within the historic revolutions of the bourgeoisie in Europe. I think that context is important to analyze if we, the *working class*, want to actualize democracy as it *should* exist (as it was conceptualized by Engels and Marx, rather), but I don't think democracy is worth writing off entirely because of that context. As Andrew said at the end of this video: anarchism has a troubled past and has yet to actualize in the forms theorized or hoped for by anarchists - Spain in the early 20th century, Ukraine, the European and American communes of the 19th century, etc.. That does not mean Anarchism should be forgotten or discounted because of those past failures, and I think the same applies to democracy.
@@ThePi314Man a democratic organization of society is nebulous, even if we had a direct democracy there will always be laws supported by a majority and not supported by the minority creating a system of domination and subordination. instead an anarchistic world would exist in a system of free association where anyone can help their community through organizations that can band together and separate whenever they please removing systems of domination and subordination.
this video is changing my views slightly and my definitions heavily and i actually dont think ill be calling myself pro democracy any longer great video!
What im having trouble wrapping my head around is how we would deal with problems that cannot be solved by disassociating like what to plant in a specific spot. what if i want to plant corn and you want to plant tomatoes? there is no consensus needed for action, so discussion should lead to consensus. that can still be entirely freely associated, but what if i agreed to plant tomatoes if i could have my corn next year, but when the time comes you disregard that decision? I obviously dont want to force you to abide by a decision you made last years, but i also dont want to be forced to move somewhere that i could have my corn. I think space might break the ideal of free association sometimes
A world without rule is at risk of self-destruction.... if there is no one to enforce any rule, then what stops one individual from commiting an atrocity against orders..... Freedom does not guarantee peace and peace does not guarantee freedom... So anarchy needs a compromise.... but this compromise comes at the cost of anarchy loosing its meaning and purpose.... What most of us consider Anarchy to be can only exist in an ideal world were everybody can tolerate and trust each other.... realism always kicks in in the end and people fall back to archy.....
How do you have checks and balances for incompetency or malace in a system of only free association? In the sewage system repair example in your revisiting consensus chapter. What if the people who choose to repair the sewage plant are incompetent, fail to repair the facility properly, and end up allowing a lethal pandemic to spread amongst the community? It might only take one incompetent individual to create such a catastrophy in many applications. How do you ensure competency? How do you maintain accountability towards individuals who may sabotage such a facility through deception and malice? Do you have free associating bands of vigilantes who hold such groups accountable? If so how would those vigilante groups be held accountable?
@@rolfnoduk it just seems ripe for abuse. How does the collective prevent that small armed minority from overreach? A vague how, while great for the armchair philosopher, doesn't hold up when talking about conflicts with a high probability of violence is present in the physical and social world. How does anarchy prevent major problems like warlordism from such a self appointed vigilante group? How does anarchy handle whose responsible for trimming the hedges between two households? Who enforces the 'collective' decision? What if the losing party obstinately refuses to accept the consensus? How does anarchy prevent a socially powerful individual like a cult leader from reestablishing hierarchy? Even within a society of equals, without some system to maintain that equality, disparity will inevitably come back; likely mirroring the disparity that came about within our prehistorical time transitioning between the stone and bronze age.
I'm glad that other rational people are coming in here to question this. This seems like a pipe dream that sounds good on paper where everyone is free, but as soon as you try to put any of this into practice, Human nature would destroy it as he has admitted has happened each and every time it was attempted.
We could do it. I really truly believe that it is our fear of the danger of change that holds us back, But We could do it. We've always been able to do it. Stand up, And be true.
I could imagine an anarchic system working, but there's a few issues I see that I can't seem to get ... solved. Perhaps somebody has ideas: * The transition from a globalized economy seems very hard, considering that we rely on specialized goods from parts of the world very far away, especially so if those parts are not yet anarchist too. How do you continue trading with them, when they want money, but an anarchist society doesn't use it? It may still be there, accessible for use if necessary to interact with the other parts of the world, but then... * How do you prevent bad actors from just taking all or most of the money and fleeing to a capitalist part of the world? The issue with free association is that a reaction to such a "crime" is presumably not immediate and would be too late to prevent the damage to the local society. Maybe somebody would be alerted if it was a heist, but whati f it was just social engineering, where the guardian of the money was tricked into handing it over, and would not expect it back anyways, on promise of some goods being delivered later, for somebody else, who'd only realize it too late? Effectively, you'd require people to do work in very similar "jobs" as before, but you can't prevent people from leaving, in an anarchist society, can you? * On a similar note, what about bad actors in different contexts? What if conflict escalates? What if a neighbouring empire decides to invade? Presumably the reaction would be too late to prevent entry, and would end in a guerilla warfare, where the attacker will presumably retreat, but only at the cost of way too many lives. This WILL definitely happen to the first bigger experiment. It might not to the next few, when it is established fact that invading would not be profitable, but some national actor will come for the "undefended" and "unrepresented" resources first. * How do you transition from a "call to arms" utilizing the follower-effect, to a truly anarchist movement? It feels impossible. Media will interview some person, claiming to be able to present the ideas (and there will be people like that, maybe somebody like you with the gift of communication). But such attention will naturally lead to more and more interviews, and more and more power ending up attributed to that person, even against them rejecting it as an anarchist. * Even in the actual event of an anarchist "region" establishing itself, communication to neighbouring political entities will be strained from the beginning: "What do you mean, you can't guarantee this treaty being upheld? But it's the Genova Convention! You're not a real country! We'll have to send blue-helmed troops to establish order until a new government is elected!" You may argue that this issue could be solved by free association, and I'd believe you, but the other countries wouldn't. You could send some (possibly) constantly changing people to represent the region in supra-national entities, but even if these people were to do their best, and the society as a whole would do their best too, it will be a struggle that I can't imagine anybody winning in the current political situation. No way, any of the main actors would allow an anarchist society to establish itself. It'd be much too unstable in their eyes. I think we won't see an actual anarchist society experiment succeed in our lifetimes. And I couldn't imagine myself defending it against the big guns. To be completely honest: I'm much too comfortable in my current and very privileged situation to consider radical change "worth it". I'm open to the small changes, and try to do my best to point any groups I'm a part of into the right direction, but that is all inside a casual athmosphere, where people are willing to listen. It's not inside of the workplace, or politics, where entrenched ideas are the established rule.
I’m in a similar boat. It is clear to me, for many of the reasons you listed, that the establishment of an anarchic society within the current international order is impossible on a large scale. No society or organization exists in a vacuum. As long as states (or hierarchies in general) exist anywhere, anarchy will never be able to be sustained.
Not going to reply to all of that but to point 2: If a group of people in an anarchist society rounded up all the money in the area and left... what would that do that you think merits a response? they leave with some bags of paper that have no value anymore now that the state that backed that currency isn't in power, and the community that's left has no need of money whatsoever, let alone the money backed by the state that just stopped existing, and they don't need or want the people who obviously very much didn't want to live in that community. So.. cool they escaped to capitalistville, hope they have good, long, and fulfilling lives there.
@@JuniperHatesTwitterlikeHandles Did you completely miss the point about money being necessary in a transition period, to keep up trade with other nations? It is not useless. Sure, you won't have your own money, but you'll need dollars to keep buying oil or whatever else the society might need. Or do you want to regress to the dark ages?
You guys are almost communists already. Read Lenin, Marx and Engels, you'll see something that makes sense to you that's for sure. All these concerns are actually the things they wrote about a lot.
There's a reason anarchist societies don't last long or only last at the largesse of a greater power. If resources are valuable and there's no established power structure to defend or exploit them, someone will figure out a way to do that. The reason that global capitalism is the dominant system is because it outcompeted the other ones, both on merits of function and merits of stomping the other ones out of existence. Not a moral or ethical judgment, but just sort of a historical fact.
Troubling challenge for free association: hasn't the Internet shown us that people will use this ability to isolate themselves from ideas that they find problematic? Is this an artifact of the technology, or otherwise explicable in ways other than an anti-anarchist natural tendency?
conspiracy theorists have been secluded in information silos for as long as conspiracy theorists have been a thing. the tech doesn't promote it, merely acknowledging the ease with which it can happen.
people do crap like that no matter what system it is. hopefully when pre-enforced stigmas and stereotypes are preached less, more people will have an open mind and be willing to learn things from different perspectives.
direct democracy + free association. it is not supposed to impose control, it is a method of egalitarian social decision making. the term democracy has been usurped by aristocracy, renaming democracy as true democracy or direct democracy or classic democracy, a huge hint concerning the corruption of the term. consensus is the ultimate outcome of democracy, however it is not always achievable, and instead of forcing compliance, we rely on free association, which has the advantage of avoiding cultural homogenization and enhancing diversity. the use of democratic social decision making under anarchy is to help us do more than possible individually or with small assemblies, voluntarily. it is also a means to grow closer communally. as long as we desire society there will be a need for social decision making, and that process and its outcome should be anarchic, without hierarchy or coercion.
you cant have free association and direct democracy as a minority voter will have to listen to those laws set in place which establishes forms of domination and subordination, instead we need full free association where someone joins a group for its ideas not its policies that can leave and join when you want.
@@Anita.Cox.You absolutely can. It’s simple: When you feel like your voice isn’t being heard or your needs aren’t being met, you leave. Free association. That doesn’t mean direct democracy and consensus aren’t useful for helping a community meet those needs of the individual. If you just up and leave whenever things aren’t done your way, then nothing gets done. Compromise is a key component of Anarchism.
To be honest, I found this video quite confusing - got the feeling more of a play with words, rather than a worked out view of the world. Still not sure how this version of "social revolution" would work? Wouldn't some people consciously need to persuade others about their viewpoint to start building "free associations"? And especially, how would you try to "mitigate conflicts in advance", when there isn't a basic agreement even in simpler things (for example, if "democracy" is good or bad - ignoring the classless approach to the question)?
You're not the only one. Semantic tap dancing and only 20 seconds of how to deal with reactionaries and opposing forces. "Organized force" yeah okay, good luck having that with zero authority and this nebulous idea of free association
How do we prevent violence between certain free associations? How do we stop discrimination? What if a group of fascists come together and make a free association with the intent of trying to reinstitute hierarchy and enacts violence on whichever minority they despise? Do we simply hope that another free association of people decide to protect that group? How do we prevent war? I view myself as a libertarian socialist, and I oppose most systems of hierarchy, but I don't know how we make a truly anarchist system resilient to the test of time. Hierarchy may not be natural, but it didn't come from nowhere. Groups of people fought over resources and they formed different groups to organise their fights over such resources and over 1000s of years, those groups built to fight over and control resources eventually formed the systems of hierarchy that we are familiar with today. We might one day succeed in making a horizontal anarchist society. But what would keep it from becoming corrupted? What would stop hierarchy from reinstituting itself? How do we protect minorities from violence/coercion by the majority? I don't know the answers to these questions and my fear is that the answer is that you can't. That hierarchy, domination, violence, and coercion are inevtiable. But I do hope that we can minimize these as much as possible, and I think anarchist teachings are vital to understanding these concepts and teaching us how to analyze systems of hierarchy/how power flows.
What an excellent intro to anarchism, especially appreciate the helpful definition of authority! This video will change some minds. Ps that section on democracy was illuminating as well
Thank you so much for spreading the word of libertarian communism! Many people, even "anarchists" seem to believe that anarchy=chaos, but the truth is, anarchy is the only realistic - and historically successful - way to achieve the abolishment of oppression, in all its forms.
Not all anarchisms are communism: There are mutualist tendencies, neo-Proudhonian anarchism prominent among them. To box the whole of "anarchism" into one single category you like (libertarian communism) is to ignore other tendencies that don't wish to belong to the category, and to monopolize term "anarchism." As for the boogeyman of chaos, the way you're using that word is so clearly a scare-tactic that I couldn't help myself. You're using 'chaos' the way governmentalists use largely that same word to describe anarchy. Anarchy can certainly be thought as a positive non-pejorative chaos. By putting anarchists who are sympathetic to chaotic forms of organization in scare quotes, you're implying that insurrectionist anarchists aren't anarchists, and neither is the anarchist writer Peter Gelderloos. His book, Worshipping Power, has a chapter dedicated to the idea that that anarchists challenge people to view chaotic ways of organizing and chaotic ways of decision-making as not inherently pejorative. "The reasoning is simple. Hierarchical societies are easier to control, and hierarchies cannot defend themselves from more powerful hierarchies. Officials from a state cannot easily communicate with members of a society in which decisions are made in open assemblies, or societies with chaotic rather than unitary decision-making. As an important aside, I would challenge the reader to accept chaotic organization as a superior form, even though we are usually only presented with a pejorative vision of chaos. In unitary decision-making, an entire polity must abide by a single decision, or there must be a clear hierarchy to govern and rank the decisions made at different levels, whether in a bureaucratic or federalistic system. All governments, from fascist dictatorships to direct formal democracies, share the principle of unitary decision-making and disseminate the assumptions on which such decision-making is based. Chaotic decision-making fosters the recognition that society can function spontaneously as a decentralized network, permits conflict as a healthy force in our lives, encourages a multiplicity of decision-making spaces pervading all moments of life, well beyond the formal, masculine sphere of the congress or the dictat, and allows different, even conflicting, decisions to be made at different points in the human network, while encouraging a collective consciousness so all decision-makers can maximize their intelligence and accordingly harmonize. Humans have an evolutionarily tested ability to utilize chaotic decision-making at a macro scale, and the only people who dispute this are those who wish to permanently infantilize their compatriots so as to control them by monopolizing decision-making in unitary structures." * Worshiping Power, Take Me to Your Leader: The Politics of Alien Invasion
@@Grundrisse indeed it is true that i used libertarian communism as a broader term, so thank you for clarifying that! As a person who has been in plenty protests (Greece), it is important to distinguish true, educated nihilists and the such from the uneducated, reactionary teens who just want to mindlessly smash things up; of course violence is important, but unorganised, uncoordinated violence is detrimental to everyone
What is to stop a group with more power than you demanding things you can not provide? What happens when that group imposes their will upon you because you do not have the means to defend yourself?
I was kind of thinking about this without even knowing it was anarchy. I was thinking, what if instead of states and governments there would be entirely separate entities for different purposes. For example, there might be a ‘government’ for providing education to people of a certain place, they have this goal but are not bound by a higher entity, overlayed with countless other ‘governments’ each with their own goal, interacting but not antagonizing each other. Another might be to defend or provide law to a certain region, but would not interfere with the affairs of any other structure. They wouldn’t have control over everything inside them and you could opt out. Or a completely separate system with the goal of providing food for people. Etc etc etc. The problem I see with anarchy though is that without rules how would we stop states from forming again? They could simply proclaim their laws and arrest anyone in their borders who don’t agree.
I don't know, all of this as it often appears to be, seems something that can at best exist in optimal conditions... But systems that base themselves on optimal conditions are bound to remain utopias... What if conditions aren't Ideal? Or good? Or even decent at best? For example let us suppose the most banal problem this could run into a military or policing consultive association is very good at what it does, and growing amounts of people grow to like them more and more, One among them is very charismatic, some people, a growing amount of people that deal with their purviews, like to listen to them, to work with them. People Simply gather and well these guys are good, very good, people that work with them feel growingly more comradery with them. In time these people come out as fascists and decide that well... You know what, order and discipline don't sound that bad, and, after all, considering that a large amount of the people who deal with weapons and the military are already our Friends... Well... Let's implement order and discipline, who's going to stop us the bakers? The librarians? Well you might say somewhere someone is going to come and restore anarchy, there's a whole world of anarchists and only One fascist insurgency, right? But this again is a best-case scenario... What if this isn't the case? What if there are many of these, people have indeed a tendency to *like* giving up their responsibilities to a strongman, it's quite liberating being freed from the burden of responsibility... What of due to technology the amount of gunmen that these consultive Union has been able to reach is continent-sized or more... Well, but these things have happened in hierarchies too so we are solid... I mean, perhaps, but I am not sure it's a strong enough defence because It depends on how likely or unlikely these things can happen in either. And this is the most unimaginative problem that such a system may run into.
