Why I'm an anarchist | Sophie Scott-Brown full interview | Anarchy and democracy
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 1 มิ.ย. 2024
- Sophie Scott-Brown discusses anarchy, democracy and freedom.
Is there any room for leadership in anarchy?
To see Sophie debate viture signalling and mob rule with Simon Blackbrun and Peter Tatchell, head to iai.tv/video/virtue-ethics-an...
Join Sophie Scott-Brown in this invigorating studio interview to explore anarchism, direct democracy, and the politics of right-wing populism.
#anarchy #anarchism #freedom
Sophie Scott-Brown is an intellectual historian based at the University of East Anglia with research interests in modern European political thought and the history of education. She is the author of The Histories of Raphael Samuel: A Portrait of a People’s Historian and Colin Ward and the Art of Everyday Anarchy.
00:00 Introduction
00:20 How do you define leadership in your work?
03:45 Could direct democracy ever work on the national level?
10:33 How can we respect democracy in the face of its misuse by certain groups?
15:54 What led you to study anarchism?
20:02 Which historical anarchist thinker would you most like to talk to?
The Institute of Art and Ideas features videos and articles from cutting edge thinkers discussing the ideas that are shaping the world, from metaphysics to string theory, technology to democracy, aesthetics to genetics. Subscribe today! iai.tv/subscribe?Y...
For debates and talks: iai.tv
For articles: iai.tv/articles
For courses: iai.tv/iai-academy/courses
Does anarchy really mean more freedom? Leave your thoughts in the comments below.
To see Sophie debate viture signalling and mob rule with Simon Blackbrun and Peter Tatchell, head to iai.tv/video/virtue-ethics-and-the-mob?TH-cam&
Anarchy means against government. Government is institutionalized self-legalized initiation of force. That is core to its very definition. Freedom is freedom to live as you like in voluntary interaction with others only without coercion. So yes reducing and even eliminating institutionalized coercion is pro-freedom.
Anarchy offers great freedom until a few sociopaths (or psychopaths) eventually use that freedom to garner as much power as possible by pushing the limits of their freedom early on in seemingly acceptable ways. But once they have enough power, they use it in nefarious ways to squash the freedom of everyone else so they can gain even more power. And there is nothing you can do other than start a bloody revolution to stop it.
Anarchy only works in a world where there are no sociopathic personalities and everyone has a strong sense of empathy.
I think Anarchy is a way to much more than freedom from authoritarianism. It's a way to finally, and not just as a religious concept, live in a society where do unto others as you want done unto yourself is truly the guiding principle.
I cannot find any listing for Scott-Brown at University of East Anglia
Anarchy means no rulers, not no rules.
It does not mean without control, it means out of their control.
Anarchism means decentralization to the point of individualism.
"'What I believe' is a process rather than a finality. Finalities are for gods and governments, not for the human intellect." ~ Emma Goldman
the Mondragon cooperative is an excellent example of current syndicalist practice. Currently it's the 9th largest enterprise in Spain.
It's funny that I didn't even have to look this up to know that it's the same corporation every communist and anarchist brings up in every conversation about anarchy or communism because it's the only one that's ever worked. You probably heard about it from Richard Wolff because he brings it up literally every time he opens his mouth.
Elaborate, sounds interesting
I would recommend looking at @unlearningeconomics9021 video on worker democracy, its long, but its high quality
Thanks for the example because for must of us, anarchists, what we want is the economy and politics done with more democracy. Basically “let’s turn everything we can into a coop”.
Mondragón is not as they used to be. They have tiers of workers, but they are amazing compared to traditional capitalist companies
@@dsolis7532 everything is contaminated by capitalism, be it state run such as China, feudal such as Russia, or "neo" liberal as in the Anglo Saxon model. For Mondragon to have survived such onslaught is incredible and is no bad thing as it has shown adaptation and progression rather than stagnation. I'm intrigued by the ideas of Murray Bookchin, he would support progress in the liberal anarchist tradition.
What a beautiful humanistic Anarchist pledoyer, weaving together the best of anarchist philosophy and respecting its deepest postulates and desires.!!! Sophie comes from Wisdom
"Seek out forms of authority and question their legitimacy" -Chomsky
Answer: if they can f**k you up, then they legit. Thats it.
Read Marxist critiques of anarchism
@@JG-es5dj
What are they in short ?
who gave Chomsky the authority to say such things ex cathedra?
@@JanB56 well in that context who gave anyone the authority to say anything? Perhaps earlier in the quote, "it is my opinion" or, "I believe that smart responsible people should..." I dont think I quoted in any sort of authoritative manner, certainly Not ex cethedra! Its amazing what can be lost or gained in the translation of one human mind to another....in my opinion, lol.
For many anarchists, anarchy can be summed up in a single sentence: 'The permanent revolt against fixed ideas'.
Revolting against fixed ideas is itself a fixed idea. It begs the question. Which fixed idea is the BEST fixed idea.
@@lightofthelogos You possibly meant 'raises the question', as opposed to the fallacy of question begging, which is a common mistake.
If value is ultimately subjective, in the eyes of the valuer, then there can't be one single best idea for all times - not even for a single individual, who may happen upon a new idea, or reappraise an old one...
permanent revolt is a fixed idea!
It is in the name itself. It is the continuing revolt against hierarchy!
Not really. The root of anarchism is about challenging hierarchies. The philosophy grows as we gain a deeper understanding of hierarchies.
She really danced around that direct democracy on the national scale question.
I like how in the first 15 seconds she took a statement loaded to sound obv true that freedom cannot be imposed on you, reworded it with words that load the opposite perspective. I think the second statement about increasing freedom in any given specific situation, still occupies the same space as the first statement, in terms of having the problem "you cant be forced to be free". Good word choices and voice inflection has a power to convince rapidly without really boiling it down to a good argument. Now I'll watch the rest of the video.
Isn't being forced to be free basically being kicked out of everything?
🖤❤" Anarchism is Democracy taken seriously " Edward Abbey
🤔 Are you sure that it isn't having politicians being beholden only to the richest of society? jk
Nice idea, but communism is more feasible
Maybe you should stop having your head in you're own a$$
no
This is silly democracy goes against anarchism principles
Talking about anarchism without ever touching on more direct critiques of capitalism, the state and related structural/systemic issues tends to sound too ethereal, and I feel like this happened here as well.
