As a teenager who was raised by strict parents. I value freedom more than anything. And I feel uncomfortable with the idea of one human having power over other human lives, you hould be in charge of your own life. No masters
@@joshSmacknMouths People are bad. Therefore we need a government made up of people are bad, therefore we need a government made up of people are bad, therefore we need a government made up of people are bad, therefore we need a government made up of people are bad, therefore we need a government made up of people are bad, therefore ...
At the age of 17 I decided I was an anarchist. I later read Marc, then Lenin and thought of myself as a communist. I quickly became disillusioned with Leninist party structures which are more concerned with the party not the working class, so I described myself as a socialist working in the Labour party. I have seen , over the years, how political parties are corrupted by hierarchical structures. As said in the video power corrupts. At the age of 59 (almost 60) I have returned to the anarchist fold. The capitalist and bureaucratic socials systems hold no answers for humanity.
I totally agree. How dare the government stop us from committing violent acts, stealing, etc! I should be free to govern my life however I want, even if it does come at the expense of others! And, all government is tyrannical! Even if they're democratically elected, still tyrannical! Even if they exercise a relatively little amount of power, still tyrannical! Tyrany! I just want anarcho-communism ! Of course, in some way, the population will enforce socialism/communism, right? Cause it definitely works like that, right? Right? RIGHT?
Does the power corrupt or the "will to power"? How can democratic society really safeguard itself from undermining by manipulation of certain power hungry people? I'm afraid anarchic society will also have this constant problem. It's just naive to think that all people would follow the norm.
This guy has good points but his reasoning is stupid, in the absence of order someone will create it, people will band together and form Society, you can't count on everyone to be good, so why not have a government. Imagine trying to create a new order without order
@Emmet Bergin it is absolutely impossible to have a society without a government, what your proposing, and this video is proposing, are a treaty government, your just giving the governments less power go solve real issues, I would recommend looking at the history of spain/middle east. Those 2 explain better than I ever could. 😅 Again it would be fabulous if everyone could trust each other to not change, but that's just it, someone will break the trust. For example: if you see someone robbing a commune, you'd think it's stupid to not defend them, but that requires an organized system to do, just look at the articles of confederation, local government works when it has a bigger system tied to it
I took that test and found out I’m apparently not an anarchist. However I always agreed with the definition and philosophy behind it, so I don’t really understand.
I know this video really enlightened me. All government is tyranny! Democratically elected? DGAF, tyranny! Exercise a relatively little amount of power and is simply protecting other people from violent acts, property theft, etc? LMAO WHO CARES, tyranny! Trying to provide basic services like free healthcare to the population and protection of the people from actual enslavement? I DONT GIVE TWO SHITS, tyranny! Also, taxation is theft [Ancaps be like]!! This ideology is definitely not a fucking JOKE
I didn't think I was an anarchist; I initially that I was a social democrat. I always thought anarchy was for *ahem certain types of people who weren't me. Then I took the time to read some anarchist texts and found myself nodding along, for the most part, in agreement. Anyway, long story short, fuck authority and down with capitalism.
The trouble is that people have a knee jerk reaction on hearing the word anarchist, for this reason I use Libertarian Socialist. Otherwise people get defensive almost straight away. Good video.
@@emilys5644 How so? 'Voluntaryism' or 'Anarcho-Capitalism' properly defined is the ONLY MORALLY and LOGIGALLY 'CONSISTENT' way for human beings to interact with each other!
@Random user Name how can you doubt a stranger on the internet lmao they're not extremely different they still are on the left side of the political spectrum
Random user Name No, I just haven’t looked into it a lot, my grandad keeps on saying anarchists are fucking idiots, and he talked me through it, I’m not anarchist anymore.
@@alexxx4434 You are correct especially if you remove value judgements from all actions and view everything as biologically driven and disqualify human intention as being meaningful. But certainly, individuals inherit genes and the expression of those genes develop into traits. Those who validate intention and make value judgements of behaviors could describe others as evil. But you are of course fair if you choose not to discern intentionally harmful behaviors as evil, so long as you don't describe any other behaviors as "good' either.
A lot of authoritarian folks and even well-meaning liberals and demsocs and the like, use people like this as a justification for keeping systems of domination in place in order to control them. I see it in the opposite way; these people should be kept away from any kind of power or authority completely, and for as long as such structures exist, there will always be an open door for them. Therefore, they must be abolished.