While I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment of anarchism, I can’t seem to get past the practical steps of getting there from where we are now. Part of me feels that we will need an intermediary period of something like socialism or communism, in order to change the sentiments that people have about organizing as a collective. While I could see anarchy being achieved within a century or two, I don’t anticipate seeing it in our lifetime, based on current trends.
I'm going to free-associate the use of your home and food. If you don't agree with that, well, you have the "free self-determination" to leave. But wherever you go I will freely follow and use things you produce. If you try to use force against me, and you are more capable of using force than me, then you can stop me. Even if I don't respect your force as authority, you can still stop me from using the products of your labor. That is a stance-independent hierarchy of power. So, everything comes down to force hierarchies anyway, irrespective of respect. And 'free association" assumes some notion of "freedom" when decisions are made through culturally and neurologically determined inclinations. The assumption of "freedom" in this is already vague and objectionable.
I go back and forth on anarchy. Great intentions are behind it and it may well be the way we live in 5 centuries, but it's just too far in the future for me to tell. Democracy is inextricable from any modern powerful community effort. This is not an advocacy for untethered majority rule. But the best internal decision making pattern of a group of free association. I believe that anarchy is a description of the lack of state, not government. 2 people in a relationship living together as a household is a form of government. We should only seek to make these governments unbloated, peaceful, and equitable. I do sympathize with the belief that these simple governments in our lives need not be tied to invisible borders, but that is the thing I struggle most to imagine. At this point I advocate just for a very freeing and enabling society that not only allows, but enables the freedom of travel whenever practical.
"I believe that anarchy is a description of the lack of state, not government" Your belief doesn't change the fact that anarchy has been defined as a total absence of government since Proudhon and his contemporaries. >Anarchy, - the absence of a master, of a sovereign, - such is the form of government to which we are every day approximating, and which our accustomed habit of taking man for our rule, and his will for law, leads us to regard as the height of disorder and the expression of chaos. The story is told, that a citizen of Paris in the seventeenth century having heard it said that in Venice there was no king, the good man could not recover from his astonishment, and nearly died from laughter at the mere mention of so ridiculous a thing. So strong is our prejudice. As long as we live, we want a chief or chiefs; and at this very moment I hold in my hand a brochure, whose author - a zealous communist - dreams, like a second Marat, of the dictatorship. The most advanced among us are those who wish the greatest possible number of sovereigns, - their most ardent wish is for the royalty of the National Guard. Soon, undoubtedly, some one, jealous of the citizen militia, will say, “Everybody is king.” But, when he has spoken, I will say, in my turn, “Nobody is king; we are, whether we will or no, associated.” * What is Property? >Our destiny is to arrive at that state of ideal perfection where the nations will no longer need to be under the tutelage of a government or of another nation; it is the absence of government, it is anarchy, the highest expression of order. Those who do not think that the earth can ever pass from tutelage, those who do not believe in progress, are reactionaries. * Elisée Reclus, The Development of Liberty in the World This is only ten years after What is Property? and the same year as Anselme Bellegarrigue's Anarchie, Journal de l'Ordre (Anarchy, a Journal of Order). If you can't accept this fact, then you can just be a libertarian socialist and quit pretending governmentalism is somehow a dimension of anarchy. Not that the label matters today, since it is nothing but a historical relic. Two people in "a relationship living together as a household" is also not a form of government, that's the same level of nonsense as Engels' infamous attack on anarchism. While a social relationship between two people can be hierarchical, it need not be so and is not naturally hierarchical. Not all hierarchies constitute governments.
Anarchy might be able to exist, but only in a world with a much much smaller population. It’s naive to think millions of people who live on top of each other would all just get along without a social contract enshrined in law.
it would splinter into factions, clans and families. Due to inefficiencies of smaller scale industries and production, ressources will be limited. these Groups will then compete and war for these ressources. Anarchy never really existed. even if implemented other systems will grow to supplant it. Ingroup, outgroup. those better at violence will exploit those worse skilled.
A social contract and so-called law are just words on paper, when those in power get on top, they rarely abide by them. And it’s just their way to keep the people imprisoned. Anarchy is the only option for even billions because it increases individualism, voluntarism, personal empowerment, and it means that all people are equal there are no involuntary and abusive hierarchies such as government and Lords. It appeals to first principles and the golden rule which is “Do unto others as you would have done unto you”, basically anarchism is the philosophy of do no harm, but take no shit, that is something all people can live by.
@@Nightshift10000Let me put this into Perspective of how INCREDIBLY FRAGILE, are groups in general, political, Non-political, pro-state, Anti-State TO Fear, Close-mindedness and Pluralistic Ignorance combined.. How do you think North Korea, a Dictatorship where more than half the population are soldiers and suffer, won't already overthrow him? Because they don't know between each other who supports Kim Jong Un and who pretends to support him. If they risked it, were they in a truly loyal to Kim Jong Un society, which they are not, they would die. If they risked it, were they in a society that doesn't support Kim Jong Un, they would also die because they would peer pressure themselves into killing the non-loyalists, thinking they are surrounded by loyalists, which they are not. Should they risk it, and every individual knows what everyone wants, they could easily overthrow him. Seriously. Those issues will plague societies regardless of ideology unless they are highlighted in role of Politics. Which just means the State can also get reformed to fix this issue.
This "chaotic" decision system you propose seems deeply immoral. I don't think anyone should be able to try to repair a sewage system without seeking permission from the people who that sewage system services. What if they are more convinced of their competence than is reasonable, and flood my home with sewage? What if I tell them that I am concerned about this, and they tell me that they think my concerns are unfounded, and proceed to take actions that flood my home? I understand your idea that 'consensus' is a bad mechanism for making decisions. It seems bad that everyone in society should have a veto on every decision. But to claim that no one needs permission to do anything? Even things that might ruin my life or kill me? That is a denial of my most fundamental rights.
Generally the idea i agree with is that everyone whom a decision affects should agree on the correct course of action (or agree on a compromise or a vote if necessary)
You are very much correct that the chaotic system that anarchists want adopted is certainly worse than what we currently have. Not only would it be more time consuming to deal with each issue without centralized structures, but people would be doing things with no regulations leading to wildly different outcomes that would negatively impact all involved. An example of this would be to go to countries or cities with little regulatory oversight and see what their infrastructure looks like. Spoiler, it is terrible.
@@brandonmercado8438 imagine trying to build a militia/army when the people in that said country hates authority. The Invading nation will have a very easy time against unorganized force
passively waiting and hoping that something gets fixed instead of taking initiative yourself never helps. the answer to a problem shouldn't be to just wait around and hope things turn out okay in the end.
@@sillyspiderYes, but we cannot reasonably apply that attitude to every situation. For one, expecting every individual to either be educated on nigh every societal issue that effects them to a degree where they can fix it is an extreme and unrealistic demand, and although you could argue that an individual could instead seek out expertise to handle such functions for them, this demands time and effort from the individual, far more than may be reasonable. Additionally, this doesn’t resolve the core issue. If there is a sewer system and a 60% majority believe it does not need renovation, while 40% minority do, how is that resolved effectively? Perhaps another sewer system could be made, but not only is that an unfeasible solution to all issues like this, and often impossible, but even deciding WHO needs the new system is rather difficult. As anarchists, rules would not be bound by authority, so the only real consequences may be mob rule (which has historically been terrible for minorities such as the queer and people of color, as well as generally). Would it even be justifiable in an anarchic society to use force and deter the 40% sewer renovators, or hunt them down after the fact? Would that not be a form of authority, even if transient? If one defines authority as more of a demeaning , constant relationship but still allows for temporary rules or leaders in crisis, that seems to go against certain anarchic principles and leads to a sort of Cincinnatus problem, where there is little guarantee of such authorities loosening their grip on the community after the fact. Nevermind things like rocket science and surgery, which demand national standards and practices at the moment due to their immense risk and need of precision. I actually am empathetic to anarchism and do agree with some of its takes on authority and how ideologies (spooks) can control us, but I am unsure whether a society that abolishes ALL hierarchy is feasible or stable, especially in the face of alternatives and outside factors. It seems a bit naive, or at least optimistic to expect a society that seems to handwave issues by arguing for the general goodness inside man and pointing to instances of community cooperation. At the very least it reminds me of libertarianism and their views on how unchecked capitalism would be “totally great” because the market forces involved would result in speedy, beneficial deals for citizens. If I have misrepresented anything, please tell me, however. I really like anarchism conceptually and if I am incorrect I’d like to see how and why!
i know that you cant do anything about this but i really enjoy your accent. its refreshing to hear someoene talk about political theory that isnt some white british dude.
I’m trying, but I kinda can’t 😂. The association of water will allow distribution based on the common good? Maybe. Hard to imagine being much better than now, especially when ‘power’ becomes entrenched, much like now.
Yes, but only if the relationship's built around a type of mutual trust and respect that can't be had without first establishing boundaries, preferences, expectations in the relationship, -direct democratic votes,- hard limits, etc. Also, if they're really gay about it. As for the sex matter, performing non-hierarchical sex positions is a non-negotiable condition. Otherwise, it's just exploitative dominance hierarchy! The punk anarchist girl shall not be on top of the catboy, and catboy in turn shall not be bottom or on top of the girl. The possible dynamics without the aesthetics and language of t/b, and most importantly, without portraying relations of command and subordination can be found in many forms of horizontally organized sex (frotting / docking, spooning, sideway 69, etc.)
If a condition of anarchy has been achieved, I find it intuitive to believe that it would be as difficult to reestablish a hierarchical society as it has been to establish anti-hierarchical societies in a hierarchical one. Such counter-societies would be forced to engage with an anarchic world on anarchic terms, and convince people that subordination and acceptance of principles that enslaved and killed millions are preferable to it. That doesn't mean it couldn't happen, but in that case anarchists still exist and are still opposed to the formation of authorities, and some would probably combat it violently.
@@kakroom3407 that is assuming there is no hierarchical societies around you, with obedient flesh weapons groomed to kill, at your doorsteps. Those societies know how to break others effectively, and we will go back to were we are today.
@@ununun9995 OP's question was about what would prevent an anarchic society from "just becoming" a hierarchy society again in time If the question is what would keep an anarchist society from being invaded by a hierarchical one, the answer is as simple as it is tragic and difficult for any society, which is organizing a defence and shooting back
loved this. the examples helped my comprehension significantly. i could use a whole video of examples of possible practical applications. dozens of examples. drown me in examples. barring that, more videos about anarchy are what im subscribing for
This video is wonderful. It’s also why I feel strongly that TH-cam and google should be divorced. No corporation should control public access to information.
This might very well be your best analysis yet, from the point of discussion and debate among likeminded fellows and due to its easy to digest format, as an easy introduction to those unfamiliar to concepts of Anarchism
I love the variety of art used here, and how much is credited! It's a passive thing, but it helps to show how traditional precepts of art, similar to society, need not be adhered to so rigidly. I think a lot of people can shed off the idea that abstract and modern art are just confusing red, yellow, and blue shapes on a canvas once they get a little exposure to different pieces; there's a lot to appreciate about the pieces featured in this video. I'm glad to learn the names and be able to look for their other works, too. Furthermore, I'm glad it's not only abstract and modern art! We should get used to seeing vastly different artworks side by side, and comparing their worth according to consistent standards. There are things easily achieved in realistic and abstract art alike, as well as things better conveyed in one over the other: both have immense, different value! You made great use of these and more, in ways that hierarchists (who apply their social values to art) could never. Keep shining a light on beauty in the world!
A world without rule is at risk of self-destruction.... if there is no one to enforce any rule, then what stops one individual from commiting an atrocity against orders..... Freedom does not guarantee peace and peace does not guarantee freedom... So anarchy needs a compromise.... but this compromise comes at the cost of anarchy loosing its meaning and purpose.... What most of us consider Anarchy to be can only exist in an ideal world were everybody can tolerate and trust each other.... realism always kicks in in the end and people fall back to archy.....
@@thequarter2 You can't have atrocities without blind obedience. You can have injustices, and bad experiences, but for atrocities you need centralized control.
@@bramvanduijn8086 ignorance exists... if you are not informed or are at risk of being harm, atrocities may occur... Mass murderers commit atrocities without any control from anyone...
Continued for a bit but no, I can already tell where this is headed. I don't need to listen to a full hour of nonsense to make a stance. It's actually funny people are expected to watch the whole thing. Brevity is the soul of wit, you do not need an hour
Wait don't confuse anarchy with anomy (without rule is anomy, same root as auto-nomy), anarchy is without government, ie without ruler. In anarchy, nobody is above the rules Ofc I will watch the whole video ❤️
@@novinceinhosic3531 ideally people that would consider themselves to fall under it first. Don't make rules unless you're willing to be judged by them. I completely understand your point, and it is fair. Technically, the executive power (government) should be separate from the judiciary and legislative powers. In the anarchy I envisioned when I commented that, I thought of a truly direct legislative power to everyone. But how exactly that would take place is much more complicated to say. Hence why, ultimately, fair point
The etymology claimed by anarchists historically, including early anarchists, was generally an-arche (an meaning "without"). The anarchist linguist Stephen Pearl Andrews offered the following definition of arche in The Pantarchy Defined-the Word and the Thing,” Banner of Light 33 no. 12 (June 21, 1873): >"Arche is a Greek word (occurring in mon-archy, olig-archy, hier-archy, etc.), which curiously combines, in a subtle unity of meaning, the idea of origin or beginning, and hence of elementary principle, with that of government or rule." The common claim that "anarchy means no rulers, not no rules" seems to originate from the 1988 work called _One Life at a Time, Please_ by Edward Abbey, who genuinely thinks anarchism is just a democracy [Anarchy is democracy taken seriously, as in Switzerland, where issues of national importance are decided by direct vote of all citizens.] It is an embarrassing, but fairly recent phenomena. On the other hand, Proudhon already expressed strong opposition to archy/rule & government as early as 1858, in an unpublished manuscript essay called "What, Finally, is the Republic?": >"Archy or anarchy then, no middle ground. Archy can be with one or several heads: monarchy, polyarchy, oligarchy, exarchy, heptarchy, etc. If the polyarchy is composed of the wealthiest, or of the nobles and magnates, it is called aristocracy; if the people en masse is the preponderant element there, it is a democracy. But the number of heads changes nothing in the end; as in the case of God, plurality is detrimental. Since the state is founded on the principle of command, the monarchy is much preferable." The radical anarchists emerging after Proudhon's passing, they too opposed rules. >"It is becoming understood that Majority rule is as defective as any other kind of rule; and Humanity searches, and finds, new channels for resolving the pending questions." * Kropotkin, Process Under Socialism
@@lokar9240 Separating executive power from the judiciary and legislative powers isn't different from breaking the State into smaller governments. That's just local governments. As for your desired truly direct legislative power, you could just call that dream one of a libertarian socialist Society rather than anarchy. Not that the former matters as a label today, since it is nothing but a historical relic.