Like, there's a question about freer systems being possibly used in harmful ways and it receives no push back about how current systems are definitely used in harmful ways, for example. I'm not criticizing Sophie, as this is just a short interview, but here it all ends up sounding like little more than a personal preference in style to me.
I agree. I feel like political theorists generally tend to be too abstract. For instance, her phrase "increasing democratic practices" to me is so abstract as to be near meaningless. Instead, I wish she would say something like, "Rather than outside shareholders, the employees of publicly traded corporations should elect the board of directors." Which to me is more understandable, more real, more achievable, and easier to rally around and act on than just saying people should, "increase democratic practices" or even "workers should control the means of production." Even though they all mean the same thing.
Then again, she says she doesn't want to dictate to people how to be free. Which maybe means we can all interpret how to "increase democratic practices" anyway we want. Which seems not unlike saying, "All I have are platitudes. Figure out the details out on your own. If you think more capitalism and authoritarianism means more democracy that's fine." But if that's the case, why is she even granting an interview?
@@JoJofghjYeah. Being charitable, I can see not dictating how people should be free to mean that the specific details of how people organized shouldn't be pre-dictated and the same everywhere, but can still follow some guiding principles - which I think is fair -, but I can just as easily see it as being "to each their own just let me do my thing" - which is hardly actionable in any very meaningful way when it comes to the societal scale.
As an aside, you mentioned "workers should control the means of production", and I think that's a phrase which was a bit of a victim of its own success. Like, when that first became a motto it was very practical, very contextualized and surrounded by both theory and practice. Nowadays it's a lot of the time used just as a motto with little update. Which I think is a bit unfortunate because to me the core of the message is still fresh
@@JoJofghj "I feel like political theorists generally tend to be too abstract."
True, but are we at a stage in human development where our abstract minds have risen so far above the concrete world that the two can never meet? Have "all" our political systems become far too abstract? As an engineer, it reminds of the divide between the theoretical physicist and the engineer. One dreams...the other has to make it work.
@@anthonybrett I don't think our political or economic systems have become too abstract. However, many academics and theoreticians might be a bit too removed from anything outside of academia to be able to help us put much theory into practice. I think your comparison to physicists and engineers is a good one.
@@JoJofghj Workers controlling the means of production is not abstract in the slightest. It means what it says.
I love Colin Ward's ideas. A real inspiration. The anarchism of daily life.
Omg she is one of the most interesting and original person i have ever seen. And mostly not because of what she is saying, but how she is reacting, thinking, analyzing everal.
I always get creeped out by ideas that are great as ideas but in action for the average Joe just doesn’t work. It’s a bunch of intellectualism - academic exploration - for elites - not to be confused with what works for most people.
Interesting discussion. My first exposure to Sophie, thanks iai!
The lady being interviewed here really is not an anarchist. Not in any meaningful, differentiating way.
She likes a bit more freedom where it’s “possible”.
She is a liberal, or probably a democratic socialist. Having a preference for the state being small (local village size) doesn’t change that. The state always grows. Even Rome started as a village.
Anyone actually interested in anarchy might want to read Hans Herman Hoppe or Murray Rothbard are worth reading (Rothbard has really succinct essays, Hoppe fleshes ideas out in great detail).
The interviewer confuses leadership with management. It is a common error because the idea of leadership is such a romantic notion. It rose up as a way to validate the influence of those at the top of organizational hierarchies. If we follow this line of reasoning, then we know who is responsible for all the ills and crises of society, which raises questions about how leaders are held accountable for their leadership. Four decades of working in the world of leadership development has shown me that “all leadership begins with personal initiative to create impact that makes a difference that matters.” In other words, it is a function of human behavior. This is increasingly how leadership is coming to be understood today.
What she talks about here is a time limited leadership, that's bound to special tasks, a community has to fulfill. That's a much more romantic idea, as we think about the term today. Most native Americans bands worked that way.
I think that the big problem with leadership now is that we abdicate our own responsibilities and decision making. We delegate and forget about it and expect things to be taken care of, and then we complain and protest when it isn't.
Trotsky was right of course: The revolution must be permanent. We can never take anything for granted, but must be vigilant and must watch everything very carefully all the time. Then the feedback to the coordinators aka leaders is instant, and they having a flexible mindset unlike our Dear Leaders of today, will take the right decision, having received the information they needed from the grass roots, directly from the people who have a problem.
Modern IT makes that very easy, but it starts with our mindset, how information flows and is acted upon.
Leadership accountability has always been in question. I thought Anarchism was to make that point explicitly? Power corrupts people who seek corrupted power.
I know a great book, "The Dispossessed", that describes an anarchistic society/community and the issues about it, written by the author Ursula K. LeGuin. Well, she was a science fiction and phantasy author though. A brilliant one, but her story is about a foreign planet.
I think you mean "The Dispossessed"
Just read "The Word For World is Forest", some similar themes set in the same universe, so might be one you would like too.
@@radroatchThank you for the notice, just `repaired` it, well english is not my first language. Yeah, I know the story, you mentioned, too. She´s a nearly forgotten genius. In "The Dispossessed" she shows very well and understandable, how and where the problems in a deregulated society come from. Well, the story has a kind of happy ending, not sure, if that fits reality.
@@Thomas-gk42 No worries, an easy mistake for native speaker too. We could do with more writers like Ursula K. Le Guin.
Her Earthsea and The Left Hand of Darkness are still pretty well known.
@@radroatch yeah right, nice to meet someone who appreciates her. Wish you the best
Sorry, but sci fi is always about us. Foreign planets or distant times isn't but an expressive tool.
Sophie Scott-Brown is al historian based at the University of East Anglia with research in modern European political thought and the history of education. She is the author of The Histories of Raphael Samuel: A Portrait of a People’s Historian, and Colin Ward and the Art of Everyday Anarchy.
The second book I used for my PhD.
ok hope you will receive an agent's commission 💲💲💲
What was the name of the excellent book that Colin Ward did on public transportation, very much in the vein of Ivan Illich?