I feel I can't call myself an anarchist, I think tbis is just grass roots teachings. Also as a native american we use the same idealology for the most part but we have leaders. But our definition of a leader is completely different. Especially, with what they do compared to western leaders. I think i would say i follow grass roots teachings.
It’s funny because Graeber’s newest book Dawn of Everything points out that classical liberalism originated with the indigenous critique of European society. And seeing as anarchism has been described as the logical conclusion to classical liberalism, I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that anarchism is a European restatement or rediscovery of already existing principles and practices in indigenous societies.
@@K-newborn are you joking? Obviously anarchists prefer bernie and unionisation to trump and unhindered capitalism, but they are ultimately against both too.
@@Somebodyherefornow depends. I'm assuming you're a vegan. Anarchism is a human political philosophy as far as I know, but often attracts folk who see no difference between human rights and animal rights. I'm not exactly well versed in vegan philosophy, but to me it would seem somewhat impractical. I'm basically vegan diet wise, but I don't see a problem with "responsible" animal husbandry as I am currently of the assumption that some spices need active culling to keep them from destroying their habitat. Now if I bought the same logic over to humans, we'd have a problem..
@@Catthepunk while yes you are correct i am vegan. you dont have to be vegan to be non-humanist; see green-anarchy, and other anarchists that focus on harmony with things “non-human”
so many people think anarchy is just complete chaos, but it's actually very reasonable. that might seem biased since im an anarchist, but anarchy is truly not chaotic at all.
True anarchist believe not in chaos or violence and believe in self collapse of governing powers and monetary systems. But if nessessity calls for it will stand against tyranny and controlling powers.
There are only three ways to get someone to submit, voluntarily submission, submission through trade, and submission through coercion. Power is the ability to effect change. Everybody wants to change the world so everyone wants power. Power does not corrupt.
But if structures are erased and we stop seeking power and be all happy, wont the "you wouldnt even think about harming someone" defeat the entire principle of free will and the principle of freedom of thought and would descend into a dystopia with rules set by everyone around us on how we should think and not see bad? Good cannot be defined without bad, never. Then it wouldnt even mean anything
I'm confused, wouldn't anarchism leave everyone vulnerable to one bad person taking over because of the power vacuum? what checks and balances would there be to stop this from happening? I get that power corrupts and a strong enough state is inherently bad, but if there is no state originally what's to stop a new state from developing and taking over to form a dictatorship?
If your best argument against the dissolution of the state is that it might result in the creation of a state.... But to answer your question, anarchism requires that people stop believing in the myth of authority. If people no longer accept the legitimacy of someone ruling over them, then there is no power vacuum - no space for a tyrant to come along and fill.
I want to know more... How would anarchist society prosecutes a criminal....? Can the society have a monetary system....? How would a society reward an individual who does the big and hard work...? What if the person doing hard work felt discriminated....? I believe at the beginning Anarchy was prevent then came the known system of leader and law.
A society based on consent seems like utopia... However, communities based on anarchist structures should be possible. If everyone in that community agrees on these principles that is...
Libertarian = not stupid, values freedom, doesn't want tyranny, but realizes there needs to be a government to protect against crime, etc. Normally capitalist and almost always support a democratic system of government, but there can be left-libertarians that believe that the democratic government should decide who is most deserving of resources and believes in a form of much less extreme socialism. Anarchism = idiot who thinks all government is tyrannical, and wants to live in a completely free society where there is no laws and everyone should be able to do whatever they want.
Monarchist here. In all regards I can identify as an anarchist, as I am a hardcore individualist and consider anarchist principles to be the best. However, while a monarchy is as good as the monarch, democracy is as good as it's people, and in some places people tend to be just not good. Is this the result of them being oppressed and broken by social inequality? Yes, and I don't think that absolutely everybody can fully recover from it. Free willed individuals will fight for their freedom and have an opinion less clouded by manipulation, but as long as they have equal rights with people who are easily manipulated into voting for the best manipulators insteas of the best leaders or prefer the comfiest lies over the best decisions, free willed people will be in the minority. While believing in individual freedom, I think that it's the most important thing, and sadly if people aren't ready for it, it's better to have a monarch guide them than let them elect a gluttonous oligarch who will drive them into greater misery and poverty. Thus, I'm kinda too authoritarian to be an anarchist, but too anarchist to get along with any authoritarianism supporters, as they tend to *not* value individualism.
one thing about socialism (i was in the PSL for a brief period) that i always questioned but "they" would never answer: if you agitate so that the workers take over the means of production, then what? i mean, how do you prevent the same hierarchical structure repeating itself. i think they actually do have an answer, but i'm not buying it anymore.