But how is all the advanced technology required to create a solar punk world going to be made in a anarchic world? Things like solar panels, wind turbines and batteries are complicated to make and require a variety of resources that most likely cannot be sourced completely local anywhere on earth.
@TheKillbot555 I believe this is included in their freedom of association with those of similar wills. Specifically those who are interesting in this tech will work with others to make it happen. Still listening to the video, but I find the expectation of individual volition and cooperation far to optimistic.
Why is Socialism more successful than Anarchism? Name one region that went Anarchist? Most People don’t want or are not capable of voting on every issue in the Commune? Would you have to make participation mandatory?
Socialism is a big part of anarchism as both come from teachings of Marx and Engels and advocate for pretty much the same economic policies. The reason why socialism(more accurately, Marxism-Leninism) was more widespread is because of every socialist regime after the October revolution wanted to gain aid from the USSR, meanwhile the ones who didn't(like Chile before Pinochet) were deposed in either a coup or a counter-revolution with US backing. Easy! CNT-FAI controlled Catalonia(Orwell actually wrote about his fascination with Anarchist Barcelona when he went there as a Republican volunteer) and Makhnovia amongst the most well-known examples. It is worth to mention that almost all anarchist movements cease to exist because of foreign intervention and almost never because of internal conflict. If you need a modern example then those would be the Kurdish Rojava republic in northern Syria and mexican Zapatistas insurrectionaries. Well that's just silly, the reason why political cynicism exists today is because the parliamentarian republican systems that exist today do not offer much control to every society within a state and often can lead to unpopular governments which increases the feelings of isolation from political issues of your state. The example anarchist movements I've stated before all had quite stable governments, with the workers influencing every aspect of their own lives with cynicism being practically nonexistent. It depends on the anarchist though you are practicing, but most of them agree on voluntary participation within the anarchist Confederation of communes.
I was on board with this video until it talked about direct democracy, that is not anarchism, that is a government. Anarchism is a political philosophy and movement that is against all forms of authority and seeks to abolish the institutions it claims maintain unnecessary coercion and coercive, involuntary hierarchies. It is a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups or advocating for the abolition of hierarchical government and the organization of society on a voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to force or compulsion. A direct democracy would form a government very much like what we are trying to escape it would be mob rule forming a hierarchy of the majority over the minority.
It is either you instinctively dropped the video at a part you find repulsive and then jumped to the comments, or you're simply trying to hook people into an argument with you. I can't tell which exactly. If only you bothered to engage with the video further, then you'd discover that it very much goes against the common notion that anarchY is a form of direct democracy. In fact, that's Andrew's main objective when he was working on this video. 24:31 "You’re still free to advocate for direct democracy, but it’s plain inaccurate to conflate it with anarchy, because the anarchist alternative to majority rule via direct democracy and minority rule via capitalist democracy is no rule, no democracy, just free association." He also cites various rich literature from "anti-democratic anarchists" (basically just normal anarchists) like the Libertarian Labyrinth, C4SS, CrimethInc, Peter Gelderloos, etc. About your comment, kudos to you for having a better understanding of anarchism than a majority of modern anarchists, especially those (neo-)platformists and Bookchin-Price governmentalists. However, I'll caution against the uncareful use of language like "involuntary hierarchies," since that might lead people to believe anarchY is fine with voluntary hierarchies.
As presented Anarchism only works on small scale agricultural communities. I would love for you to provide an example of a big city and country with its countless industries and companies moving towards anarchism.
Your demand is incoherent. A big city is always equipped with Authority, centralization, statism, and its subordination/relation to a hinterland. A common error is thinking cities are merely large places where there are a lot of people packed densely enough, not realizing that that's just a vague notion; for example when does 'large' kick in? 100 people? 1000? 10000? One million? In urban literature, generally size alone does not a city make. A settlement must behave like a city. So how does a city behave? A city generally is a large and dense gathering of people that subordinates a rural countryside to its rule. In other words, a complex dense organization that subordinates a rural area. It is immobile, facilitates capital flow and economic activity, and has social differentiation (capitalist division of labor and/or bureaucracy/authority). Cities attract people to them by their opportunities (mostly for food, or through jobs which again provide food). Also, historically: >there has never been a city which was not a state, or subject to a state. The state always precedes and produces the city, as it did in the earliest (archaic) states. It did so in Mesopotamia, in China, in Mesoamerica and in Peru-Bolivia - the “pristine” states, i.e., “those whose origin was sui generis out of local conditions and not in response to pressures already emanating from an already highly organized but separate political entity.”[1005] All other historical states, and all existing states, are secondary states. The state preceded the city in archaic Greece, including Attica.[1006] Two archaeologists of Mesoamerica state the case succinctly: “While urbanized societies are invariably states, not all states are urban.”[1007] The statist origin of the city is not only a matter of inference, but of record. As Lewis Mumford states: “I suggest that one of the attributes of the ancient Egyptian god, Ptah, as revealed in a document derived from the third millennium B.C. - that he founded cities - is the special and all but universal function of kings.”[1008] In a comparative study of 23 early states, pristine and secondary, urbanisation was absent in eight of them.[1009] Truly urban agglomerations depend on the state, whose emergence is the political aspect of class society.[1010] That is the “more modern view,” according to Elman R. Service: “We now know that some archaic civilizations lacked cities, while others became states before their cities developed.”[1011] “Urbanization” can be very straightforward: “when a state-level society takes over and tries to control peoples who are not used to obeying kings and rulers (i.e., tribal and other nonstate peoples), a common practice is to force people to live in towns and cities where they can be watched and controlled more easily than if they live scattered across the landscape.”[1012] * Bob Black, Nightmares of Reason There's no accurate history of cities that can furnish an example to the contrary. As for country, that implies nation, borders, socially-constructed national identities, and thus the parasite of nationalism/patriotism. You're not looking for anarchism, you're looking for a typical image of capitalism as a thrust towards an "anarchist" Society. Why don't you instead look for neoliberal settler-colonialism with a side of green capitalism as a transitional phase towards democratic market socialism?
Hot damn, I've never seen a video on anarchism that's as good as this one. Some of the ideas that you put forward are incredibly complicated, so I'm wondering how we should set about explaining them to people that have absolutely zero knowledge of politics, or that are perhaps even unaware that they're living within a political economy? For me, this is the biggest challenge to anarchists moving forward--Our theories are sublime but the way that we educate people about those theories is not.
I hate that feeling when you're reading or watching a thinker and they clearly have no understanding of Anarchy and see it as a punchline. It's ridiculously invalidating to the viewer and it makes the thinking seem quite uncritical and uninformed as well.
I hate most of those those first examples, but idk if i can be fully without rule... like. I like education. Schools. And like. Licenses for Doctors. I. Like some having some rules. Idk if I could go fully anarchist. I may need to come back to this when it isnt 2 am in the morning and i work in a few hours. I should engage, though. With ideas that challenge my world view.
well, none of those things cant be in an anarchy. Education is good for everyone, and so, following mutual aid, would exist in an anarchist society. Doctors wouldnt have licenses, but theyd have word of mouth. If people say "I went to dr goo and he talked about crystals my whole visit" then probably dont go to dr goo. A license means that they know about something, doesnt mean they do or say what they know. Word of mouth is still a necessary thing today
I don't get how you make sure that the fondamental rights of everyone are garantied if you don't take the policy form? = having laws, rules, and making them. Thank's for the well documented and thought provoking vidéo!
As a leftist Gen Z. I don't agree with anarchism or this channel's arguments at all. I still think that the future is not to lie in everybody else, but to have a system that can centralize that power and use it for situation where anarchism cannot help.
Well hello there, it seems I have just the right proposition for you through not just Constitutional Representative Republic, but also Social Welfare Programs and a Program for how to recognize, when to act upon, and how to act upon Pluralistic Ignorance, Close-mindedness and Fear, which plague all groups, not even just Political ones, even Communes too. Wanna talk about it?
on our current capitalist system filled with police brutality, sex offenders and murderers walking around freely, people dying from a hundred different reasons every day, no control over our lives, i can't believe people still think anarchy could be more chaotic than this. "oh but consequences" as if today consequences were fair, or even existent sometimes.
Thank you for yet another insightful and inspiring video. Disregard the willfully ignorant smart alecks who 1) have never even watched any of your videos let alone read any anarchist books and 2) feel threatened by even the theoretical dismantlement of a system they benefit from upholding at the expense of everyone else
so this year I joined a socialist organisation, I'd been working with them a while unofficially but there was an introductory run down of socialist/marxist concepts for newcomers. There was one other person attending aside from the host. Very much this "intellectual Marxist" type. I had never seen them in any active spaces before, so I wondered what kind of work they were involved with. They gave this enormous bibliography of Marxist literature they'd read practically unprompted and spent a lot of the time I was there bending the host's ear. I kept trying to observe what practical application they'd applied this theory to, and had to stop myself from bursting into laughter when they said it "helps [them] win disputes on the internet". one of the questioned floated to us towards the end of this interview was "what does a socialist society look like to you?" I have never really seen myself as much of an intellectual, never necessarily had a high value of my own ideas, so I've always focused on what I can see in front of me and what I can change in the moment. I had a rough idea of how horizontal structures work and how interdependent groups with diverse mechanisms work to prop each other up, so this is what I tried to explain. so this guy laughs at me. And they say: "that sounds like Anarchy!" in this tone that let me know they think I'm an idiot. Well, after that, I thought: "ok, maybe this Anarchy thing isn't so bad. I should look into that." This is where I came upon your videos, this one specifically. I've been watching them voraciously. I don't think an ideology has ever made me feel as empowered and really let me know that I have the capacity to understand the needs of both myself and my community. There is so much kindness that it's brought me to tears on more than one occasion, I don't think I even realised how badly I needed to hear these things. I'm really grateful for this channel and channels like it. Keep it up man.
Thank you for explaining exactly what anarchism is. Now I’m certain it is not something I would ever want to even experiment with. It sounds naive, unrealistic and, quite frankly, unrewarding to those with great ideas who work hard. What happens to non-anarchists in an anarchic world? Oh, that’s right. They are forced to adopt anarchy. So much for personal freedom.
I feel “force” in the context of Anarchism is used to mean the opposite of consent, rather than literally using physical force. Thus placing it at the core of what Anarchy opposes.
Something I right now think a lot about is this idea that expertise should give you chances to decide certain things - because in a lot of cases expertise currently is mostly bound to existing systems of power. I am lying in hospital right now, and I am very well read in regards to medical knowledge. So well read that in fact I correctly identified my health condition before any doctor did. However, for the simple reason that I do not have a medical degree, I was not listened too. Which in my case has been leading to more and more frustration, because the doctors will go: "Oh, but it also could be this very rare disease." While I am sitting there like: "Yeah, or it is the thing that the blood tests tell us, that secondary symptoms tell us and everything."
do you think your situation is more or less common than someone being completely wrong about such a self-diagnosis? How many people took horse dewormer rather than getting a vaccine?
Wilbur actually talks about this in the context of expertise! I flash a footnote on it on screen but it might be missed. He calls it "authority-effect." Quote: "Authority-effect: The infamous “authority of the bootmaker,” from Bakunin’s “God and the State,” is probably the most familiar example of an instance where the uneven distribution of expertise, together with the staple nature of the object of expertise, combine to create a condition of quasi-authority, where an expert may be capable of “commanding” a situation, not because they have any right to do so, but because they occupy an advantageous position in society, thanks to the division of labor. We may be forced to take the advice of a specialist, but the source of their power to influence our decision is as much our lack of expertise and whatever exigencies we face as it is their own knowledge and skill. In a medical crisis, a doctor may be able to wield considerable power over patients without medical expertise, while in a time of good health or under circumstances where the patient has medical expertise, that power melts away. Certainly, we don’t bow to bootmakers when we don’t need boots, even if sufficient need on our part may create real power that they can wield. Credentialing systems may create a slightly different sort of authority effect, particularly where they are faulty or corrupt, by increasing the possibility of the false appearance of expertise or by limiting the ability of capable practitioners to meet the needs of others. Authority-effects are very real, in the sense that the combination of factors can compel obedience to just as great an extent as more formal authority, and they may continue to be a problem even under circumstances where the principle of authority has been rejected. But their ill effects will almost certainly be reduced as we move beyond a social model that treats authority as a foundational principle and learn to engage in anarchistic relations."
My grandfather was an anarchist in the spanish civil war. He was a poor farmer and in the thirties found a group of like minded individuals that was based on mutual aid. That's how he learned how to read, got essential resources and picked up boxing. When war broke out he was captured in combat and became a POW, where he met my grandma. Cool guy
pt. 2 in the comments
Straight up sounds like a protagonist in a Hemingway story
@@writingsurreal3584 theres waaaaaay more to it
@@writingsurreal3584 if i get 50 likes i will write part two
commenting to get notified
@@Pablo-hq2ni We want part 2!
Hmm... We are lacking anarchist youtubers, you really do make a difference
There are probably plenty, but the algorithms push shorts from tiktok & whatever else is the flavor of the moment instead of content that might actually improve the world
@@blackdaylightbut he isnt wrong
Anarchist content compared to others is lacking
@@blackdaylight Shoutout to @Anark his videos are excellent
@@Bleilock1 word, I'm not saying they were wrong, just there is a ton of good anarchist content & analysis on here now, when it used to essentially just be submedia or bust
Beau of the Fifth Column is ancom and he's got a huge following
When he's not covering current topics, he's often literally teaching things Kropotkin advocated for :D
It is so sad to me how much anxiety I and many people feel at the idea of "not knowing what to do" in an anarchic system. We are trained to look to an authority for guidance and permission before acting. The idea of a group of people going to fix a sewer without permission or central planning blew my mind. I am a teacher and in my classroom I have seen my students follow their impulses to solve problems. I hate how many times a day I stop students from doing so. I even stop them from helping each other. I have so much pressure to fit all that they need to learn into the school day and I don't have time for five kids to all dive to collect one student's fallen papers. But it's awful. I ask myself "how would the people in an anarchic society know what to do each day and what needs to get done?" But I know even within myself that I feel impulses to do things a certain way, like organize my class a certain way, but I'm constantly looking over my shoulder, checking in with my superiors, making sure I'm doing it the Right Way. I have lost the ability to trust my own judgement and I fear that my job is only to perpetuate the cycle to the next generation.
Worse yet, many treat the absence of permission from authority or central planning as the absence of organisation or planning in general. They treat hierarchy as synonymous with society. It's unfortunate, and your observation of your role as a teacher under the current system rings true, but there's a vibrant history of anarchism and education that I intend to explore soon. Stay tuned!
If we're just talking about what people would do in a civil engineering sense, there could be some natural turnover process like for most production work. Even if people are discouraged from forming a chain of command, there would at least have to be some sort of tracking for what work was or wasn't done to avoid duplicate or needlessly destructive work. Someone could literally compile a list of what was done and hand that over to whoever comes by next. Intuitive problem solving on your own will always be a thing unless you just need someone to hold your hand through a job due to a lack of competency in that specific job, but it wouldn't be that safe for people to just walk up out of nowhere and just start doing maintenance on something like a plane or train with no relevant context 100% of the time.
Most workers, from what I've noticed, are capable of huddling together and deciding who can take care of what, but there's also less that could possibly lost in translation in terms of what does or doesn't actually need to be done when at least one person is specifically tasked to gather that information so that it can be dispersed the same way it was received. If I use my PTO to come in later for a work day, it's much more effective for me to just ask the floor lead what the status of the shop is instead of talking to 5 different people all focused on their specific task. That floor lead could still be out on the floor working as well if we absolutely can't have a leader of any sort, but I'm naturally going to go to them first since they will objectively know more than me in that moment about what tasks they were left with as the person with the role of information gathering that day.