I'm an anarchist because It has been demonstrated ubiquitously that responsible self-government is more efficient, enjoyable, and survivable than tyranny.
Well said!
seems like you kinda poisoned the well a lot with the words "responsible" and "tyranny". I mean, nobody of any political stripe would disagree with your statement!
@@ChannelMath But what they might say is that his perfect world cannot exist without some external force protecting it from the tyrants of the world. How does the anarchist society which spends presumably little to nothing on defense defend itself from an aggressive dictatorship that is spending 5% or more of GDP on a standing military?
@@jlpowell51 Folks that should think those things trough really don't. Their tunnel vision prevents it. They want the police defunded until their house is invaded by another anarchist of a less-ethical disposition.
When you say demonstrated, what are you thinking of?
Absolutely agree with her that leadership is not problematic. In fact, I think its important that there are leaders.
If the leader has special privileges because of their leadership, that's the problem. A leader is no better than anyone else.
Yea the mindset a lot of people take towards leadership and anyone they see as powerful is still a big problem. You don't deserve more just because you have power. We all have power anyway.
Who doesn’t agree with that?
Her ideas surely work! In a small community being surrounded by a richt, properous regular country. Try this is Somalia and see how far you get.
That's because the guys fighting to take over in Somalia want to be rulers, not leaders.
When it comes to the statement "people already live under direct democracy to one degree or another" I would agree and put it in a very pointed way.
We already operate within anarchy, each and every day, to one degree or another.
In fact, I would go as far as to say, and here's where my particular conception comes in...
We live in anarchies already.
I aim to formalize a method of categorizing interpersonal and large-group relations in this way with some writing I've been doing.
Suffice it to say, we already live in anarchy with many people, and those are the closest, most mutually benevolent relationships or at the LEAST are the least likely to result in coercive power used against someone....
What is an anarchy? Well, simply, it isn't a hierarchy.
Agreed. I’ve thought about this before where people argue we need the state because the state protects us from crime and violence, but two things are clear to me for why this is somewhat incorrect. Higher crackdowns on crime don’t prevent it or lessen it, and all crime is punishable only after it’s been committed. The state doesn’t prevent crime it dishes out punishment. Two is that we act like we need the government to stop us from murdering eachother but I think that’s very suspect, for one thing other people are likely to condemn murder and theft no matter what as a matter of principle and community another thing is who actually just had the desire to kill people, I don’t think the average person does and in our personal relationships I don’t think without a government we would just suddenly kill and rob eachother, and I say this because the idea we need government to enforce peaceful cooperation is ludicrous because what it should imply is the need for a police state to constantly force us to act appropriately, but we don’t need or want that and our laws against murder reflect a commonly held almost universal value.
Well said, I agree.
The problem with Government is they are incentivized by making it's people ever more docile and dependent on "big daddy".
If we had less criminals we would have less police, if we had less unhealthy people we would have less hospitals, if we had a more satisfied job market job creation and upward mobility wouldn't be needed. Government is like baby teeth we all need it at some stage but eventually we grow out of it, I hope.
The baby teeth analogy doesn’t work. Government is a parasitic phenomenon.
The analogy is more like a baby trying to grow with leeches on it. It can take one or two, too many kill it. But the baby is never better off developmentally with leeches on it.
Yep. A huge army of bureaucrats all thinking up ways to get more jobs for themselves.
The question about freedom and the growth of it, is the question about responsibility. One needs to understand the Green democracy to find that anarchy is not "needed". Taking responsibility gives you more freedom
I enjoyed listening. I recently heard a description of liberty that reminded me of anarchy recently.
I myself am a liberal Anarchist. I would storm parliament, break down the doors of Westminster !😡😡
Then offer to pay for the damage !😌😌
Liberalism and anarchism are opposing ideas
Fundamentally, "liberal anarchist" cannot exist, as anarchism came out of a critique of liberalism (capitalism). They run counter to each other. Liberal implies the continuation of capitalism, which would entail the continuation of unjust hierarchies via that mode.
Anarchism would deconstruct capitalism and the hierarchies that it naturally forms, while replacing it with a more horizontal structure. Being an anarchist inherently means not being liberal by definition.
To say you are a "Liberal Anarchist" would make as much sense as saying you are a "Progressive Conservative". The ideas are fundamentally opposed to each other.
Anarchism also doesn't imply violence upon physical structures like parliament. You are carrying this misunderstanding that anarchism is the destruction of physical establishments because you disagree with the governing body. This is a lighter version of a "mad max" style of anarchism often portrayed in much of the media, but is actually not what anarchism is necessarily about.
Anarchism is about the dissolution of unjust hierarchies when possible. Anarchism is not about senseless violence and destruction just because you disagree.
‘An archos’ means no Ruler, not no leader, and it certainly does not automatically mean no rules or laws that the people, the anarchists would accept and use as social guidelines for behaviour and interaction .. and most certainly does it not automatically mean chaos. -
Could be like Gilligan's Island, or Lord of the Flies, depending on the personalities involved. But once you get a charismatic personality that promises meat and is able to deliver it, they're going to be chosen to be a leader by the tribe, and the anarchy is gone.
@@theboombody - yes, sadly that's the reality - .. and the reason for that quote by BFranklin about '... having a republic.. if you can keep it..' - it requires a populace educated about- and willing to uphold ethical- moral conduct - same is required for a functioning anarchist society; the people need to understand liberty, some basic philosophy, basic economic principles of human action, and why- and how other political systems inevitably, in the long run, lead to civil-society-destroying ideas taking hold and power -
@@PeterQuentercrimsonbamboo A shedload of people out there had no interest in anything outside of themselves. Capitalism is maybe the culprit, however, it goes way back longer than an -ism. People are fine earning enough to pay for housing, their family and a speedboat. Good luck getting Aussie tradies to become anarchists.
@@theboombody choosing a leader isn't the end of anarchy, obeying a ruler is. A leader is followed out of respect, a ruler is followed out of fear of violence.