Why would people make another hierarchical structure if they see how horrible it was and how much destruction it has caused in the past? And the few that would want to make one wouldn't succeed since the overwhelming majority of people would know how harmful it is anyway.
I watch Technoblade because I wanted to learn a little more what it actually meant. I know having a motive for anarchy is something interesting to learn about what your true personal beliefs are about how the world can change in a different way. I know everyone is intelligent in their own ways and everything is so different nowadays.
The one criticism anarchists fail to ever respond to: Not all humans are rational. So the argument that "everyone just wants to do X" does not hold for those irrational people.
The only reason people are irrational is because the system we live in doesn’t rationality. If we lived in an anarchist society then irrationality would be very uncommon.
@@Vivian_228 No, people are born irrational. We're animals. It's inescapable. Idk how you could possibly think "society" or "the system" somehow has complete control over your brain, whether it acts rationally or not.
@@Google_Censored_Commenter sure, we’re born irrational, but that is replaced by rationality as we get older and smarter. Our society doesn’t like rationality because rational people can see the flaws in our symbols, and the rich people at the top of society know that this is a threat to their power and money. Our society is structured in a way that keeps the working class poor, uneducated, and irrational and keeping us fighting amongst ourselves and prevents people from becoming rational and intelligent using the “education” system (I prefer to call it the indoctrination system) and removes your individuality to turn you into the perfect factory worker. The fact you can’t see this shows how indoctrinated you are.
I've heard of this essay before, and I would half-agree with this. I think it would be better described as "Could Anarchism be a fit for you?", "How much do you agree with Anarchy?" or "Do you align with Anarchy?" rather than "Are you an Anarchist?" because, while everything said in the video about anarchists and anarchism is correct, there's a lot that's left unsaid. First and foremost, the critical component is "the total liberation of all sentient beings". You need to hold this as a value and approach the world from this perspective, in order to see the world as an Anarchist sees it, and to begin to see issues and approach solutions that would lead towards an anarchistic society. This leads into #2, the unity of means and ends. Simply put, this goes as follows: The means that you employ will determine your outcome before you've reached it, and conversely, the ends that you aspire to therefore dictate the means you can use. You cannot use the state to achieve a stateless society, and you cannot use capitalistic structures to liberate yourself from capitalism; the only thing that can result from those is more state, and more capitalism. As such, you'll often find many anarchists simply refusing to vote in elections; from the anarchist perspective, it's generally thought of as a waste of time for this reason, though it can have tactical use in a given place or time. I think these details are important to include and clarify, otherwise you'll have a bunch of liberals and libertarians who, while usually well-meaning, are calling themselves "anarchists" while still approaching the world from an entirely un-anarchistic point of view, with wild views, solutions, and tactics that don't make any sense in an anarchistic framework.
Humanity disgusts me. The biggest reason why is when we compare ourselves to another species that also works based on social interactions, wolves. When an alpha is given the position of alpha they don’t just make all the other wolves do there bidding, they are simply the best pack member at supporting the pack and that’s why they are alpha. On the other hand we humans have a completely unfair society on the fact that people who simply take and never give such as psychopaths can become some of the most powerful beings on the planet, while not supporting there land at all. Every wolf at heart has the same goal, survive and reproduce, and because of that similarity they almost always care for eachother because there all fighting for the same thing. On the other hand we humans barely ever share goals and means to accomplish said goals. Those two reasons are why I despise humanity so much, we are smarter then wolves and yet we are making mistakes they never make. I am an anarchist, but I don’t believe we can fix how the world works, so I don’t even try and make it better, I just do what a wolf without a pack does, mind my own business unless I need a meal, and if I’m attacked fight back or run away if the fights not worth it. This world is cold, and unforgiving, so I will as well. You attempt to kill me, or attack me and leave as I bleed out and whimper on the inside or outside then the second I can without consequences I will bite down into your throat until your heart stops beating. Wolves are beautiful animals when you watch them care for there young or flank there meal, but you never release just how comforted there young really feel or how terrified there prey is unless your in there position.
it is. anarchists have no plan for revolution beyond "people get mad overthrow the state and things will be better magically". it's a childish understanding of the world that doesn't work and at best results in random acts of violence
@@afgor1088 really?? U sure you have the slightest fuckin about what you are talking about? Nope. You surely have not thought much through considering your dumbass reply.