Some people may not even want that role as well. I personally know that all I feel like doing at work is my job and clocking out at the end of the day. I'll gladly stand aside and wait for whatever the group feels like doing because I'm virtually on autopilot when I show up to work.
@@normandy2501 A floor lead doesn't need to have authority in order to keep track of what's going on. A group of people can recognize "Oh, Jim always seems to know what everyone is doing, hey thanks Jim". And Jim can be like "Yeah, I can do a better job of that if you want; come tell me when you start a task, and I won't have to run around as much."
Honestly I think anarchy is already in use way more than people seem to think. What work people do at their jobs is a blend between what they're ordered to do, and the things they alone recognize need done and then put in the effort to make happen. At my workplace at least there's plenty of spontaneous stuff-doing followed by "oh hey, thanks for doing that, it made a big difference". Businesses seek out employees who can set their own goals and take initiative on stuff ("spearhead"). The main non-anarchic thing is that of course, the benefits of this work are distributed by those in charge. But even then -- not all businesses run on tightly controlled, top-down budgets as we seem to imagine. Small businesses are improvisational.
Also, there are people who go around voluntarily repairing public drinking fountains or even highway signs. But that kind of anarchy is not common.
@@normandy2501 Having a central contact for floor related info is just delegation, it doesn't become hierarchist until that floor lead gets followers, bigger awards, and a bigger vote on who should have his role. A delegate that can be easily replaced is anarchist, a delegate that cannot be easily replaced is hierarchist.
That's the crux of it. We _evolved_ to collaborate and work together, the instincts your children show are integral to our humanity.
Yet they are instincts that the owning class needs trained out of people, if they are to continue to rule. We are all far more brainwashed and indoctrinated into dependence on authorities than we think, and it has beggared both our imaginations, and our collective confidence in our own skills and problem-solving capacities.
Holy Hell, here I was thinking that I'm not political, turns out pop-culture depictions of anarchism made me misunderstand the concept so badly I never looked closer into it, and thus didn't have the right framework to express my political beliefs. Thank you for giving me that Framework
Isn't it crazy how misinformative, impersonal media limits our thoughts? When we're told something, it's easy to take at face value until we're confronted with a contradiction. Something which informs a lot of my current beliefs is that I always strive to learn about a group from those that belong to it. Even if a group is not the most _reliable_ source of information on themselves, there is innate value in firsthand accounts. When a person speaks from the heart, they undoubtedly mean what they're saying, and they tend to come from a pretty well informed position!
This is very similar to how I feel. I didn’t relate to anyone around me whenever “political discussions” came up. Very glad to have found my way in this realm of ideas. Glad for you as well!
hell, i've been a socialist for a long time now & while i superficially loved my anarchist allies, i believed they were to politics as satanists are to religion: mostly focused on themselves or being (said lovingly) edge lords who also are super direct-action oriented with community gardens/support.
for whatever reason, i finally did a deep dive the past two weeks & didn't realize how closely they were related. i was already decidedly not MLM, & seems i fall a lot more in love with anarcho-syndicalism; but knowing both socialist & anarchists have socialism as the end goal, im all for it - i also like the anarchic feelings towards hierarchies & focus on being anti-state.
can't believe it took this long for me, but here we are.
real talk, no two annarchist agree what a anarcy based society would look like.
Yeah me too! The popular conception of anarchism is really really bad lol
Thanks for tackling all these 'radical' ideas with thought and measure. It's refreshing to hear people genuinely think about a better way.
My pleasure!
@@Andrewism
A world without rule is at risk of self-destruction.... if there is no one to enforce any rule, then what stops one individual from commiting an atrocity against orders.....
Freedom does not guarantee peace and peace does not guarantee freedom...
So anarchy needs a compromise.... but this compromise comes at the cost of anarchy loosing its meaning and purpose....
What most of us consider Anarchy to be can only exist in an ideal world were everybody can tolerate and trust each other.... realism always kicks in in the end and people fall back to archy.....
@@thequarter2That was always the case. What stops those at the top from commiting any atrocity? Nothing, it's worse now even given the amount of power a single individual can hold and the caste systems isolating them from others.
@@kkounal974 true... as humans, we are complex and our complexity makes it hard for us to unite and agree on one idea...
Hey @@Andrewism ever heard of commonism(with o not u)...
... Here are some sources to start:
Capital redefined
A commonist value theory for liberating life.
Commonist tendencies
Mutual aid beyond communism.
Commonism
A new astetics of the real.
Me: "I dunno about this whole 'Anarchy' business."
10 minutes later: "Wait... wait-wait-wait... there is a distinction between 'Issuing Orders' and 'Giving Instructions'?" Mind = Blown!!
I'm so happy to hear about your learning! Keep it up! 😎
Anarchy is a wonderful idea, yet has a quite a few hardcore weaknesses! These ones do need some consideration before it can ever have a kind of success, I fear.
1. Anarchists I met had often the most judgemental attitudes towards others, 'be part of the culture of be out' and no sense of humour. For me goes: If I can't play in it, I don't want to be part of the revolution. ;)
2.Freedom from state influence is often abused by big corporations or gangs. There's always people who'll consciously try the abuse the system and will exploit weaknesses. 3. This is a sad one, masculinity. The philosophy is too much a mental developed ideology that will only work when we all play along. Get it, anarchy demands playing along to work. Maybe not with authorities, but with the model, and everyone feeling able to judge others for breaking some rule.
I support collaborative anarchy, or even better collaborative forms of regenerative design, as part of looking for a more human organic way to how people already love to organise and according to what nature needs. For if we fail to restore nature, or make space for it, all human squabble about how we should organise is a distraction, unless it seeks to help. For this is the one big indicator: are you seeking to help the bigger whole with your actions?
And yes, democracy is sick and barbaric. It's ritual tribal warfare, with a lot of cheats. Yet how to grow above and beyond? Anarchy? For there is one last huge obstacle: convenience. A supermarket offers convenience. Run my own gardens, fruit orchard and have weekly meetings to make it work is just way too much fuzz. Nobody wants fuzz, and most are also caught in the abusive lie, that we don't have time for this, especially those caught in bullshit jobs.
And at the same time, I love this channel, and its search for answers to huge social questions.
Yeah a warlord coming into your land and pointing a gun at you is just "giving instructions"
@@KootFlorisanarchism is when no grocery stores
@@Ben-jj4pl as a solution or as the problem?
Anarchy is so misunderstood, even by those on the left. We need more accessible videos like this to help people understand what anarchy really means (hint: it's not chaos) and what it can look like. Thank you for your valuable work!
I don't think anarchy is only a left wing idea
Truth!!
@@treboleekem499 Anarchy is only a left wing idea. Anarchy means, simply, no rulers. Under "Anarcho-Capitalism" CEO's and the wealthy are the rulers, therefore it is not an anarchist ideology. They merely adopt the aesthetics of Anarchy as an attempt to cheapen true Anarchism, in much the same way as Libertarianism was stolen from the Left by American right wingers.
@@treboleekem499Are you suggesting Anarchism is a right wing idea or are you suggesting that Anarchy transcends the concept of "the left".
@@RD-oj4jw I think it depends on your definition of left and right but I will say neither.
I see anarchism as without government but it also doesn’t endorse a specific economic ideology. So like hypothetically if people chose for a more capitalist based economic system that would be fine. Or a socialist one is fine too. As long as the people can choose it. Like localized communities with their own sets of economic experimentation.
To be super clear I came to anarchist by my own but when I got into it I was introduced to the “anarcho-capitalist” side of it. So my background was different. I cant stand ancaps tho because they have no motive to try to come to a general understanding with the left wing anarchists. And to be fair the left wing ones can be aholes too.
But yeah basically anarchism is neither.
53 minutes on anarchy? Oh what a gift.
A'men !I know little about Anarchy & are there any cross section with Libertarianm 🤔
@@SimSetSoPalestineA little? Both oppose authority, but anarchists tend to be left wing and/or communist
@@lilpwnage36what do you mean by "left wing and/or communist", communism is left wing so how could someone not be left wing but be communist
more like what a GRIFT amiright
@@SimSetSoPalestine left libertarianism, yes. Right libertarianism (ancaps) no.
with the sheer amount of (quality) content focused primarily or entirely on what is _wrong_ (which is necessary information, if a bit depressing) it is refreshing to take an hour out to consider what would be _right._ i struggle to find good content that gives me what to chew on in terms of building the world i want to see, and i very much appreciate the time, energy, and heart you put in to these pieces.
Thank you 🫶🏽
As a burnt-out, tired audhd person, I appreciate so much that you are breaking down these concepts for us in a clear, concise way, with further readings suggested. I can’t do all the reading and studying that I wish right now, but these videos still help me learn and keep me in touch with my interests. The concepts in anarchy make me feel more human and more hopeful than anything else I’ve experienced and I appreciate that you make this videos, I can access different affirming ideas in a way that works for my disabilities
As another burnt-out, tired audhd person, I can really relate to that whole not reading as much as I want to and having to watch videos like these. I used to read audiobooks while doing other stuff but now I do nothing. It really does feel like the hierarchies of today are the only reason we are disordered (Which is a word I like because it's sort of like we oppose the current order) and our conflicts with society's mold are the symptoms, so anarchy gives me a lot of hope too. I hope we both find ways to cope and liberate ourselves even if there is no revolution in our time.
Hope you all feel better. Remember, it’s not the ADHD that slows you down. It’s the burn out. I tell ADHD people all the time- you can read and enjoy studying books just as much as the next person. You’re not dumb. It’s about overcoming burn out and depression. If I told myself, “I have ADHD, so I can’t read,” then I might as well say I can’t read because I’m too dumb.
@@wellesradio ADHD is very often comorbid with dyslexia. Also have you tried reading a book while also having an argument with the author/yourself? I know reading is not passive for anyone, but it is a maze of off-ramps for anyone with ADHD.
{edit} I should have said minefield instead of maze.
For what it's worth.
More interesting == more off-ramps. Better writing == fewer off-ramps.
yes
@@thumper8684 Definitely relate to getting "off-ramped" as you say when reading. Honestly looking into dyslexia I relate pretty well, I just managed it well enough to not notice it was a problem. Story of my life, add that to the list of comorbidities!
The necessity of hierarchy have been so ingrained on all of us, that it is so difficult for people to imagine a world without it. Every time I talk to people about this, they say "But then nothing will get done!". We are so used to having other people tell us what to do, that we cannot imagine a world without someone leading us. I think that the problem is that having a leader actually comforts a lot of people, because it means they do not have to take responsibility for their actions in particular or for the state of the world in general. I think that is why hierarchical structures appeal to people that are not leaders themselves.
My gut instinct is kind of the opposite of "nothing will get done!". I think "nobody will get paid!" People are often very willing to do work they see needs done, and much less willing to ask for some form of compensation.
It's something that Daniel Baryon (Anark) calls hierarchical realism
Are those all the kind of people who have been socialized to do nothing but work and binge watch garbage? Have they never met people with hobbies or causes? Nothing will get done? These are people who have never been to a makerspace or volunteered at a shelter or a food bank or taken their kids to a neighbourhood play group- I know a ton of people who "Get more done" outside the realm of paid labour than inside it. And none of them need anyone to tell them what to do. They see a thing, and they do it.
@@FunkyLittlePoptartwhat about people who cant get stuff done such as the disabled, elderly, children, etc.? Sure, theres no guarantee they get taken care of in current societies, but I'm still concerned about their chances in an anarchy.
I agree. Before I was in my current job I thought management and bosses were useless. But now being in that position I’ve realized that most people haven’t been taught how to lead themselves and be self directed. It would take a whole re-education for most people because everyone grows up without the responsibility of thinking for themselves because of our school system. I didn’t realize how deep that went for a long time because i was homeschooled. I think under the current mindset a boss is necessary, but I think mindsets could be changed
thank you for the language around expertise. for years ive been saying "deferring is not the same as obeying" to describe the difference between taking direction from someone who has important skills or knowledge versus going along with an authority's demands.
this is a much more concise way to describe it. we are forever in your debt. thank you.
@@echitester 👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾✨ EXACTLY!!
this is a really good video, both rhetorically, artistically and theoretically. ive always supposed anarchic ideals to be the ultimate form of liberation, but have been dubious of the practicality of such and this video begins to help show that.
Thank you for your kind words
Interesting video. I have one slightly pedantic point and I hope I don't come across as aggressive. You claim at 23:00 that "early in his politics anarchist Errico Malatesta was in favour of majority voting within anarchist organisations when there was no consensus. Yet he still conceded that decisions should only be binding on those who favour them. Later on he would reject the rule of the majority entirely."
I'm not aware of any evidence to support this interpretation. In the quote you cite Malatesta is just making a point he'd been making since he became an anarchist and which was just a standard position among anarchists within the 1st international and beyond: anarchism is against all forms of government, including democractic government/majority rule, and advocates free association. Italian anarchism emerged within the revolutionary republican movement and so was full of people who had initially been supporters of a democratic republic but now rejected it in favour of anarchy. So Malatesta rejected majority rule when he abandoned republicanism and became an anarchist at the age of 17/18.
Malatesta consistently advocates the same position on anarchist decision-making over and over again: unanimous agreement/majority voting + decisions are only binding for those who vote in favour of them + free association. In 1884, when he was 31, he wrote, "in practice one would do what one could; everything is done to reach unanimity, and when this is impossible, one would vote and do what the majority wanted, or else put the decision in the hands of a third party who would act as arbitrator, respecting the inviolability of the principles of equality and justice which the society is based on." (Malatesta 1884) I wouldn't call this early in his politics.
Elsewhere he clarified that he advocated majority voting under two circumstances. He explained in 1907 in response to anarchists who rejected all forms of voting: "the vote used to record opinions certainly has nothing anti-anarchist about it, just as the vote is not anti-anarchist when it is only a practical and freely accepted means to resolve practical issues that do not allow for multiple solutions at the same time, and when the minority is not obliged to submit to the majority, if this does not suit or please them" (Malatesta 2023, 258-9). In other words, majority voting as polling and as decision-making when one decision must be made and multiple solutions cannot co-exist eg if a person should be made editor of a newspaper or not. He did not regard either form of majority voting as a form of majority rule providing it occurs within a free association and does not consist of relations of domination.
Compare the following quotes:
1897: "If a railroad, for instance, were under consideration, there would be a thousand questions as to the line of the road, the grade, the material, the type of the engines, the location of the stations, etc., etc., and opinions on all these subjects would change from day to day, but if we wish to finish the railroad we certainly cannot go on changing everything from day to day, and if it is impossible to exactly suit everybody, it is certainly better to suit the greatest possible number; always, of course, with the understanding that the minority has all possible opportunity to advocate its ideas, to afford them all possible facilities and materials to experiment, to demonstrate, and to try to become a majority. So in all matters not amenable to several solutions running simultaneously, or where differences of opinion are not so great as to make it worthwhile parting company, with each faction doing as it will, or where the duty of solidarity imposes unity, it is reasonable, fair, and necessary for the minority to defer to the majority. But the submission of the minority must be the effect of free will determined by a consciousness of necessity, must never be made a principle, a law, which must, therefore, be applied in all cases, even when there is no necessity for it. And just here is the difference between Anarchy and any kind of government" (Malatesta 2016, 18-19).