@@MrHarumakiSensei Well there needs to be a better verbal distinction between the two types of society you mention. Because the term "anarchy" to me implies non-obedience to a leader or a ruler. If anarchy only means non-obedience to a ruler, what the heck would be non-obedience to a chosen leader?
This 23 min interview explains anarchism as an adult would. The HBO film "Anarchism" are bunch of grown ups acting like kids that think Anarchism is when you do just whatever you want
It seems like that was about anarcho capitalists. They are a whole different bag of worms
@@liam6250
The difference ?
Beau Of The Fifth Column is a channel on TH-cam and the guy is a self proclaimed anarchist. His videos are all worth seeing, though most are about current events including history for context. He's very good at predicting political stuff and conflicts. He has stuff about anarchy too.
Anarchist post war theory , I'm in love 🦔🇿🇦
Very interested to know how in such direct democracy we would be able to avoid people being swayed by those w more power/money/influence. bc i genuinely want
to believe in radical democracy, but i don’t know if its a realistic concept in a society as unequal and polarized as ours is today….
For many, the very attraction of anarchism is that it tends to diminish the inequality of power and wealth warn of above.
If it's Anarcho-Communism, wealth would be shared pretty equally, so there wouldn't be people with significantly more money able to influence things. People could still be convinced by people making bad faith arguments sometimes, but I do think it would overall be much better.
Yeah that is a valid concern. It would be nice if we could just switch to that ideal world, but it’s going to take a lot of change to actually make the transition. I personally don’t believe that I’ll ever live to see the end result of our striving, but with enough effort to change, someone someday will eventually get to see what we’ve achieved
Because you are framing Democracy from the current capitalist perspective.
Number one direct democracy is not direct vote. In an anarchyst society EVERYONE, works in government. What does that mean? One example, every 6 months your local council must have new members, and every citizen must participate in the local council at least once every 2 years, otherwise you can't vote.
That would mean that you have first hand knowledge of the issues of your society, so it's muuuch harder that someone would spin tales that the vast majority would found credible.
But that's not freedom. Anarchy has not got anything to do with freedom, is against oppression. No one forces you to do anything (and all your need are met) but if you won't participate in the bettering of society, you can't participate in the decision process.
The main issue is the tyranny of the majority. The core purpose of a systematized form of government is, or at least should be, to ensure fundamental minority rights. Not sure how any anarchical “system” could perform such a function.
It couldn't. Anarchism, like libertarianism, is a stupid idea that doesn't work in reality.
Could this be changed to the "core purpose of minorities is to ensure fundamental minority rights"?
Perhaps the problem is that government protects those rights through a monopoly on violence?
There are many many forms of anarchism, it's such a broad field of political thought. Within it you can find systems that ensure that minorities are heard and respected. Anarchist praxis can employ various mechanisms to prevent tyranny of the majority.
I'm skeptical of "systems" though, and much more sympathetic to Sophie Scott-Brown's view of anarchism as a process. To me, anarchism is more about creating a durable culture than designing a "perfect" system. As with any culture, its worldview would be paramount for the wellbeing of its members and the society itself.
As an side, "rights" are not universal. But respect is. I think Simone Weil was onto something when she talked about obligations.
@@ximono Give me an example of one way an anarchic system would protect minorities.
@@peskypesky As you command, my lord.
I think I indirectly did? One with a strong culture where respect for others is a core value, an essential part of who you are as a people. Especially respect for minorities, as they are intrinsically more vulnerable. This would require a strong cultural identity and ensuring the continuation of the core values, where deviating from those would be taboo. Further, the decision-making process would have to be wise enough to include the views of minorities. I like the Quaker method that's neither majority vote (majority happy, minority miserable) nor consensus based (everybody miserable), but seeking a "sense of the meeting" (everybody happy). It does sound like consensus, but it's not. It's about seeking unity about the wisest course of action, with every voice being equally respected. It often leads to creative solutions rather than watered-down compromises. They're not stupid, these Quakers.
This is all just in principle, I can't say how it would come about, as I don't believe in designing a utopian system. But I do believe it's a better approach than enforcing rights by force, which only leads to resentment, polarization and more conflict, without ever solving the underlying problem. Someone will always be miserable and hateful in such a society. You can't force people to respect one another, it has to come from within.
In the real world, there's the democratic confederalism of Rojava, largely inspired by Bookchin and based on human rights. Whether it's actually anarchism is debatable, Bookchin is considered a post-anarchist. I think it's still within the broad scope of anarchism, and a good example of how some concessions have to be made in order for it to work, at least in a transitional phase. But this is the designed from above system approach that I'm skeptical of. I believe in growing organically from below. You can't force these things.
Wow kudos. Don’t ever live anyone else’s narrative !
The idea of conflict that’s creative rather than catastrophic is so appealing. I’d be curious to dig into that more on how that can play out.
Then read about the last 20 political years in Argentina and how it worked for argentinians...
I'm always blown away by how naive certain 'intellectuals' are.
Yes, direct democracy needs to grow organically, and can probably get a real boost after a crisis when we have tried everything else.
Well it has grown organically in Switzerland. Do you think it works well there?
I can't wait to see the progressive reaction on direct democracy when the people get to vote on immigration.
@@aristocraticrebel, immigration was the other irrational reason that led to Brexaster. The first one was not liking Europe.
These are deeply seated in human nature, and unless there's a crisis and another Churchill comes along, nothing is going to change.
Oh yes, direct democracy will happen, but only when we humans are more evolved.
BTW I was very interested in Anarchism when I was very young, half a century ago. Now I think direct democracy is a better term, now that communication is instant.
The interview doesn't make this too clear, but it's important to note that anarchism *is not* direct democracy. Direct democracy is a tool, while anarchism is a social system (and/or the social movement towards it). So anarchism entails other things, such as an opposition to capitalism (and private ownership of the means of production and wage labor, as particular examples) and the state (as understood by anarchist, not necessarily as understood by some marxists). This all has implications on what, how, when and by whom methods of direct democracy are to be applied.