@@afgor1088 you think anarchism is about legislation and algorithmic control? "Plan for revolution"? That's the kinda stuff that happened way back in time. But things changing into need to adapt to fucking reality. I'll tell what... ...all man-made systems are just that... Man made systems. Premise 1- all man made systems are subject to mans fallibility. Premise 2- all man made systems have died eventually leading into new systems to flower. Conclusion -( man made plans don't mean a fuckin thing to me and my intellect ) the current system cannot and will not last. Let go
@@MichaelSmith420fu yes. i'm very sure, i've done a hell of a lot of reading anarchist "theory", i've organized with anarchists, i speak with anarchists regularly i even considered whether it was better than communism for a while chances are i know more about anarchism than you do since most anarchists are terminally online middle class larpers. so yeah, anarchism is a borderline counter-revolutionary waste of time
I have always had anarchist views even when i was an alt righter, i shared some views about the economic system that fit an anarcjist desription. At least i escaped that shitshow
This channel is all over the place. Do we need violence and force or do we not? I am a left-libertarian, broadly. I am not an anarchist. I am not going to type out a thesis here, but try finding other sources of information to determine what label you wish to put on your own beliefs, as this video appears to simply be an attempt to portray the most reasonable and broad outlooks on society, and even the most baselines concerns such as corruption and democratic action, as being indicative of anarchist belief. They are not, of course. Believing people can be corrupt does not make you an anarchist. Believing people can act on their own to organise and work in co-operative ways is not anarchism. Voluntary organisation itself is not anarchist. Anarchism is a state of governance - the state being the lack of it. Appreciating having systems operate under a hierarchal system that themselves operate under lateral decision making doesn't mean you must then make the ideological step to support EVERY system operating under these principles. This video amounts to someone asking you if you like pizza, and then stating that that must mean you'd enjoy living your entire life eating nothing but tomatoes.
The words of the video are 100% from David Graeber's essay. They don't necessarily represent the views/beliefs of us (the hosts of this channel). It's just a video representation of excerpts of Graeber's work. Nothing more.
When I heard the word "swine" applied to politicians I wondered what the test would be that would enable some of them to survive the accusation of group crime they seem destined to have hurled at them during the revolution. I'm a free speech absolutist but I would be too terrified to pursue that path if I heard that word used about any group or class or profession by the new regime. You know the one that was going to be temporary. The last time I remember hearing 'swine' it was Maoists during the Cultural Revolution and before that (I hate to do this) it was National Socialists (full disclosure: I actually read it on posters about Jews in a book on the Final Solution). I'm not comparing you to those movements but I am comparing your use of words, which is, afterall, how we convey our thoughts and intentions. A perceived monopoly on righteousness is the blueprint for your authoritarianism. That train is always on time. You won't even notice when you become what you're fighting against. p.s. hey Mr Tweedy. I agree some people do have a knee jerk reaction to 'anarchist'. For the sake of good PR, what would be a good replacement for 'swine'?
Cheats... You just have to look past the facade shit show politicians and look at the catastrophic war machine they built to keep us in check and exploited throughout our whole lives. They demonstrably work on that while weaving bullshit into words the people want to hear - but we will never get prosperity from them since all they will do is take from us.
My unresolved concern regards the known percentage of psychopathy and sociopathy in humans. It's one thing to appeal to a cosmic justice, and another to deal with the reality.
The one criticism anarchists fail to ever respond to: Not all humans are rational. So the argument that "everyone just wants to do X" does not hold for those irrational people. That's why we need government, not to police those who can reason and argue for their actions, but for those who cannot, and don't want to.
@@Google_Censored_Commenter Neat. Thanks for the comment. You are clearly so much smarter and superior to all of us. I can now see how enlightened and amazing you are. I bow to your superiority. Good talk.
BIG stretch dude… it can sort of work in tiny tribal groups like a rainbow gathering. For a country of 330 million people, social democracy is more realistic and practical. Anarchy as you stated is based on voluntary participation. Proud boys, Oathkeepers, and other forms of human scum are all it takes to destroy peace. There is a reason the happiest people live in the crappiest climates. Several Scandinavian countries have smartly figured it out what works best. It’s the right balance
There's no reason to think theres a problem of scale as you suggest. A society is just a collection of smaller units anyway. Besides the anarchism of everyday life Graeber (and others previously) suggest exists within and despite capitalist societies, there have been a number of suggestive historical examples such as Ukraine 1917-21, Spain 1936-39 and Rojava now. Self-defence against hostile external forces may be required at times. There's nothing incompatible with anarchism about that. Social Democracy merely puts a band aid on the gushing wound, it can't heal the body politic.