1927: "Certainly anarchists recognise that where life is lived in common it is often necessary for the minority to come to accept the opinion of the majority. When there is an obvious need or usefulness in doing something and, to do it requires the agreement of all, the few should feel the need to adapt to the wishes of the many. And usually, in the interests of living peacefully together and under conditions of equality, it is necessary for everyone to be motivated by a spirit of concord, tolerance and compromise. But such adaptation on the one hand by one group must on the other be reciprocal, voluntary and must stem from an awareness of need and from goodwill to prevent the running of social affairs from being paralysed by obstinacy. It cannot be imposed as a principle and statutory norm. This is an ideal which, perhaps, in daily life in general, is difficult to attain in entirety, but it is a fact that in every human grouping anarchy is that much nearer where agreement between majority and minority is free and spontaneous and exempt from any imposition that does not derive from the natural order of things." (Malatesta 2014, 488).
Notice that the points are exactly the same and expressed in almost the same words. This includes the position you emphasize when citing the quote from his platformism critique: "the submission of the minority must be the effect of free will determined by a consciousness of necessity, must never be made a principle, a law, which must, therefore, be applied in all cases, even when there is no necessity for it."
Malatesta, Errico. 1884. Between Peasants.
Malatesta, Errico. 2014. The Method of Freedom: An Errico Malatesta Reader. Edited by Davide Turcato. Oakland, CA: AK Press.
Malatesta, Errico. 2016. A Long and Patient Work: The Anarchist Socialism of L’Agitazione 1897-1898. Edited by Davide Turcato. Chico, CA: AK Press.
Malatesta, Errico. 2023. The Armed Strike: The Long London Exile of 1900-1913. Edited by Davide Turcato. Chico, CA: AK Press.
You wrote a whole essay with a works cited page 😭
No shade, though. I get the point that you're making. I love your videos btw. I also bought and read your book. It helped me better understand the concept of means and ends unity. You do great work :)
Thank you for this contribution, it's definitely appreciated!
I love both your work. @anarchozoe is your personal position the same as Malatesta? I also wonder if free association has limitations where there is large disagreement especially over things like allocation of resources and projects that affect an entire society, etc?
@@sharkythegw7843zoe type of girl to read the terms and agreements, hit decline, and then make a 20 page rebuttal to the terms and agreements
Hey.. just a little thing…
PROCEEDS TO WRITE AN ENTIRE DOCUMENTARY SCRIPT ON THE LITTLE THING
Anachy is beautiful. It gives to human kind the maximum of dignity and realisation.
Then go live in Alaska in the woods and you'll have your Anarchy.
@Scolecite I prefer Cordova, Andalusia. The weather is crazy down there, can you believe that there's a church INSIDE a mosque?
A world without rule is at risk of self-destruction.... if there is no one to enforce any rule, then what stops one individual from commiting an atrocity against orders.....
Freedom does not guarantee peace and peace does not guarantee freedom...
So anarchy needs a compromise.... but this compromise comes at the cost of anarchy loosing its meaning and purpose....
What most of us consider Anarchy to be can only exist in an ideal world were everybody can tolerate and trust each other.... realism always kicks in in the end and people fall back to archy.....
@@thequarter2 If you were in front of me i'll like to talk about it. But on the internet i believe it's quite impossibile to make a point that's not misunderstood in five seconds.
I'm just curious: what do you think a just, fair world would look like? What is "good control"?
@@johncoltranesethic18
As stated before:: as a realist, all ideologies ever developed can only be practiced or purely executed in an ideal world where everybody can tolerate and trust each other (without fear, anger or hate).. but as humans, we are complex... so complex that our ideologies are rarely consistent. A just and fair world cannot exist because every ideology has its protesters, rioters, warmongers and detractors. My hope is for humans to come together and agree to work together for the greater good....
As humans, our complexity is both our biggest flaw and biggest strength.... we are unpredictable from the moment we are born... we want peace and freedom... but our versions and visions of such goal differs from individual to individual.... we call ourself the human race, but we refuse to run together or run on different lanes at different speeds... we all have our personal motive, some of which clash with others....
Tolerance is the only way Anarchy can come about... but until then... we are stuck with idealism... and the need to compromise....
Social Revolution is a slow and continuous process that compromises to adapt to different environments and ideals... hence, it will never reach a conclusion or a proper and acceptable destination....
What do you think...
Freedom and peace are two ideals that we struggles to reconcile....
As I get older I find myself moving closer and closer to an Anarchic need.
I love that you used the word need, cause that's how I've been feeling as I age
Interesting. I was an anarchist as a child, now I want to restore the monarchy.
A world without rule is at risk of self-destruction.... if there is no one to enforce any rule, then what stops one individual from commiting an atrocity against orders.....
Freedom does not guarantee peace and peace does not guarantee freedom...
So anarchy needs a compromise.... but this compromise comes at the cost of anarchy loosing its meaning and purpose....
What most of us consider Anarchy to be can only exist in an ideal world were everybody can tolerate and trust each other.... realism always kicks in in the end and people fall back to archy.....
@@thequarter2 The threat of retaliation usually is what stops them. Same reason we don't use atomic bombs. We could use them technically but it would also likely be the last time we use them haha!
@@ReapingTheHarvestjust curious, why?
Thank you for your work Andrew, it is truly aspiring. Great timing too with International Worker's Day, and the recent Pro-Palestine protests at American Universities. You all give us all hope, and we can all work together to achieve a better work
I'm pretty sure that this isn't what was meant (since you do talk about intentional organizing), but the repeated emphasis on things being "organic" felt reminiscent of how some activists will have a romantic ideal of movements developing spontaneously and thus neglect to put in the long-term, methodical work of active organizing that's necessary for movements to not just fizzle out or be co-opted.
Regardless, I enjoyed the video and your perspective, as always.
Yeah, it feels like this side of the theory desperately needs to be coupled with AnRel's remarks that activities that don't get us closer to The Goal (liberation of all, or whatever you want to call it) aren't the right Direct Action, taking 3 steps forward and 3 steps back isn't the right Direct Action, stagnating politically isn't the right Direct Action etc.
Oh my god Andrew. I've been studying anarchism and engaging in anarchist projects for close to two decades now, and still you've taught me something new here. You've made some space for me to reevaluate some of my own ways of thinking. Well done and thank you!
I really really really want to believe in this. But listening to this gave me a 1000 more questions than it answered. And raised some serious concerns. I dont say that from malice but genuine concern and desire to find common ground
Honestly, that is something I love about anarchism. I'm never in full agreement and I am very skeptical of a lot of the concepts I hear about- but pulling thst discomfort, disagreement, and skepticism apart is fascinating. I find even completely outside of ideological anarchism, in a society with a state and everything, anarchist concepts have so much value and that's what motivates me to learn more and explore those differences and questions, rather than finding an ideology that I 100% agree with or anything
i found this channel after someone posted a comment that Aaron Bushnell made on a Reddit thread naming this channel as one very educational source that he loved and recommended. i’ve fallen in love with this content, because it has given me the hope that the world will be brighter one day. the seeds of revolution have been sowed, we will not be crushed. long live the resistance ✊
I also found Andrewism through Aaron Bushnell ❤
I'm sad Aaron is gone, but I am happy you found this channel because of Aaron.
I am also here because of Aaron. May he rest in peace and power. Ive been a longtime anarchist. I have complex feelings about everything happening and that has happened over the last few months, but am happy to be in good company with Aaron and Andrew and many others.
I've been here for a bit longer than that, but this is super sweet to hear that Aaron brought you here.
I also recommend Zoe Baker and Anark. They are also anarchist youtubers
@@jessica_s9651 i did find Anark when his videos came up in my recommended! i will absolutely look into Zoe Baker as well though :) thank you for the recommendation
As a Marxist, I love your videos; your personal experiences used as examples for well-researched and thought out points that I can never disagree with. A problem I’ve often despised from my camp has been an obsession with beating capitalism at its own game - raving about the explosion of industrial productivity in the USSR for example instead of focusing on what that goal that was done for. A true revolutionary is fueled by love for mankind and I think you embody that completely. When Revolution comes I wish it looks like yours.
And the Caribbean accent is always great to listen to lol
Isn't it natural for Marxists to want to point out how successful socialism irl has been?
@@tankiegirl by being better capitalists?
@@AL-lh2ht By materially improving the lives of people via revolution. Isn't that the point of left politics?
@@tankiegirl Ok, then why not support social democracy? At least social democracy can give the quality of life improvements that ML states have, without the genocides and authoritarianism.
@@RD-oj4jw Read Marx and/or Lenin and you'll find out why Marxists prefer dictatorship of the proletariat over reformist capitalism
my mother is an anarchist and watching my communities shift to more anarcho-adjacent ideas is so refreshing
I thought I had a pretty good grasp on Anarchist thought until I watched this video. Now I realize I have so much more to learn.
Thank you for your work and voice!
I feel like the strong combination of prioritizing community connection/gathering, and self reflection/self inquiry, would gradually materialize anarchy as the common way of life.
In a vacuum
Yes, it definitely requires cultural homogeneity and a shared worldview to work.
Communication and innovation are just as important for social structures as it is for technological advancement. Love your work, always gets me to see things in new ways!
Right on International Workers Day, beautiful.
You should do a colab with Zoe Baker, she rocks.
I've always felt that Anarchy as you define it, Andrew, is exactly as our world is supposed to be. It's how our ancestors in the deep past lived. I may concede to living in the world today as society demands, but in every corner of my life I practice anarchist principles.
Just when I’ve been realizing that being at my painfully centrist college has almost deradicalized me by just not having other anarchists there, you come out with this banger, perfect timing (they do have a pro-Palestine movement though but it’s very small and outnumbered and forced by the college to be more moderate than it is, I do give them a ton of credit for existing here though)
I just hope they're not pro-Terrorist... there's a fine line to be tread here.
@@N1ghthavvk "i just hope the south african and algerian resistance arent pro terrorist"
"i just hope the slaves revolting chattel slavery dont cross my liberal sensibilities"
@@af8828 I'm sorry, but were you actually there, on the ground in Gaza? I am basing my opinion on the facts I've been told by people who actually experienced what happened.
And consequently there's only one side that I can reasonably empathize with: The civilian population victimized by both of their respective rulers.
Anything else and you're falling for propaganda and lies by people who like to choose their truths.
Hamas and Netanyahu (rightwing Israeli politics) have to go, if there's to be lasting peace.
I recommend "Tom David Frey" here on YT, if you'd like to have some insight into ordinary perspectives (you don't need to understand the language - just watch).
@@N1ghthavvk people who experienced which event? Over 120 years of colonialism, multiple mass expulsions and 75 years of apartheid? Ohh or do you mean the literal extreme-right settlers (keyword: settlers, not civilians) squatting on kibbutzes attained illegally by violation of international law and immense violence, who were peft unprotected? Settlers who actively serve in the colonial occupation force? Riight.
@@N1ghthavvk you may have trouble defining terrorism without it including the united states, israel, and most other "first-world" nations; it is more useful to look at this conflict as oppression and resistance. we dont have to like the full set of values the resistance holds as individuals or as an organization, we just have to acknowledge that they are the ones resisting the oppressive power. when the oppression ends, we can address the problematic values that arise afterwards, but today our focus must remain on the oppression.
Religion as a topic is missing. Yet religion has been a huge tool to exert power over others (men over women, clergy over flock).
God above man
Man above woman
Adult above child
Human above animal.
Except we are all animals except god who isn't real.
I do think there’s more nuance here depending on how you define religion. Spiritual beliefs and practices have been some of the strongest ways of holding communities together, and resisting the continuous assault of capitalism. Obviously top down hierarchical religion that exerts control and limits freedom are bad.
Yea it was crazy when the Crusades happened and all the men stayed home cooking food and raising the kids and the women went to die in a foreign land, right?
@@Scolecite deliberately misunderstanding my point doesn’t look good on you.
@@PhantasmalBlast I’m not aware of any current religions that work without hierarchy of some form. Religion inevitably turns into a tool to abuse and gain power over people.
This video could also be titled "Anarchy: what it actually is and how to build it"
Too many people think Anarchy is The Joker (TM) or Zaheer from the worst Avatar series, and that therefore, as a political ideology, should be mocked and dismissed, while clinging to the exploitative ways of capital and its enslaving nature.
I hope your vid changes many minds, and helps people break out of the neo-liberal mind prison.
Anarchy most certainly should be mocked and dismissed. It has no feasible way of actually developing in the world and even less of a chance of remaining on any large scale. It is a pipe dream at best for those who want to be their own boss while disregarding everyone else.
@brandonmercado8438
Democacy should be mocked and dismissed. The "great image" of the large-scale Society (Capital S) you're touting builds itself on the backs of the proletarians (capitalism), patriarchy, settler-colonialism, needless destruction of environments and the animals living there, etc. etc. etc.
Watching this video made me realize that I had no idea what anarchy and anarchism was until just now.
Can you talk about how people who inflict serious harm will be able to freely associate without people just deciding to lynch them? Can you talk about how bouncers are different to cops? Can you also talk about how food production, raw materials collection, distribution of food and materials, and water distribution can and or is being made more anarchic?
I'm a leftist trying to learn more, this is a fantastic resource. Thank you for your labour in pursuit of a greater world.
All Power to All People
🏴✊🚩
Then nothing happens, nothing will get done and society will collapse. Also you have no understanding of evolutionary biology.
@@Scolecite eVoLuTiOnArY bIoLoGy
Regarding democracy, my views against it were really solidified when I read about how democratic bodies and populations are almost always formed through political actors centralizing and consolidating power within a particular sphere. It is through the centralizing efforts of monarchs in Europe that bodies and identities were created that later went on to struggle against monarchs but within the polity that they created. Same applies to the democracy of the Greeks, and so on. And when these bodies are threatened, figures with remarkably undemocratic central powers come back into the fold (think dictators, etc). Democracy has always revolved around significant centralization around an abstract view of "the people", which is sometimes said to be "represented" by representatives, which in good times might be less centralized but in worse times under figures like dictators. This is inescapable because the priority and authority is given to an abstract representation of people, not real relationships and people.
"Democracy of the Greek" 🤡🤢🤮
seems like you're talking about what Marxists would call bourgeois democracy. it's narrowly defined societally as the one true Democracy by the west but I think small-d democracy could come in many forms/technologies (social and otherwise)
You're heavily generalizing bourgeois representative democracy as democracy broadly. Anarchism cannot exist or meaningfully function without democratic organization of society.
You characterization of democracy is true within the context of capitalism. Your reference to democracy's new formation under monarchic rule is accurate, however its formation was precipitated by the bourgeoisie - take England during the 17th and 18th centuries for example. Thus, I think your characterization of democracy, while true historically, is only true within the context of capitalism's formation within the historic revolutions of the bourgeoisie in Europe. I think that context is important to analyze if we, the *working class*, want to actualize democracy as it *should* exist (as it was conceptualized by Engels and Marx, rather), but I don't think democracy is worth writing off entirely because of that context. As Andrew said at the end of this video: anarchism has a troubled past and has yet to actualize in the forms theorized or hoped for by anarchists - Spain in the early 20th century, Ukraine, the European and American communes of the 19th century, etc.. That does not mean Anarchism should be forgotten or discounted because of those past failures, and I think the same applies to democracy.
@@ThePi314Man a democratic organization of society is nebulous, even if we had a direct democracy there will always be laws supported by a majority and not supported by the minority creating a system of domination and subordination. instead an anarchistic world would exist in a system of free association where anyone can help their community through organizations that can band together and separate whenever they please removing systems of domination and subordination.
this video is changing my views slightly and my definitions heavily and i actually dont think ill be calling myself pro democracy any longer
great video!