This is not to say that anarchism leads to a singular mode of organization - the actual shape of an anarchist society would depend on the society itself, it's conditions, etc -, but it does come with some limits, mainly in the sense that people and their societies are allowed to defend their freedoms and refuse domination, so that things which are incompatible with freedom or bring domination do not need to be accepted. Anarchism is not "utopian" in this sense. It also does not need everyone to play nice out of the kindness of their hearts, but that's another topic.
Of course there are many strands of Anarchism, and I'm talking in a general sense. There are exceptions, but they're not the main views and do not represent most of the history or of the current work of anarchists.
@@user-sl6gn1ss8p, yes, of course the goal is Utopia, Heaven on Earth. All ideologies proclaim that. I was concerned about the stigma of the words anarchy/anarchism.
Long term I'm very optimistic for humanity, in the near term not at all. We are in the beginning of the sci-fi age, and in a century or two our world will be completely different. I find this subject of our future so fascinating! Yes there will be setbacks, but we humans aren't nearly done yet!
How can you start an anarchy without any leadership or intentional plans? I never understood what anarchy means and I'm nowhere closer after this.
It means without rulers, not without leaders.
You can do what a leader says because you respect their competence. You do what a ruler says because you will be punished if you don't.
Fall into paradox? We are never outside paradox, it is just our systems of meaning get very good at hiding it.
These ideas are dangerously vague and undistilled. Chomsky has a far more concise explanation of anarchism based on the idea that it is the requirement that ANY form of authority or hierarchy or concentrated power has to justify its own existence. Then, if it cannot do that, we should dismantle it and, if necessary, replace it with a different institution. This process is the core of all anarchist thought.
They all justify it. Think of all the emergencies and crises that keep happening.
This is Sociological Analysis of reasonable quality, extracting useful rules of thumb in a Behavioural spectrum. Social Engineering the Anarchy of humanity is much the same as extracting math-music reciprocation-recirculation potential positioning possibilities from QM relative-timing ratio-rates Perspective Principle.
Back in the day, the Behaviourist theories applied to Early Childhood Development, naturally occurring in Piaget's Stages that tended to dictate to the best Teachers how the curriculum will relate to individual (anarchist) children such that they learn participation in groups and rational discussions. Of course educated Mothers are the best naturally qualified teaching-learning leaders.
The pure Math-Physics of QM-TIME holographic nucleation Singularity-point Completeness Actuality is about where Behavioural Analysis of humanity's natural chaotic was in that era. Lead on Sophie's world.
I feel like in America Anarchist ideals are in practice. I think businesses could do what the government does and much better.... The problem is privatizing things like justice is complicated....
I feel like this process happens by attrition!
The principle is simple. A pretty big clue is in the name.
From the Greek, "An", meaning without, and, "Archos", meaning Rulers or Rulership.
That D O E S N O T
M E A N, being without rules.
Of course, if we share the principle of not tolerating dominance, (Rulers or Rulership), then we share the RULE, that none of us will practice such things, or support it from anyone.
So where government is nothing more than administration, like when someone governs a Hospital, and allows everyone in it, to exercise personal responsibility and judgement, then that Hospital is not being governed, like a car is being governed.
The car has no choice, it does not decide on anything, it just does what it's directed to do.
That's just like a Fascist, (Authoritarian for the purposes of State), Government, where people are required to do whatever they are told to do.
Direct democracy is generally too inefficient on a large scale, there are social and mathematical limitations, but the problem has been solved via systems of delegation, particularly one called Parpolity looks like a viable solution. One of the core strengths also of direct consensus is the exchange of ideas at the ground level which gives all people an accurate view of the world, and better understanding of other groups and their struggles, and the absence of a hierarchical government will force people to have regular consensus and thus have regular ground level conversation and research which would otherwise be so unpleasant they would never do it, which is the situation we are in now, expect on top of that our "representatives" co-opt the conversation, and the infrastructure for communication, and actively distort the truth to win votes and maintain power. The increased ability for people to make accurate decisions through that kind of direct interaction would probably counteract a lot of the inefficiencies of the systems of direct democracy that they choose to use.
This is quite a light touch, introductory sort of discussion, and some pointers to more recent theory and practice research would be useful. One of the central fixations of 19thC anarchist thought was of political power, the autonomy of the individual, and claiming a role on economic life, essentially by turning industry into a political arena and syndicalizing voice and participation. That's not the world we have. Enormous degrees of power and influence have be outsourced to corporations, producers of things, producers of information, producers of cultural products and norms, generally with the state proving rather weak to regulate and moderate. That then raises the question of how individuals can interact, share information, draw conclusions, and express preferences - eg by direct democracy - on the matters at hand. How does that happen at scale, and how do cultural shifts happen that see a critical mass of individuals adopt or advance those capabilities? My point is essentially the tension between power and culture, mediated through what's being spoken of here as a relatively narrow techne, or method. And - here's the kicker - which comes first? Does a group try the method in order to change the culture? Or does the culture have to change in order to make any effort at spreading the method feasible at all?
There is a lot that theory can work over. I know there's an argument that we can't all be architects and some need to be blocklayers, which is fine, plenty of roles for all. Theory might also look into the presenting issues of how rights can be protected, abuses minimised, and risks mitigated. People want to know how their needs can be met, what happens in the event of accident or misfortune, how collective goods can be secured and maintained, how collective threats can be overcome (fr, an anarchist agenda that cannot answer genuine questions on resisting invasion, heating homes, decommissioning nuclear weapons, combating climate change etc is not going to be taken seriously. This goes way beyond the "well, who's gonna fix the roads?" questions.) It's the world of today that needs the solutions applied to it, not the imagined worlds of past theorists.
Anarchy is suppose to be an exchange, but in practice, especially on places like Twitter it almost never ends up this way. Usually the person with more willpower end up trying to consolidate influence and clout for themselves. And proposes ideas that would never be tenable in any real system.
Twitter doesn’t seem like the best baseline to compare to though since it’s an absolutely toxic hellhole.
That's because the medium strongly determines what kind of messages can be sent. Twitter is unfit for communication between peers, so why is it surprising that communication between anarchists fails?
Either you guys uploaded a video with incredibly glitchy audio or TH-cam is fucking around
Insightful
No major feminine figures? Try Lousie Michel on for size
Maintenant que nous savons
Que les riches sont des larrons
Si notre père, notre mère
N'en peuvent purger la terre
Nous, quand nous aurons grandi,
Nous en ferons du hachis.