This is utterly cringeworthy. Anything good means you’re an anarchist. There are no ill-effects whatsoever with being an Anarchist outside of Rainbows, butterflies, and free hugs! Lots of free hugs. Everything is Sunny in Philadelphia
Maybe instead of being a police officer you could organize a neighborhood watch. I'm sure you have good intentions but the power that police have over a majority of the population is to control and oppress, community based neighborhood watches/militias effectively do the same thing as the police/military but are directly accountable to the people they protect so aren't oppressive
This is perhaps the ultimate hypocrisy. I'd even go as far as to say that you are not truly an anarchist, even theoretically. You (presumably) spend your days literally oppressing the freedoms of others. There's nothing less anarchist than that.
Well having a job because of economic need is a given under the current economic structure, but participating in law enforcement is indeed contrary to anarchist theory.
It sounds ideal ... but just go to twitter to see that ppl don’t get along and can’t agree on barely anything. Good luck though anarchism .. it’s as it should be (theoretically)
hensojutsu Well (in theory) those people wouldn’t act that way in an anarchist society, because they wouldn’t have to. I believe it’s the competitive, capitalist mindset that brings the worst out of people.
I mostly agree with the video but, i'm not really an anarchist because of the "stupid people" thing, I donmt think anyone is inherently inferior but there are some people that don't seem like they could ever come to an agreement with anyone, also, it seems to me that a culture of democracy may just lead to majoritarianism, for example, I'm LGBTQ, the society I live is deeply conservative, yet the government is surprisingly progressive and has protections, if the society were to be anarchist, who would stop a random bigot for hate criming me? Now of course, a government can be like that too, but governments in general, as long as they aren't absolute tyranny, can be changed somewhat peacefully.
I'm in the middle of loving and not loving communism and anarchism. I think that Humans are greedy and there is always the upper level that humen want to have.So there is always corruption in Communist Idea.Look at the communists countries , if all the people are equal and they should have equal rights , why is it that Mr X , have more power and does less work for the society. I absolutely repel any monarchy, just hate royal people. Because in some era they ruled the cities doesn't mean that they still own it. This Earth is gods creation or bigbang creation or whatever , some humen can't say that it's theirs. There should be no borders , no polices , .... I find that capitalism is ideal towards socialism or communism. I hope to see the movie Children of men to come true. I just don't want humans to breed and have kids in this world because it's too dark and your children have to do this endless loop of learning , communicating and electing someone who chooses their life to be whatever they like to be. Imagine a world with no money , people work on their own , people develop their own foods , their own cloths and their own communities for developing technology. Nothing to exchange , every person will have a room and they will work for their own benefit , no leaders , no politicians....
"I think that Humans are greedy" - Why? What do you base this belief on? "I just don't want humans to breed and have kids in this world" - You sound like an anti-natalist.
@@theliamofella Right off the bat, it's "statist." There's nothing less anarchy than perpetuation of the "state." Second, there's nothing in anarchism that calls for the peasant proletariat to rule the urban educated. Third, anarchism doesn't support destruction of familial relations (perhaps hierarchy, but not relations). Fourth, most anarchist schools don't outwardly espouse strong pro or con tenets regarding faith (Pol Pot did). Fifth, anarchism is not fiercely anti-intellectual. This list could on for quite a while, but a quick 5 is likely enough here.
I agreed with most of these, but I am definitely not an anarchist. If you think I am in denial then here is three things: 1. Some of these would be sign of leftism, such as the sharing part. 2. Out of the many political quizzes I have taken, the only one which said I was more libertarian than authoritarian was the political compass test, which is extremely biased towards libleft. 3. I think that intervention from the government is good.
What do you mean sign of leftism, Anarchism is literally radical left idiology, it should show more than just signs of leftism. Anarchism doesn't share anything with conservatives and it shouldn't.
This is paradoxical You can’t want a society based on empathy and treating others compassionately without being forced to, while also believing no one is inferior to one another, as such a society would inherently be structured against dark triad personalities, socially unacceptable attractions, etc.
no youre not, all of you fail the libertarian and anarchist test by dodging yes or no questions and resort to name calling, for example you support abolishing age laws?