What im having trouble wrapping my head around is how we would deal with problems that cannot be solved by disassociating like what to plant in a specific spot. what if i want to plant corn and you want to plant tomatoes? there is no consensus needed for action, so discussion should lead to consensus. that can still be entirely freely associated, but what if i agreed to plant tomatoes if i could have my corn next year, but when the time comes you disregard that decision? I obviously dont want to force you to abide by a decision you made last years, but i also dont want to be forced to move somewhere that i could have my corn.
I think space might break the ideal of free association sometimes
Okay like literally your next paragraph states that solving something like this could be called consensus. Disregard
If you want to plant corn or tomatoes in your own garden, then do it.
@@normandy2501 dawg ownership wont exist in anarchy, youre a liberal if you think otherweise
A world without rule is at risk of self-destruction.... if there is no one to enforce any rule, then what stops one individual from commiting an atrocity against orders.....
Freedom does not guarantee peace and peace does not guarantee freedom...
So anarchy needs a compromise.... but this compromise comes at the cost of anarchy loosing its meaning and purpose....
What most of us consider Anarchy to be can only exist in an ideal world were everybody can tolerate and trust each other.... realism always kicks in in the end and people fall back to archy.....
I am digging all this man. Been an anarchist since I was 15 years old. Still am. WE OUT HERE.
How do you have checks and balances for incompetency or malace in a system of only free association? In the sewage system repair example in your revisiting consensus chapter. What if the people who choose to repair the sewage plant are incompetent, fail to repair the facility properly, and end up allowing a lethal pandemic to spread amongst the community? It might only take one incompetent individual to create such a catastrophy in many applications. How do you ensure competency? How do you maintain accountability towards individuals who may sabotage such a facility through deception and malice? Do you have free associating bands of vigilantes who hold such groups accountable? If so how would those vigilante groups be held accountable?
Bit vague, but the answer is collectively - people will choose to do so because people care about it being done.
@@rolfnodukbut like op said, if they are incompetent, what then?
@@rolfnoduk it just seems ripe for abuse. How does the collective prevent that small armed minority from overreach? A vague how, while great for the armchair philosopher, doesn't hold up when talking about conflicts with a high probability of violence is present in the physical and social world. How does anarchy prevent major problems like warlordism from such a self appointed vigilante group? How does anarchy handle whose responsible for trimming the hedges between two households? Who enforces the 'collective' decision? What if the losing party obstinately refuses to accept the consensus? How does anarchy prevent a socially powerful individual like a cult leader from reestablishing hierarchy? Even within a society of equals, without some system to maintain that equality, disparity will inevitably come back; likely mirroring the disparity that came about within our prehistorical time transitioning between the stone and bronze age.
I'm glad that other rational people are coming in here to question this. This seems like a pipe dream that sounds good on paper where everyone is free, but as soon as you try to put any of this into practice, Human nature would destroy it as he has admitted has happened each and every time it was attempted.
Other people would be smart enough to recognise the incompetence and go fix it amazing how simple that is
We could do it. I really truly believe that it is our fear of the danger of change that holds us back, But We could do it. We've always been able to do it. Stand up, And be true.
Anarchy is impossible as long as there is a world hegemon.
I could imagine an anarchic system working, but there's a few issues I see that I can't seem to get ... solved. Perhaps somebody has ideas:
* The transition from a globalized economy seems very hard, considering that we rely on specialized goods from parts of the world very far away, especially so if those parts are not yet anarchist too. How do you continue trading with them, when they want money, but an anarchist society doesn't use it? It may still be there, accessible for use if necessary to interact with the other parts of the world, but then...
* How do you prevent bad actors from just taking all or most of the money and fleeing to a capitalist part of the world? The issue with free association is that a reaction to such a "crime" is presumably not immediate and would be too late to prevent the damage to the local society. Maybe somebody would be alerted if it was a heist, but whati f it was just social engineering, where the guardian of the money was tricked into handing it over, and would not expect it back anyways, on promise of some goods being delivered later, for somebody else, who'd only realize it too late? Effectively, you'd require people to do work in very similar "jobs" as before, but you can't prevent people from leaving, in an anarchist society, can you?
* On a similar note, what about bad actors in different contexts? What if conflict escalates? What if a neighbouring empire decides to invade? Presumably the reaction would be too late to prevent entry, and would end in a guerilla warfare, where the attacker will presumably retreat, but only at the cost of way too many lives. This WILL definitely happen to the first bigger experiment. It might not to the next few, when it is established fact that invading would not be profitable, but some national actor will come for the "undefended" and "unrepresented" resources first.
* How do you transition from a "call to arms" utilizing the follower-effect, to a truly anarchist movement? It feels impossible. Media will interview some person, claiming to be able to present the ideas (and there will be people like that, maybe somebody like you with the gift of communication). But such attention will naturally lead to more and more interviews, and more and more power ending up attributed to that person, even against them rejecting it as an anarchist.
* Even in the actual event of an anarchist "region" establishing itself, communication to neighbouring political entities will be strained from the beginning: "What do you mean, you can't guarantee this treaty being upheld? But it's the Genova Convention! You're not a real country! We'll have to send blue-helmed troops to establish order until a new government is elected!" You may argue that this issue could be solved by free association, and I'd believe you, but the other countries wouldn't. You could send some (possibly) constantly changing people to represent the region in supra-national entities, but even if these people were to do their best, and the society as a whole would do their best too, it will be a struggle that I can't imagine anybody winning in the current political situation. No way, any of the main actors would allow an anarchist society to establish itself. It'd be much too unstable in their eyes.
I think we won't see an actual anarchist society experiment succeed in our lifetimes. And I couldn't imagine myself defending it against the big guns. To be completely honest: I'm much too comfortable in my current and very privileged situation to consider radical change "worth it".
I'm open to the small changes, and try to do my best to point any groups I'm a part of into the right direction, but that is all inside a casual athmosphere, where people are willing to listen. It's not inside of the workplace, or politics, where entrenched ideas are the established rule.
I’m in a similar boat. It is clear to me, for many of the reasons you listed, that the establishment of an anarchic society within the current international order is impossible on a large scale. No society or organization exists in a vacuum.
As long as states (or hierarchies in general) exist anywhere, anarchy will never be able to be sustained.
Not going to reply to all of that but to point 2: If a group of people in an anarchist society rounded up all the money in the area and left... what would that do that you think merits a response? they leave with some bags of paper that have no value anymore now that the state that backed that currency isn't in power, and the community that's left has no need of money whatsoever, let alone the money backed by the state that just stopped existing, and they don't need or want the people who obviously very much didn't want to live in that community. So.. cool they escaped to capitalistville, hope they have good, long, and fulfilling lives there.
@@JuniperHatesTwitterlikeHandles Did you completely miss the point about money being necessary in a transition period, to keep up trade with other nations? It is not useless. Sure, you won't have your own money, but you'll need dollars to keep buying oil or whatever else the society might need. Or do you want to regress to the dark ages?
You guys are almost communists already. Read Lenin, Marx and Engels, you'll see something that makes sense to you that's for sure. All these concerns are actually the things they wrote about a lot.
There's a reason anarchist societies don't last long or only last at the largesse of a greater power. If resources are valuable and there's no established power structure to defend or exploit them, someone will figure out a way to do that. The reason that global capitalism is the dominant system is because it outcompeted the other ones, both on merits of function and merits of stomping the other ones out of existence. Not a moral or ethical judgment, but just sort of a historical fact.
Troubling challenge for free association: hasn't the Internet shown us that people will use this ability to isolate themselves from ideas that they find problematic? Is this an artifact of the technology, or otherwise explicable in ways other than an anti-anarchist natural tendency?
conspiracy theorists have been secluded in information silos for as long as conspiracy theorists have been a thing. the tech doesn't promote it, merely acknowledging the ease with which it can happen.
The internet is not decentralized as it was when it was created.
people do crap like that no matter what system it is. hopefully when pre-enforced stigmas and stereotypes are preached less, more people will have an open mind and be willing to learn things from different perspectives.
@sillyspider That's like saying "Once human beings stop stealing from each other, we won't have to lock our doors".
I believe it is only natural tendency because of how we’ve grown up in a system that encourages those tendencies.
people are FAR too lazy to take the time out to properly govern themselves. You know it, I know it.
No bosses, no masters! This is a really great video, thanks comrade.
direct democracy + free association. it is not supposed to impose control, it is a method of egalitarian social decision making. the term democracy has been usurped by aristocracy, renaming democracy as true democracy or direct democracy or classic democracy, a huge hint concerning the corruption of the term.
consensus is the ultimate outcome of democracy, however it is not always achievable, and instead of forcing compliance, we rely on free association, which has the advantage of avoiding cultural homogenization and enhancing diversity.
the use of democratic social decision making under anarchy is to help us do more than possible individually or with small assemblies, voluntarily. it is also a means to grow closer communally.
as long as we desire society there will be a need for social decision making, and that process and its outcome should be anarchic, without hierarchy or coercion.
Oh hey, didn't know Bookchin is alive and has a burner account to further democratic nonsense.
Good luck enforcing direct democracy without a state of any kind...
you cant have free association and direct democracy as a minority voter will have to listen to those laws set in place which establishes forms of domination and subordination, instead we need full free association where someone joins a group for its ideas not its policies that can leave and join when you want.
@@Anita.Cox.You absolutely can. It’s simple: When you feel like your voice isn’t being heard or your needs aren’t being met, you leave. Free association. That doesn’t mean direct democracy and consensus aren’t useful for helping a community meet those needs of the individual. If you just up and leave whenever things aren’t done your way, then nothing gets done. Compromise is a key component of Anarchism.
@@confusedpozole406 that's not direct democracy at that point that's as you mention free association that's leading to consensus.
To be honest, I found this video quite confusing - got the feeling more of a play with words, rather than a worked out view of the world. Still not sure how this version of "social revolution" would work? Wouldn't some people consciously need to persuade others about their viewpoint to start building "free associations"? And especially, how would you try to "mitigate conflicts in advance", when there isn't a basic agreement even in simpler things (for example, if "democracy" is good or bad - ignoring the classless approach to the question)?
You're not the only one. Semantic tap dancing and only 20 seconds of how to deal with reactionaries and opposing forces. "Organized force" yeah okay, good luck having that with zero authority and this nebulous idea of free association
How do we prevent violence between certain free associations? How do we stop discrimination? What if a group of fascists come together and make a free association with the intent of trying to reinstitute hierarchy and enacts violence on whichever minority they despise? Do we simply hope that another free association of people decide to protect that group? How do we prevent war? I view myself as a libertarian socialist, and I oppose most systems of hierarchy, but I don't know how we make a truly anarchist system resilient to the test of time. Hierarchy may not be natural, but it didn't come from nowhere. Groups of people fought over resources and they formed different groups to organise their fights over such resources and over 1000s of years, those groups built to fight over and control resources eventually formed the systems of hierarchy that we are familiar with today. We might one day succeed in making a horizontal anarchist society. But what would keep it from becoming corrupted? What would stop hierarchy from reinstituting itself? How do we protect minorities from violence/coercion by the majority? I don't know the answers to these questions and my fear is that the answer is that you can't. That hierarchy, domination, violence, and coercion are inevtiable. But I do hope that we can minimize these as much as possible, and I think anarchist teachings are vital to understanding these concepts and teaching us how to analyze systems of hierarchy/how power flows.
I was going to ask if you had any books I could read about anarchy, but then I looked at your notes and, uh, wow.
What an excellent intro to anarchism, especially appreciate the helpful definition of authority! This video will change some minds.
Ps that section on democracy was illuminating as well
Thank you so much for spreading the word of libertarian communism! Many people, even "anarchists" seem to believe that anarchy=chaos, but the truth is, anarchy is the only realistic - and historically successful - way to achieve the abolishment of oppression, in all its forms.
Not all anarchisms are communism: There are mutualist tendencies, neo-Proudhonian anarchism prominent among them.
To box the whole of "anarchism" into one single category you like (libertarian communism) is to ignore other tendencies that don't wish to belong to the category, and to monopolize term "anarchism."
As for the boogeyman of chaos, the way you're using that word is so clearly a scare-tactic that I couldn't help myself. You're using 'chaos' the way governmentalists use largely that same word to describe anarchy.
Anarchy can certainly be thought as a positive non-pejorative chaos.
By putting anarchists who are sympathetic to chaotic forms of organization in scare quotes, you're implying that insurrectionist anarchists aren't anarchists, and neither is the anarchist writer Peter Gelderloos. His book, Worshipping Power, has a chapter dedicated to the idea that that anarchists challenge people to view chaotic ways of organizing and chaotic ways of decision-making as not inherently pejorative.
"The reasoning is simple. Hierarchical societies are easier to control, and hierarchies cannot defend themselves from more powerful hierarchies. Officials from a state cannot easily communicate with members of a society in which decisions are made in open assemblies, or societies with chaotic rather than unitary decision-making.
As an important aside, I would challenge the reader to accept chaotic organization as a superior form, even though we are usually only presented with a pejorative vision of chaos. In unitary decision-making, an entire polity must abide by a single decision, or there must be a clear hierarchy to govern and rank the decisions made at different levels, whether in a bureaucratic or federalistic system. All governments, from fascist dictatorships to direct formal democracies, share the principle of unitary decision-making and disseminate the assumptions on which such decision-making is based. Chaotic decision-making fosters the recognition that society can function spontaneously as a decentralized network, permits conflict as a healthy force in our lives, encourages a multiplicity of decision-making spaces pervading all moments of life, well beyond the formal, masculine sphere of the congress or the dictat, and allows different, even conflicting, decisions to be made at different points in the human network, while encouraging a collective consciousness so all decision-makers can maximize their intelligence and accordingly harmonize. Humans have an evolutionarily tested ability to utilize chaotic decision-making at a macro scale, and the only people who dispute this are those who wish to permanently infantilize their compatriots so as to control them by monopolizing decision-making in unitary structures."
* Worshiping Power, Take Me to Your Leader: The Politics of Alien Invasion
@@Grundrisse indeed it is true that i used libertarian communism as a broader term, so thank you for clarifying that! As a person who has been in plenty protests (Greece), it is important to distinguish true, educated nihilists and the such from the uneducated, reactionary teens who just want to mindlessly smash things up; of course violence is important, but unorganised, uncoordinated violence is detrimental to everyone
There's a reason the A is entirely inside the O in the anarchist symbol.
What is to stop a group with more power than you demanding things you can not provide? What happens when that group imposes their will upon you because you do not have the means to defend yourself?
Historically successful? 😂 cite the History then
I was kind of thinking about this without even knowing it was anarchy. I was thinking, what if instead of states and governments there would be entirely separate entities for different purposes. For example, there might be a ‘government’ for providing education to people of a certain place, they have this goal but are not bound by a higher entity, overlayed with countless other ‘governments’ each with their own goal, interacting but not antagonizing each other. Another might be to defend or provide law to a certain region, but would not interfere with the affairs of any other structure. They wouldn’t have control over everything inside them and you could opt out. Or a completely separate system with the goal of providing food for people. Etc etc etc.
The problem I see with anarchy though is that without rules how would we stop states from forming again? They could simply proclaim their laws and arrest anyone in their borders who don’t agree.
Wait,so an anarchic community would be kind of like a minecraft village?
Sounds like bullshit to me
I don't know, all of this as it often appears to be, seems something that can at best exist in optimal conditions... But systems that base themselves on optimal conditions are bound to remain utopias...