That distinguished lady left quite a corpus of writings, lots of poetry, and a considerable amount of lead and steel in her enemies. Une grande dame. Aside from her balls of solid titanium of course.
The current manifestation of anarchy within our current and ongoing restrictive contexts are going to be confined. Other or new permutations of alternative governance need room grow in order to diversify into different conceptualization of what "typical trappings" (drum circles and weed brownies) are seen as by over and popular culture.
We speak about "natural leadership" in our anachist daily praxis. We don't believe that anarchism is an ever achieved political form but a constant process. We think of this process really as a natural instinct that has to be organized. The base is theoretical for example the free comunication and here one logic form that was found by Sanders PIERCE called semiotic abductionlogic playes a great role.
So anarchism is a layer beyond every political expression when it is progressiv. The art is to understand that we rule everything and nothing.
"Anarchy is a form of society without rulers. As a kind of stateless society, it is commonly contrasted with states, which are centralized polities that claim a monopoly on violence over a permanent territory. Beyond a lack of government, it can more precisely refer to societies that lack any form of authority or hierarchy. While viewed positively by anarchists, the primary advocates of anarchy, it is viewed negatively by advocates of statism, who see it in terms of social disorder."
This is not the same as a pure democracy where instead of electing leaders to run things everything is voted on by the whole population.
The real problem with this is a naïve understanding of what will happen within any large scale society which makes a change from a democratic republic or some other more organized government into a governmental anarchy. What would really happen is a power vacuum into which would rise a feudal like power structure, which would very quickly replace the anarchy system, and the result would be like he feudal systems we have seen in history except with the use of modern weapons and technology. Those feudal power groups would then compete to become larger and larger, just like it happened historically, and we would get dictatorial kingdoms where the power might lie with a wealth based system, a class based system, a religious based system, or such; probably having some mixture just like happened historically.
This process would also likely be very bloody.
Said from someone who thinks logically and not just romantically. Thank you.
@@theboombody Personally the majority of humanity seems to be going insane. I see more and more people acting with emotional irrational tribal like thinking, increasing intolerance, increasing racism, increasing nationalism, increasing extreme religious belief, a denouncing of objective facts while embracing clearly false narratives which serve this tribal thinking group or another tribal thinking group, and a literal growing desire for having an all out war with anyone not aligned enough with one's tribe. This is feudalistic thinking and we historically know the result is very long and bloody wars, except now we have chemical, nuclear, and biological weapons.
Well said. I find anarchism to be extremely naive just like modern day libertarianism
@@lechuck312 I consider myself a libertarian, though not in terms of associating to any party and I believe we have to apply rational logical thinking when seeking to maximize the liberty of individuals to do whatever the hell they want, because we are an advanced very social race and thus we must not only compromise with each other on what freedoms we have but help each other better achieve freedoms we could never achieve on our own.
The huge elephant in the room with anarchist is they usually want things that if achieved would immediately catapult the society that achieved it into a brutal and probably quite bloody feudalistic struggle for power which would send us centuries backwards in social progress.
Things like laws and law enforcement are a requirement to prevent society from turning into a collection of war lords ruling as dictators over their territories they seek to expand.
Things like doing away with money is just stupid, because the most primitive form of money is literally direct trading of goods and services... which was incredibly inefficient and why people started using some common currency.
Now, how our laws work, how our law enforcement works, how our money works, etc.; all that can use improvement. But, you can't just do away with it without going backwards in civilization by a whole lot.
Anarchists weren’t actually against government and laws, the confusion comes from the term state which meant something different to 19th century Hegelians. Anarchism really was just socialist democracy with a futurist/individualist philosophy guiding it. Anarchism was finished off by stalin and franco.
She rues the lack of female anarchist thinkers and doesn’t even mention Ayn Rand…?
She implies that she hasn’t had a very broad look at Anarchism.
Expertise trumps popular will in a technologically sophisticated world. Bureaucracies cannot also be democracies.
It seems there is much intersection between your view on anarchism and distribution which is what I subscribe to and municipalism.
- Our freedom is like a traffic light with three lights on at once.
What drives the will to be free? And how can conventional learning suppress that will?
Before we hit the minute mark she's got me worried she's going to be one of those very non-anarchical anarchists. "Grass roots..." We'll see. As soon as two or more people form an alliance with specified terms, it's proto-government. The pressure from those alliances that are doing it a bit more up-scaled than yours in-turn provide the imperative for you to follow suit, and shortly we're back to where we presently are.
Lucy Parsons
For me the best ideas around direct democracy cone from anarcho syndicalism (somehow similar to council communism). There are plenty of other good ideas too.
I'm in Canada. I vote anarchy , meaning I spoil my ballot with a be red A on it .
I have noticed that those that espouse anarchy live comfortably under system like representative republics. Peaceful anarchy is a childish ideal. Basically she just revealed that THAT is what she is, a child intellectually. Only the very privileged can live that way.
I can think of several folks that are anarchists that live under repressive regimes; for example I have a buddy living in Myanmar protesting against the military junta.
While I'll agree that "peaceful" isn't viable, this idea that all anarchists live under representative republics is both demonstrably false, and also does a disservice to anarchists fighting against oppressive regimes
she's nice
When she uses the example of how we already organise things with friends or colleagues - who actually enjoys this process or feels satisfied with it? There are very few people with whom I find this process enjoyable or useful. Often a necessary evil that you need to just get done and over, yes. When I hear the idea that we want more and more of it I am filled with dread.
That's very sad.
@@Dennis-xj8nh why?
@@TheGinglymus I can't answer for @Dennis-xj8nh, but it sounds like you have unhealthy relationships.
@@gabe20244 I just prefer doing my own thing like lots of people do. I also don't like discussing boring minutiae. For instance, I used to have a partner who wanted to book every detail of a holiday together - discuss all the travel options, accommodation options, what clothes, what food. To me that is just annoying. I like to just relax and go with the flow, not discuss and debate with other people constantly about everything in life.