As a teenager who was raised by strict parents. I value freedom more than anything. And I feel uncomfortable with the idea of one human having power over other human lives, you hould be in charge of your own life. No masters
NO MASTERS !!!
NOOOOOO MAAAAAAAASSSSSSSSTTTTEEEEERRRRRRSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
In order for that too work people would have to be good governments are needed because people can’t govern themselves
@@joshSmacknMouths People are bad. Therefore we need a government made up of people are bad, therefore we need a government made up of people are bad, therefore we need a government made up of people are bad, therefore we need a government made up of people are bad, therefore we need a government made up of people are bad, therefore ...
??????
At the age of 17 I decided I was an anarchist. I later read Marc, then Lenin and thought of myself as a communist. I quickly became disillusioned with Leninist party structures which are more concerned with the party not the working class, so I described myself as a socialist working in the Labour party. I have seen , over the years, how political parties are corrupted by hierarchical structures. As said in the video power corrupts. At the age of 59 (almost 60) I have returned to the anarchist fold. The capitalist and bureaucratic socials systems hold no answers for humanity.
I totally agree. How dare the government stop us from committing violent acts, stealing, etc! I should be free to govern my life however I want, even if it does come at the expense of others! And, all government is tyrannical! Even if they're democratically elected, still tyrannical! Even if they exercise a relatively little amount of power, still tyrannical! Tyrany!
I just want anarcho-communism ! Of course, in some way, the population will enforce socialism/communism, right? Cause it definitely works like that, right? Right? RIGHT?
Does the power corrupt or the "will to power"? How can democratic society really safeguard itself from undermining by manipulation of certain power hungry people? I'm afraid anarchic society will also have this constant problem. It's just naive to think that all people would follow the norm.
Who is this Marc, who was able to convince you of communism despite of Lenin?
@@bladdnun3016He means Karl Marx
Anarchism without capitalism is impossable
I’m a anarchist and I didn’t even know until I watched this
Its because you as most don't understand the words you have used and believe you known throughout life .
This guy has good points but his reasoning is stupid, in the absence of order someone will create it, people will band together and form Society, you can't count on everyone to be good, so why not have a government. Imagine trying to create a new order without order
@Emmet Bergin it is absolutely impossible to have a society without a government, what your proposing, and this video is proposing, are a treaty government, your just giving the governments less power go solve real issues, I would recommend looking at the history of spain/middle east. Those 2 explain better than I ever could. 😅 Again it would be fabulous if everyone could trust each other to not change, but that's just it, someone will break the trust. For example: if you see someone robbing a commune, you'd think it's stupid to not defend them, but that requires an organized system to do, just look at the articles of confederation, local government works when it has a bigger system tied to it
@Emmet Bergin what societies, name me ONE major society that operates without any overarching form of organization, you cant
@Emmet Bergin I mean, I hope one day we can talk about actual solutions and not fantasies we know don't work in any mass scale
I took the political compass test and realized I’m an anarchist haha. I did more research and I was like “wait.... I’ve always been one”
I'm realizing this now about myself.
Same
That test doesn't tell you much.
I took that test and found out I’m apparently not an anarchist. However I always agreed with the definition and philosophy behind it, so I don’t really understand.
Good 👍🏻 for you dude. That's awesome.
Shit I’m an anarchist. Thanks for this.
Thanks for watching!
I know this video really enlightened me. All government is tyranny! Democratically elected? DGAF, tyranny! Exercise a relatively little amount of power and is simply protecting other people from violent acts, property theft, etc? LMAO WHO CARES, tyranny!
Trying to provide basic services like free healthcare to the population and protection of the people from actual enslavement? I DONT GIVE TWO SHITS, tyranny! Also, taxation is theft [Ancaps be like]!!
This ideology is definitely not a fucking JOKE
I didn't think I was an anarchist; I initially that I was a social democrat. I always thought anarchy was for *ahem certain types of people who weren't me. Then I took the time to read some anarchist texts and found myself nodding along, for the most part, in agreement. Anyway, long story short, fuck authority and down with capitalism.
Thank you for watching
The trouble is that people have a knee jerk reaction on hearing the word anarchist, for this reason I use Libertarian Socialist. Otherwise people get defensive almost straight away. Good video.
Very true. We actually have a video coming up about the usage of the word "libertarian."