What if conditions aren't Ideal? Or good? Or even decent at best?
For example let us suppose the most banal problem this could run into a military or policing consultive association is very good at what it does, and growing amounts of people grow to like them more and more, One among them is very charismatic, some people, a growing amount of people that deal with their purviews, like to listen to them, to work with them.
People Simply gather and well these guys are good, very good, people that work with them feel growingly more comradery with them.
In time these people come out as fascists and decide that well... You know what, order and discipline don't sound that bad, and, after all, considering that a large amount of the people who deal with weapons and the military are already our Friends... Well... Let's implement order and discipline, who's going to stop us the bakers? The librarians?
Well you might say somewhere someone is going to come and restore anarchy, there's a whole world of anarchists and only One fascist insurgency, right? But this again is a best-case scenario...
What if this isn't the case? What if there are many of these, people have indeed a tendency to *like* giving up their responsibilities to a strongman, it's quite liberating being freed from the burden of responsibility... What of due to technology the amount of gunmen that these consultive Union has been able to reach is continent-sized or more...
Well, but these things have happened in hierarchies too so we are solid...
I mean, perhaps, but I am not sure it's a strong enough defence because It depends on how likely or unlikely these things can happen in either.
And this is the most unimaginative problem that such a system may run into.
Engagement for the engagement god!
While I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment of anarchism, I can’t seem to get past the practical steps of getting there from where we are now. Part of me feels that we will need an intermediary period of something like socialism or communism, in order to change the sentiments that people have about organizing as a collective. While I could see anarchy being achieved within a century or two, I don’t anticipate seeing it in our lifetime, based on current trends.
Marxist Leninism is the answer
I'm going to free-associate the use of your home and food. If you don't agree with that, well, you have the "free self-determination" to leave. But wherever you go I will freely follow and use things you produce. If you try to use force against me, and you are more capable of using force than me, then you can stop me. Even if I don't respect your force as authority, you can still stop me from using the products of your labor. That is a stance-independent hierarchy of power. So, everything comes down to force hierarchies anyway, irrespective of respect.
And 'free association" assumes some notion of "freedom" when decisions are made through culturally and neurologically determined inclinations. The assumption of "freedom" in this is already vague and objectionable.
I go back and forth on anarchy. Great intentions are behind it and it may well be the way we live in 5 centuries, but it's just too far in the future for me to tell. Democracy is inextricable from any modern powerful community effort. This is not an advocacy for untethered majority rule. But the best internal decision making pattern of a group of free association. I believe that anarchy is a description of the lack of state, not government. 2 people in a relationship living together as a household is a form of government. We should only seek to make these governments unbloated, peaceful, and equitable. I do sympathize with the belief that these simple governments in our lives need not be tied to invisible borders, but that is the thing I struggle most to imagine. At this point I advocate just for a very freeing and enabling society that not only allows, but enables the freedom of travel whenever practical.
"I believe that anarchy is a description of the lack of state, not government"
Your belief doesn't change the fact that anarchy has been defined as a total absence of government since Proudhon and his contemporaries.
>Anarchy, - the absence of a master, of a sovereign, - such is the form of government to which we are every day approximating, and which our accustomed habit of taking man for our rule, and his will for law, leads us to regard as the height of disorder and the expression of chaos. The story is told, that a citizen of Paris in the seventeenth century having heard it said that in Venice there was no king, the good man could not recover from his astonishment, and nearly died from laughter at the mere mention of so ridiculous a thing. So strong is our prejudice. As long as we live, we want a chief or chiefs; and at this very moment I hold in my hand a brochure, whose author - a zealous communist - dreams, like a second Marat, of the dictatorship. The most advanced among us are those who wish the greatest possible number of sovereigns, - their most ardent wish is for the royalty of the National Guard. Soon, undoubtedly, some one, jealous of the citizen militia, will say, “Everybody is king.” But, when he has spoken, I will say, in my turn, “Nobody is king; we are, whether we will or no, associated.”
* What is Property?
>Our destiny is to arrive at that state of ideal perfection where the nations will no longer need to be under the tutelage of a government or of another nation; it is the absence of government, it is anarchy, the highest expression of order. Those who do not think that the earth can ever pass from tutelage, those who do not believe in progress, are reactionaries.
* Elisée Reclus, The Development of Liberty in the World
This is only ten years after What is Property? and the same year as Anselme Bellegarrigue's Anarchie, Journal de l'Ordre (Anarchy, a Journal of Order).
If you can't accept this fact, then you can just be a libertarian socialist and quit pretending governmentalism is somehow a dimension of anarchy. Not that the label matters today, since it is nothing but a historical relic.
Two people in "a relationship living together as a household" is also not a form of government, that's the same level of nonsense as Engels' infamous attack on anarchism. While a social relationship between two people can be hierarchical, it need not be so and is not naturally hierarchical. Not all hierarchies constitute governments.
Anarchy might be able to exist, but only in a world with a much much smaller population. It’s naive to think millions of people who live on top of each other would all just get along without a social contract enshrined in law.
it would splinter into factions, clans and families. Due to inefficiencies of smaller scale industries and production, ressources will be limited. these Groups will then compete and war for these ressources. Anarchy never really existed. even if implemented other systems will grow to supplant it. Ingroup, outgroup. those better at violence will exploit those worse skilled.
A social contract and so-called law are just words on paper, when those in power get on top, they rarely abide by them. And it’s just their way to keep the people imprisoned. Anarchy is the only option for even billions because it increases individualism, voluntarism, personal empowerment, and it means that all people are equal there are no involuntary and abusive hierarchies such as government and Lords. It appeals to first principles and the golden rule which is “Do unto others as you would have done unto you”, basically anarchism is the philosophy of do no harm, but take no shit, that is something all people can live by.
@@Nightshift10000Let me put this into Perspective of how INCREDIBLY FRAGILE, are groups in general, political, Non-political, pro-state, Anti-State TO
Fear, Close-mindedness and Pluralistic Ignorance combined..
How do you think North Korea, a Dictatorship where more than half the population are soldiers and suffer, won't already overthrow him?
Because they don't know between each other who supports Kim Jong Un and who pretends to support him.
If they risked it, were they in a truly loyal to Kim Jong Un society, which they are not, they would die.
If they risked it, were they in a society that doesn't support Kim Jong Un, they would also die because they would peer pressure themselves into killing the non-loyalists, thinking they are surrounded by loyalists, which they are not.
Should they risk it, and every individual knows what everyone wants, they could easily overthrow him.
Seriously. Those issues will plague societies regardless of ideology unless they are highlighted in role of Politics.
Which just means the State can also get reformed to fix this issue.
@@SteveAkaDarktimes Here here
This "chaotic" decision system you propose seems deeply immoral. I don't think anyone should be able to try to repair a sewage system without seeking permission from the people who that sewage system services. What if they are more convinced of their competence than is reasonable, and flood my home with sewage? What if I tell them that I am concerned about this, and they tell me that they think my concerns are unfounded, and proceed to take actions that flood my home?
I understand your idea that 'consensus' is a bad mechanism for making decisions. It seems bad that everyone in society should have a veto on every decision. But to claim that no one needs permission to do anything? Even things that might ruin my life or kill me? That is a denial of my most fundamental rights.
Generally the idea i agree with is that everyone whom a decision affects should agree on the correct course of action (or agree on a compromise or a vote if necessary)
You are very much correct that the chaotic system that anarchists want adopted is certainly worse than what we currently have. Not only would it be more time consuming to deal with each issue without centralized structures, but people would be doing things with no regulations leading to wildly different outcomes that would negatively impact all involved. An example of this would be to go to countries or cities with little regulatory oversight and see what their infrastructure looks like. Spoiler, it is terrible.
@@brandonmercado8438 imagine trying to build a militia/army when the people in that said country hates authority. The Invading nation will have a very easy time against unorganized force
passively waiting and hoping that something gets fixed instead of taking initiative yourself never helps. the answer to a problem shouldn't be to just wait around and hope things turn out okay in the end.
@@sillyspiderYes, but we cannot reasonably apply that attitude to every situation. For one, expecting every individual to either be educated on nigh every societal issue that effects them to a degree where they can fix it is an extreme and unrealistic demand, and although you could argue that an individual could instead seek out expertise to handle such functions for them, this demands time and effort from the individual, far more than may be reasonable. Additionally, this doesn’t resolve the core issue. If there is a sewer system and a 60% majority believe it does not need renovation, while 40% minority do, how is that resolved effectively? Perhaps another sewer system could be made, but not only is that an unfeasible solution to all issues like this, and often impossible, but even deciding WHO needs the new system is rather difficult. As anarchists, rules would not be bound by authority, so the only real consequences may be mob rule (which has historically been terrible for minorities such as the queer and people of color, as well as generally).
Would it even be justifiable in an anarchic society to use force and deter the 40% sewer renovators, or hunt them down after the fact? Would that not be a form of authority, even if transient? If one defines authority as more of a demeaning , constant relationship but still allows for temporary rules or leaders in crisis, that seems to go against certain anarchic principles and leads to a sort of Cincinnatus problem, where there is little guarantee of such authorities loosening their grip on the community after the fact. Nevermind things like rocket science and surgery, which demand national standards and practices at the moment due to their immense risk and need of precision.
I actually am empathetic to anarchism and do agree with some of its takes on authority and how ideologies (spooks) can control us, but I am unsure whether a society that abolishes ALL hierarchy is feasible or stable, especially in the face of alternatives and outside factors. It seems a bit naive, or at least optimistic to expect a society that seems to handwave issues by arguing for the general goodness inside man and pointing to instances of community cooperation. At the very least it reminds me of libertarianism and their views on how unchecked capitalism would be “totally great” because the market forces involved would result in speedy, beneficial deals for citizens.
If I have misrepresented anything, please tell me, however. I really like anarchism conceptually and if I am incorrect I’d like to see how and why!
i know that you cant do anything about this but i really enjoy your accent. its refreshing to hear someoene talk about political theory that isnt some white british dude.
I’m trying, but I kinda can’t 😂. The association of water will allow distribution based on the common good? Maybe. Hard to imagine being much better than now, especially when ‘power’ becomes entrenched, much like now.
can an anarchist punk girlie and a submissive catboy ever be together 😢🔪🥀💔
😔
Yes, but only if the relationship's built around a type of mutual trust and respect that can't be had without first establishing boundaries, preferences, expectations in the relationship, -direct democratic votes,- hard limits, etc. Also, if they're really gay about it.
As for the sex matter, performing non-hierarchical sex positions is a non-negotiable condition. Otherwise, it's just exploitative dominance hierarchy!
The punk anarchist girl shall not be on top of the catboy, and catboy in turn shall not be bottom or on top of the girl.
The possible dynamics without the aesthetics and language of t/b, and most importantly, without portraying relations of command and subordination can be found in many forms of horizontally organized sex (frotting / docking, spooning, sideway 69, etc.)
First thought on the title was bjork's line "I thought I could organize freedom."
how Scandinavian of you.
What prevents an anarchy society from becoming a libertarian society and eventually just becoming a hierarchy society again?
Intent
If a condition of anarchy has been achieved, I find it intuitive to believe that it would be as difficult to reestablish a hierarchical society as it has been to establish anti-hierarchical societies in a hierarchical one. Such counter-societies would be forced to engage with an anarchic world on anarchic terms, and convince people that subordination and acceptance of principles that enslaved and killed millions are preferable to it.
That doesn't mean it couldn't happen, but in that case anarchists still exist and are still opposed to the formation of authorities, and some would probably combat it violently.
@@kakroom3407 that is assuming there is no hierarchical societies around you, with obedient flesh weapons groomed to kill, at your doorsteps. Those societies know how to break others effectively, and we will go back to were we are today.
@@ununun9995 OP's question was about what would prevent an anarchic society from "just becoming" a hierarchy society again in time
If the question is what would keep an anarchist society from being invaded by a hierarchical one, the answer is as simple as it is tragic and difficult for any society, which is organizing a defence and shooting back
Absolutely nothing.
loved this. the examples helped my comprehension significantly. i could use a whole video of examples of possible practical applications. dozens of examples. drown me in examples.
barring that, more videos about anarchy are what im subscribing for
This video is wonderful. It’s also why I feel strongly that TH-cam and google should be divorced. No corporation should control public access to information.
How anarchy works?
90s somalia
Do i need to say anything else?
This might very well be your best analysis yet, from the point of discussion and debate among likeminded fellows and due to its easy to digest format, as an easy introduction to those unfamiliar to concepts of Anarchism
I love the variety of art used here, and how much is credited! It's a passive thing, but it helps to show how traditional precepts of art, similar to society, need not be adhered to so rigidly. I think a lot of people can shed off the idea that abstract and modern art are just confusing red, yellow, and blue shapes on a canvas once they get a little exposure to different pieces; there's a lot to appreciate about the pieces featured in this video. I'm glad to learn the names and be able to look for their other works, too. Furthermore, I'm glad it's not only abstract and modern art! We should get used to seeing vastly different artworks side by side, and comparing their worth according to consistent standards. There are things easily achieved in realistic and abstract art alike, as well as things better conveyed in one over the other: both have immense, different value! You made great use of these and more, in ways that hierarchists (who apply their social values to art) could never. Keep shining a light on beauty in the world!
anarchy doesn't work
good luck discovering it bru
I just finished rewatching your degrowth video when i saw this upload. What a treat!
Great video! Greeting from Spain, one of the motherland of anarchism
A world without rule is at risk of self-destruction.... if there is no one to enforce any rule, then what stops one individual from commiting an atrocity against orders.....
Freedom does not guarantee peace and peace does not guarantee freedom...
So anarchy needs a compromise.... but this compromise comes at the cost of anarchy loosing its meaning and purpose....
What most of us consider Anarchy to be can only exist in an ideal world were everybody can tolerate and trust each other.... realism always kicks in in the end and people fall back to archy.....
@@thequarter2 You can't have atrocities without blind obedience. You can have injustices, and bad experiences, but for atrocities you need centralized control.
@@bramvanduijn8086 ignorance exists... if you are not informed or are at risk of being harm, atrocities may occur...
Mass murderers commit atrocities without any control from anyone...
@@thequarter2execpt all of them have reasons for what they did and ways in which it couldve been prevented
@@bramvanduijn8086 dude, I thinks acts of genocide because agreed about the genoicdes
Thank you for always being accessible with your videos and always putting in real captions. It means a lot.
Glad it's helpful! Honestly I'm not sure why most scripted TH-camrs don't just auto upload their script as captions.
@Andrewism you know, i never really thought of that being an option either! 😯
48 seconds in and this is the most childish ideology I've ever heard of. It almost makes the next 1000th try at Communism sound doable
Continued for a bit but no, I can already tell where this is headed. I don't need to listen to a full hour of nonsense to make a stance. It's actually funny people are expected to watch the whole thing. Brevity is the soul of wit, you do not need an hour
Wait don't confuse anarchy with anomy (without rule is anomy, same root as auto-nomy), anarchy is without government, ie without ruler. In anarchy, nobody is above the rules
Ofc I will watch the whole video ❤️
@@novinceinhosic3531 ideally people that would consider themselves to fall under it first. Don't make rules unless you're willing to be judged by them. I completely understand your point, and it is fair.