The populist will always appeal to emotions and instinct while carefully avoiding appeals to the intellect. A large portion of the population has been conditioned to only respond to those appeals, to set aside their intellect and embrace emotionally attractive conspiracy theories.
Just look at the Brexit campaign, it was driven by appeals to emotions while appeals to the intellect were completely sidelined. Simple slogans and empty rhetoric combined with appeals to the darker emotions of selfish pride, spiteful envy, and vengeful wrath will always manifest in hate. Appeals to hate are a powerful form of psychological manipulation.
I`m marquese of Korqrakgulan and i`m Anarcho realist(A 1) i`m not a maggot (A 2)who asks racket to make me a maggot or racket cause i can't play with racket
Words have no meaning, everything is subjective.
Without government, what can destroy companies that do more harm than good. Every ism pushes back against the objection that the economy would change under their ism. But it is the economy that must change instead of grow. And only the electorate has the collective brainpower to do that, with up or down votes on sufficiently signed referendums on the existence of companies.
I add to my comment: In my understanding of anarchism, it abolishes the notion of sovereignty altogether, whether it is in a king or an individual. There is no sovereign. People who claim sovereign rights as individuals are those who dont want to cooperate with others - the opposite of an anarchist. But they dont opt out altogether and become hermits. They want to receive the benefits of the system while refusing to carry any of the burdens that make those benefits possible.
The idea of cooperation must be correctly understood so it includes competition. When two football teams compete to win, their competition occurs in a wider context of cooperation with rules of the game, it is a form of cooperation. Banks are supposed to compete with each other in the capitalist system of cooperation and its rules. The bank robber is not competing with the bank because he is outside the context of cooperation and its rules.
I don’t think this is true maybe you should learn more. Competition is by definition not co operation. Many anarchists believe in individual freedom and Liberty as the highest value the burden of society is shared by all because anarchism would be a free society of free association. That’s not utopian necessarily it just means people do what they which is live and work in society it would just be a society that has as little restriction of freedom and Liberty as is possible, so within reason you understand.
I ain't gonna lie, this write-up sucks and lacks introspection.
There are anarchist groups, villages, and even some cities that don't operate the way you are defining. You are ascribing ideas to a group of people who do not take on those ideas for themselves. This is like an exonym in a way. I think you would benefit from reading some of the literature regarding anarchism or having a discussion with some anarchists. The internet is widely available and has many hours of content if you take the time to actually learn. If you don't, then this write-up just serves as word vomit to perpetuating ideas that are more akin to propaganda.
i whish it could be possible... unfortunately, it is not on anything bigger than around 2000 people and trully hard to it functionnal at even 2000...8 billions, no fucking way.
"I'm an anarchist, and I use democracy to make it work." Uh huh. Okay.
Like the subject matter but didn't pick up a tangible impression of how anarchy would operate other than the small scale.
She very briefly mentions federalism - that's one of the proposed ways. The general idea is that people form groups which come together in nested and interlinked structures. What exactly these groups are, how the nest and how they link up can vary from society to society, depending on it's needs, previous conditions, the conditions under which revolutionary activity happens, etc.
An example would be federations of producers and federations of communities coming together at different levels. As much as possible, things are decided on the most direct possible level, so that the higher levels are left for coordination. The participation on these different levels would be, where necessary, made through delegates, which would be chosen for a specific task and to defend a specific position and would be recallable. Transparency and efficient communication are key. This is of course a simplified overview, but this sort of method could, for example, flow nicely from a revolutionary process based on heavy syndicalist activity.
As pointers, you can look up for example Rojava and Chiapas. They're not strictly anarchist, but are generally taken as important case studies for anarchism, and are influenced by it. There are of course more direct but more short lived anarchist experiences, such as Revolutionary Catalonia.
For societies which have lived under social organizations which have aspects in common with anarchism, there's a book called "Anarchy works", by Peter Gelderloos. It can be found free online at "theanarchistlibrary". It's not meant to be a proposal to simply copy any of these societies, but it does help bring some things to a more concrete level.
A very brief historical introductory text for anarchism is Malatesta's "An Anarchist Programme". His earlier "Anarchy" is a bit longer and also good as a primer. Both can be found online at "theanarchistlibrary".
One thing to keep in mind when looking into anarchism is that most anarchists do *not* have an utopian view of society, humanity or anarchy itself. In some senses anarchism is actually fairly pragmatic when you get down to it - even it's strong position for a permanent unity of means and ends is not idealist.
But anyway, I'll stop here, this wall of text has gotten long enough : p
IMO, anarchism doesn't scale. And one could argue that human societies _shouldn't_ scale, as it only leads to its own downfall, ref. the Anthropocene. So if anarchism is to work on a larger scale, I think it has to remain small-scale, distributed, horizontal. How _that_ might work is an interesting question.
(BTW, it's anarchism, not anarchy.)
It starts with us, our way of thinking. Then we can create the society we want based on that.
@@user-sl6gn1ss8p Anarchism is like Buddhism. The former isn't politics and the latter isn't a religion, but both get put into those categories. IOW we all need to discover the essence of our convictions.
@@ximono, I think it's not about scale, but about the fundamental ways we think. When that's changed we can cooperate freely on all levels.
Id be careful using terms like direct democracy in assosiation with anarchism because democracy can be and often is top down
Anarchism is antiauthoritarian socialism. Anarchists are both socialists and federalists. We oppose all dictatorships, political, economic, patriarchal, or religious.
Anarchism was a social movement in the radical left from the 1870s to ww2. It’s over. Anarchists would say you aren’t one, nobody now is as how can you be without a mass movement? It’s not something one can be on one’s own and the groups that are around have almost zero appeal to and projects with the workers and farmers of the world
If you want to see anarchist concepts in action you should study the recent history and politics of Rojava. Based on Abdullah Öcalan's ideas (Democratic Confederalism, Jineology) the people of the Kurdish region of Syria managed to implement radically progressive policies right in the middle of ultra-reactionary forces. A decisive factor for such concepts to work seems to be an immediate outside threat, something that forces people to give up the comforts of a private self-centered life. Of course you also need an ideology that unites your "tribe" and the willingness to fight. I do not wish to glorify any of this but I am interested in systems that seem to work.