Technically, the executive power (government) should be separate from the judiciary and legislative powers. In the anarchy I envisioned when I commented that, I thought of a truly direct legislative power to everyone. But how exactly that would take place is much more complicated to say. Hence why, ultimately, fair point
The etymology claimed by anarchists historically, including early anarchists, was generally an-arche (an meaning "without"). The anarchist linguist Stephen Pearl Andrews offered the following definition of arche in The Pantarchy Defined-the Word and the Thing,” Banner of Light 33 no. 12 (June 21, 1873):
>"Arche is a Greek word (occurring in mon-archy, olig-archy, hier-archy, etc.), which curiously combines, in a subtle unity of meaning, the idea of origin or beginning, and hence of elementary principle, with that of government or rule."
The common claim that "anarchy means no rulers, not no rules" seems to originate from the 1988 work called _One Life at a Time, Please_ by Edward Abbey, who genuinely thinks anarchism is just a democracy [Anarchy is democracy taken seriously, as in Switzerland, where issues of national importance are decided by direct vote of all citizens.] It is an embarrassing, but fairly recent phenomena.
On the other hand, Proudhon already expressed strong opposition to archy/rule & government as early as 1858, in an unpublished manuscript essay called "What, Finally, is the Republic?":
>"Archy or anarchy then, no middle ground. Archy can be with one or several heads: monarchy, polyarchy, oligarchy, exarchy, heptarchy, etc. If the polyarchy is composed of the wealthiest, or of the nobles and magnates, it is called aristocracy; if the people en masse is the preponderant element there, it is a democracy. But the number of heads changes nothing in the end; as in the case of God, plurality is detrimental. Since the state is founded on the principle of command, the monarchy is much preferable."
The radical anarchists emerging after Proudhon's passing, they too opposed rules.
>"It is becoming understood that Majority rule is as defective as any other kind of rule; and Humanity searches, and finds, new channels for resolving the pending questions."
* Kropotkin, Process Under Socialism
@@lokar9240 Separating executive power from the judiciary and legislative powers isn't different from breaking the State into smaller governments. That's just local governments.
As for your desired truly direct legislative power, you could just call that dream one of a libertarian socialist Society rather than anarchy. Not that the former matters as a label today, since it is nothing but a historical relic.
Thanks all for your answers ❤️, changed a bit my understanding. I was only focusing on the word rather than the de facto
anarchy is needed for a solar punk world. there is no fascist solar punk, or capitalistic solar punk, there is only anarchist solar punk
But how is all the advanced technology required to create a solar punk world going to be made in a anarchic world? Things like solar panels, wind turbines and batteries are complicated to make and require a variety of resources that most likely cannot be sourced completely local anywhere on earth.
Hey, a fellow solarpunk anarchist.
@TheKillbot555 I believe this is included in their freedom of association with those of similar wills. Specifically those who are interesting in this tech will work with others to make it happen.
Still listening to the video, but I find the expectation of individual volition and cooperation far to optimistic.
This is wonderful! It helped quell some of my own hesitations about anarchism and explained things in a simple, humble way. Thank you!!
Why is Socialism more successful than Anarchism? Name one region that went Anarchist? Most People don’t want or are not capable of voting on every issue in the Commune? Would you have to make participation mandatory?
Socialism is a big part of anarchism as both come from teachings of Marx and Engels and advocate for pretty much the same economic policies. The reason why socialism(more accurately, Marxism-Leninism) was more widespread is because of every socialist regime after the October revolution wanted to gain aid from the USSR, meanwhile the ones who didn't(like Chile before Pinochet) were deposed in either a coup or a counter-revolution with US backing.
Easy! CNT-FAI controlled Catalonia(Orwell actually wrote about his fascination with Anarchist Barcelona when he went there as a Republican volunteer) and Makhnovia amongst the most well-known examples. It is worth to mention that almost all anarchist movements cease to exist because of foreign intervention and almost never because of internal conflict. If you need a modern example then those would be the Kurdish Rojava republic in northern Syria and mexican Zapatistas insurrectionaries.
Well that's just silly, the reason why political cynicism exists today is because the parliamentarian republican systems that exist today do not offer much control to every society within a state and often can lead to unpopular governments which increases the feelings of isolation from political issues of your state. The example anarchist movements I've stated before all had quite stable governments, with the workers influencing every aspect of their own lives with cynicism being practically nonexistent.
It depends on the anarchist though you are practicing, but most of them agree on voluntary participation within the anarchist Confederation of communes.
90% of ML states have collapsed and Capitalism covers more of the globe than it ever has, very successful.
Viva : Catalunya Kurdistan Mexico
I was on board with this video until it talked about direct democracy, that is not anarchism, that is a government. Anarchism is a political philosophy and movement that is against all forms of authority and seeks to abolish the institutions it claims maintain unnecessary coercion and coercive, involuntary hierarchies. It is a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups or advocating for the abolition of hierarchical government and the organization of society on a voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to force or compulsion. A direct democracy would form a government very much like what we are trying to escape it would be mob rule forming a hierarchy of the majority over the minority.
It is either you instinctively dropped the video at a part you find repulsive and then jumped to the comments, or you're simply trying to hook people into an argument with you. I can't tell which exactly.
If only you bothered to engage with the video further, then you'd discover that it very much goes against the common notion that anarchY is a form of direct democracy. In fact, that's Andrew's main objective when he was working on this video.
24:31 "You’re still free to advocate for direct democracy, but it’s plain inaccurate to conflate it with anarchy, because the anarchist alternative to majority rule via direct democracy and minority rule via capitalist democracy is no rule, no democracy, just free association."
He also cites various rich literature from "anti-democratic anarchists" (basically just normal anarchists) like the Libertarian Labyrinth, C4SS, CrimethInc, Peter Gelderloos, etc.
About your comment, kudos to you for having a better understanding of anarchism than a majority of modern anarchists, especially those (neo-)platformists and Bookchin-Price governmentalists. However, I'll caution against the uncareful use of language like "involuntary hierarchies," since that might lead people to believe anarchY is fine with voluntary hierarchies.
As presented Anarchism only works on small scale agricultural communities. I would love for you to provide an example of a big city and country with its countless industries and companies moving towards anarchism.
Your demand is incoherent. A big city is always equipped with Authority, centralization, statism, and its subordination/relation to a hinterland.
A common error is thinking cities are merely large places where there are a lot of people packed densely enough, not realizing that that's just a vague notion; for example when does 'large' kick in? 100 people? 1000? 10000? One million?
In urban literature, generally size alone does not a city make. A settlement must behave like a city. So how does a city behave? A city generally is a large and dense gathering of people that subordinates a rural countryside to its rule. In other words, a complex dense organization that subordinates a rural area. It is immobile, facilitates capital flow and economic activity, and has social differentiation (capitalist division of labor and/or bureaucracy/authority). Cities attract people to them by their opportunities (mostly for food, or through jobs which again provide food).
Also, historically:
>there has never been a city which was not a state, or subject to a state. The state always precedes and produces the city, as it did in the earliest (archaic) states. It did so in Mesopotamia, in China, in Mesoamerica and in Peru-Bolivia - the “pristine” states, i.e., “those whose origin was sui generis out of local conditions and not in response to pressures already emanating from an already highly organized but separate political entity.”[1005] All other historical states, and all existing states, are secondary states. The state preceded the city in archaic Greece, including Attica.[1006] Two archaeologists of Mesoamerica state the case succinctly: “While urbanized societies are invariably states, not all states are urban.”[1007] The statist origin of the city is not only a matter of inference, but of record. As Lewis Mumford states: “I suggest that one of the attributes of the ancient Egyptian god, Ptah, as revealed in a document derived from the third millennium B.C. - that he founded cities - is the special and all but universal function of kings.”[1008] In a comparative study of 23 early states, pristine and secondary, urbanisation was absent in eight of them.[1009] Truly urban agglomerations depend on the state, whose emergence is the political aspect of class society.[1010] That is the “more modern view,” according to Elman R. Service: “We now know that some archaic civilizations lacked cities, while others became states before their cities developed.”[1011] “Urbanization” can be very straightforward: “when a state-level society takes over and tries to control peoples who are not used to obeying kings and rulers (i.e., tribal and other nonstate peoples), a common practice is to force people to live in towns and cities where they can be watched and controlled more easily than if they live scattered across the landscape.”[1012]
* Bob Black, Nightmares of Reason
There's no accurate history of cities that can furnish an example to the contrary.
As for country, that implies nation, borders, socially-constructed national identities, and thus the parasite of nationalism/patriotism.
You're not looking for anarchism, you're looking for a typical image of capitalism as a thrust towards an "anarchist" Society.
Why don't you instead look for neoliberal settler-colonialism with a side of green capitalism as a transitional phase towards democratic market socialism?
Hot damn, I've never seen a video on anarchism that's as good as this one. Some of the ideas that you put forward are incredibly complicated, so I'm wondering how we should set about explaining them to people that have absolutely zero knowledge of politics, or that are perhaps even unaware that they're living within a political economy? For me, this is the biggest challenge to anarchists moving forward--Our theories are sublime but the way that we educate people about those theories is not.
I hate that feeling when you're reading or watching a thinker and they clearly have no understanding of Anarchy and see it as a punchline. It's ridiculously invalidating to the viewer and it makes the thinking seem quite uncritical and uninformed as well.
It's great to see a video tackle the more practical aspects of anarchy, thank you. For more videos like this.! Keep up the good work
More to come! Check my back catalogue in the meantime😁
@@Andrewism you bet I will!
"How anarchy works."
Well, it doesn't.😅
I hate most of those those first examples, but idk if i can be fully without rule... like. I like education. Schools. And like. Licenses for Doctors.
I. Like some having some rules.
Idk if I could go fully anarchist.
I may need to come back to this when it isnt 2 am in the morning and i work in a few hours.
I should engage, though. With ideas that challenge my world view.
well, none of those things cant be in an anarchy.
Education is good for everyone, and so, following mutual aid, would exist in an anarchist society.
Doctors wouldnt have licenses, but theyd have word of mouth. If people say "I went to dr goo and he talked about crystals my whole visit" then probably dont go to dr goo.
A license means that they know about something, doesnt mean they do or say what they know. Word of mouth is still a necessary thing today
I dont see how the situation will stay the way you say it is unless it's forced to.
very thought provoking and well presented. thank you
I don't get how you make sure that the fondamental rights of everyone are garantied if you don't take the policy form? = having laws, rules, and making them.
Thank's for the well documented and thought provoking vidéo!
As a leftist Gen Z. I don't agree with anarchism or this channel's arguments at all. I still think that the future is not to lie in everybody else, but to have a system that can centralize that power and use it for situation where anarchism cannot help.
Well hello there, it seems I have just the right proposition for you through not just Constitutional Representative Republic, but also Social Welfare Programs and a Program for how to recognize, when to act upon, and how to act upon Pluralistic Ignorance, Close-mindedness and Fear, which plague all groups, not even just Political ones, even Communes too.
Wanna talk about it?
on our current capitalist system filled with police brutality, sex offenders and murderers walking around freely, people dying from a hundred different reasons every day, no control over our lives, i can't believe people still think anarchy could be more chaotic than this. "oh but consequences" as if today consequences were fair, or even existent sometimes.
Not sure how capitalism enables any of that
Thank you for yet another insightful and inspiring video. Disregard the willfully ignorant smart alecks who 1) have never even watched any of your videos let alone read any anarchist books and 2) feel threatened by even the theoretical dismantlement of a system they benefit from upholding at the expense of everyone else
so this year I joined a socialist organisation, I'd been working with them a while unofficially but there was an introductory run down of socialist/marxist concepts for newcomers. There was one other person attending aside from the host. Very much this "intellectual Marxist" type. I had never seen them in any active spaces before, so I wondered what kind of work they were involved with. They gave this enormous bibliography of Marxist literature they'd read practically unprompted and spent a lot of the time I was there bending the host's ear. I kept trying to observe what practical application they'd applied this theory to, and had to stop myself from bursting into laughter when they said it "helps [them] win disputes on the internet".
one of the questioned floated to us towards the end of this interview was "what does a socialist society look like to you?"
I have never really seen myself as much of an intellectual, never necessarily had a high value of my own ideas, so I've always focused on what I can see in front of me and what I can change in the moment. I had a rough idea of how horizontal structures work and how interdependent groups with diverse mechanisms work to prop each other up, so this is what I tried to explain.
so this guy laughs at me. And they say: "that sounds like Anarchy!" in this tone that let me know they think I'm an idiot.
Well, after that, I thought: "ok, maybe this Anarchy thing isn't so bad. I should look into that."
This is where I came upon your videos, this one specifically. I've been watching them voraciously. I don't think an ideology has ever made me feel as empowered and really let me know that I have the capacity to understand the needs of both myself and my community. There is so much kindness that it's brought me to tears on more than one occasion, I don't think I even realised how badly I needed to hear these things.
I'm really grateful for this channel and channels like it. Keep it up man.
Me at 12:
"Fuck you, mom. Get outta my room!"
excellent video brother. thanks for everything you do. 💖🙏
Technoblade wouldve loved this
Thank you for explaining exactly what anarchism is. Now I’m certain it is not something I would ever want to even experiment with. It sounds naive, unrealistic and, quite frankly, unrewarding to those with great ideas who work hard. What happens to non-anarchists in an anarchic world? Oh, that’s right. They are forced to adopt anarchy. So much for personal freedom.
I feel “force” in the context of Anarchism is used to mean the opposite of consent, rather than literally using physical force. Thus placing it at the core of what Anarchy opposes.
Anarchists are opposed to authority, and anarchists generally do not equate force with authority
Something I right now think a lot about is this idea that expertise should give you chances to decide certain things - because in a lot of cases expertise currently is mostly bound to existing systems of power. I am lying in hospital right now, and I am very well read in regards to medical knowledge. So well read that in fact I correctly identified my health condition before any doctor did. However, for the simple reason that I do not have a medical degree, I was not listened too. Which in my case has been leading to more and more frustration, because the doctors will go: "Oh, but it also could be this very rare disease." While I am sitting there like: "Yeah, or it is the thing that the blood tests tell us, that secondary symptoms tell us and everything."
do you think your situation is more or less common than someone being completely wrong about such a self-diagnosis? How many people took horse dewormer rather than getting a vaccine?
Wilbur actually talks about this in the context of expertise! I flash a footnote on it on screen but it might be missed. He calls it "authority-effect." Quote:
"Authority-effect: The infamous “authority of the bootmaker,” from Bakunin’s “God and the State,” is probably the most familiar example of an instance where the uneven distribution of expertise, together with the staple nature of the object of expertise, combine to create a condition of quasi-authority, where an expert may be capable of “commanding” a situation, not because they have any right to do so, but because they occupy an advantageous position in society, thanks to the division of labor. We may be forced to take the advice of a specialist, but the source of their power to influence our decision is as much our lack of expertise and whatever exigencies we face as it is their own knowledge and skill. In a medical crisis, a doctor may be able to wield considerable power over patients without medical expertise, while in a time of good health or under circumstances where the patient has medical expertise, that power melts away. Certainly, we don’t bow to bootmakers when we don’t need boots, even if sufficient need on our part may create real power that they can wield. Credentialing systems may create a slightly different sort of authority effect, particularly where they are faulty or corrupt, by increasing the possibility of the false appearance of expertise or by limiting the ability of capable practitioners to meet the needs of others.
Authority-effects are very real, in the sense that the combination of factors can compel obedience to just as great an extent as more formal authority, and they may continue to be a problem even under circumstances where the principle of authority has been rejected. But their ill effects will almost certainly be reduced as we move beyond a social model that treats authority as a foundational principle and learn to engage in anarchistic relations."
Dude literally thinks he is smart then a doctor on matters of health.