Slavoy Zizek is not entirely wrong, however, when he argues against small anarchist communities: When you no longer delegate the burden of governance to a state and organize things on a grass-root level you can no longer relax on your armchair and enjoy your lazy lifestyle. Instead you must attend countless meetings and have debates, votes and a million practical little problems just to make things work. Of course that's not anybodies' utopia. But it sure beats getting slaughtered by isis thugs (as was the case in Rojava) and it sure beats total systemic collapse (as may be the case on a global scale if the excrement makes contact with the oscillating air current distribution device...)
It doesn't man
Israel is better example then the one you mentioned
@@yahia9481 Do you mean Kibbutzim? They are small communities (see discussion in the interview). If you mean the state Israel you are obviously wrong.
is that a special anarchist way of sitting?
Freedom is a state of mind.
It in fact is not.
Especially in prison. 🤪
Until you’re thrown in prison for acting on your perceived freedom.
One of my biggest achievements in order to gain freedom, is to never having obtained a mortgage. To become a slave of the banks or of the state, is the worst position to be in.
If you are not paying a mortgage, then you are paying rent, which is someone else's mortgage. If you are not paying either, then you are either homeless or incredibly privileged in some capacity to forego payment.
@@gabe20244 I built an apartment on top of a garage on my mother's property. I gave around 200k for everything. Around 1500 sq feet, with a space for my car included.. All paid in cash. Now I have managed to save up 100k in cash in assets, so financially I am well off. No rent!
@@gabe20244 No, I don't pay rent. I have paid for it all in cash. 200k approx.
@@ragnarkisten "If you are not paying either, then you are either homeless or incredibly privileged in some capacity to forego payment."
@@gabe20244 What do you mean? I said I have paid for my apartment, 200k in cash. It is around 1500 sq feet in total, and contains everything I need.
Sophie Scott-Brown for PM (but only until she and comrades (including me I hope) hand over to the people so we can all live in an anarchist utopia).
"(including me I hope)" lmao
😂😂😂😂
I’ll bring the brownies
I'm an anarchist because my Government is Anarchist. Go USA! My government don't care about rule of law so nether do I.
I, on the other hand, would recommend the brownies. Just wait until you've smashed the state enough to meet your personally-set quota for the day.
Leaders are not the same as rulers. We care about consent.
The real ones know we've always lived in anarchy
would love to hear what you have to say but TH-cam has blocked me
I also believe in the idea of direct democracy. But it couldn't work where corporate entities have capture of the media. They will just manipulate the majority of people to vote the way they want. (Ie manufacturing consent). Until the mainstream is a source of information and not manipulative propaganda direct democracy would not work. And the UK media is particularly bad.
That's why what kind of society we have is fundamentally about how conscious we are and aware of everything that's going on. Then when information - not narratives - flows freely we can all understand what needs to be done and agree.
Corporations are inherently undemocratic, so what you're saying is quite obvious. Of course corporations don't work well with direct democracy, they would never allow its existence! Thanks for saying it anyway, it is an important fact and should be said more often.
Harmonious anarchism.
Difficult to listen to, this woman. In my understanding, anarchy is of course NOT chaos, disorder, violence, or anything of the sort, but rather the ultimate stage in the evolution of human socio-economic organization leading from slavery to feudalism, then capitalism, socialism, communism, and finally anarchism. It is basically a stage in which everyone (or at least the overwhelming majority of citizens, since no system is all inclusive or "perfect") is so well educated, civilized, conscious of reality, that the "governmental entities" commonly known as "the State" are no longer relevant or necessary. People then behave properly, morally and for the benefit of all out of a natural ease (as opposed to laws -and a State- imposing confirmity and legally bound behavior)
This is silly, what describe is not anarchy but democracy.. perhaps an extreme form of it but democracy nonetheless
The consensus thing is why Anarchism from my experience and observation doesn't work very well in practice. Someone needs to have veto say, and I agree they should be an elected entity. I think humanity works best with direct democracy coupled with a small mount of tyranny. What I think we need to strive for is the best case scenario rather than utopia.
Read Rothbard
It's a desire to return to early human society before class and law. Modern human society with laws governing the common folk can feel oppressive. It's understandable but impractical at this stage of the game. 5000 year experiment humanity has taken.
She did quote Rousseau saying essentially the same thing 250 years ago. Anarchism can work as small pockets within a nation state, though, and in aspects of our everyday lives. It already does, as she points out. It also works on the fringes of nation states many places in the world, as it tends to emerge in a power vacuum, at least where people aren't already heavily armed.
Btw it is pretty funny how an anarchist refers to so many original thinkers on the subject. It feels like every other political, religious dogma, you just have a different "Bible"
Isn't the camp of 2000 folk in Palermo an anarchist community?
You have to understand how the punitive-state functions in order to be libertarian/anarchist. Sophie and commenters her unfortunate aren’t completely there yet.
Ignores actual human behavior. And Direct Democracy is not anarchism in any shape or form.
全世界人類不應該用民族和國家這些概念，把我們分隔開來。人類不應該用膚色和人種去區分。
這些都是有錢人有權人的陰謀詭計。
我們都是智人，我們只應該分資產者和無產者。
要我說，我們唯一能做的就是，全世界無產者聯合起來！
打倒這些資產者，這些吸血鬼！他們通過生產資料和暴力機器對我們勞工各種盤剝壓榨，吸乾了我們每一滴血肉，把我們的剩餘價值吃乾抹淨。
所以，應該把他們通通殺光槍斃。世界屬於藍領階層，屬於我們勞工！
勞工萬歲！無政府主義萬歲！
🖤 (A) ♥️
Militant Black and Red
I agree, but I don't think you need to "seem to evade" the question by not giving more detailed, concrete examples of how it COULD work, as long as you given your qualifications. You don't actually "fall into paradox". It's not a logical contradiction. I understand what you want to say with that phrase, but it's a qualification, not a reason one cannot give more detailed, concrete examples of how it could work
YOUR NOT ALONE MY FRIEND
Guild-socialism...where did I hear that? Oh! Primo de Rivera´s Falange!