I call myself a 'Voluntaryist'. It seems descriptive without the 'Anarchist' baggage.
@@CP-lp9pb Sadly that word has been taken over by "an"caps.
@@emilys5644 How so? 'Voluntaryism' or 'Anarcho-Capitalism' properly defined is the ONLY MORALLY and LOGIGALLY 'CONSISTENT' way for human beings to interact with each other!
@@CP-lp9pb Capitalism is inherently involentary...
I've identified as a socialistic democrat for years.... I think it's time to accept the fact that I've been an anarchist all along.
I’ve been socially Democratic for a while, but I’m thirteen, and nobody believes me, now I’m anarchist and I haven’t told anyone.
@Random user Name why are you telling me this
@Random user Name how can you doubt a stranger on the internet lmao they're not extremely different they still are on the left side of the political spectrum
Random user Name No, I just haven’t looked into it a lot, my grandad keeps on saying anarchists are fucking idiots, and he talked me through it, I’m not anarchist anymore.
Random user Name so now your saying I’m authoritarian
ANARCHY!!! I don't know what it means but I LOVE IT!!!
Then might I suggest are "What is Anarchism?" video. th-cam.com/video/rUINFJrBziY/w-d-xo.html
@@RevolutionandIdeology He was making a reference to a movie, where a kid is holding a hose and spraying it and says the quote he quoted.
@@internetperson8638 Talladega Nights?
I read the book without even knowing who this is! It’s wonderful we have so many comrades still alive today (:
Thanks for watching!
Great video!
Some people are actually born evil, I've witnessed it in my own family. But I think anarchy can prevent people like them getting into power.
Humans are formed by the environment. There is no "evil" gene.
@@alexxx4434
You are correct especially if you remove value judgements from all actions and view everything as biologically driven and disqualify human intention as being meaningful.
But certainly, individuals inherit genes and the expression of those genes develop into traits. Those who validate intention and make value judgements of behaviors could describe others as evil.
But you are of course fair if you choose not to discern intentionally harmful behaviors as evil, so long as you don't describe any other behaviors as "good' either.
A lot of authoritarian folks and even well-meaning liberals and demsocs and the like, use people like this as a justification for keeping systems of domination in place in order to control them. I see it in the opposite way; these people should be kept away from any kind of power or authority completely, and for as long as such structures exist, there will always be an open door for them. Therefore, they must be abolished.
Brilliant. Took the thoughts right out of my head
I feel I can't call myself an anarchist, I think tbis is just grass roots teachings. Also as a native american we use the same idealology for the most part but we have leaders. But our definition of a leader is completely different. Especially, with what they do compared to western leaders. I think i would say i follow grass roots teachings.
It’s funny because Graeber’s newest book Dawn of Everything points out that classical liberalism originated with the indigenous critique of European society. And seeing as anarchism has been described as the logical conclusion to classical liberalism, I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that anarchism is a European restatement or rediscovery of already existing principles and practices in indigenous societies.
I'm proud to be an anarchist 💕🏴
I didn't think that I'm an anarchist all along until a friend show this video to me
i love this it put so many pieces together thank you
Thanks for watching.
no gods no masters
Beautiful. So grateful for David Graeber's work, and for yours. Thank you.
This is just telling me that im an anarchist
It's like anarchists are the most humanist people philosophically.
too bad they all like bernie sanders and police unions
@@K-newborn are you joking? Obviously anarchists prefer bernie and unionisation to trump and unhindered capitalism, but they are ultimately against both too.
little critique lol; “humanism” no, anarchism is opposed to human-centric and specieist views
@@Somebodyherefornow depends. I'm assuming you're a vegan. Anarchism is a human political philosophy as far as I know, but often attracts folk who see no difference between human rights and animal rights. I'm not exactly well versed in vegan philosophy, but to me it would seem somewhat impractical.
I'm basically vegan diet wise, but I don't see a problem with "responsible" animal husbandry as I am currently of the assumption that some spices need active culling to keep them from destroying their habitat. Now if I bought the same logic over to humans, we'd have a problem..
@@Catthepunk while yes you are correct i am vegan. you dont have to be vegan to be non-humanist; see green-anarchy, and other anarchists that focus on harmony with things “non-human”
I thought I was an anarchist. Apparently not. Time to search nihilism and cynism.
so many people think anarchy is just complete chaos, but it's actually very reasonable. that might seem biased since im an anarchist, but anarchy is truly not chaotic at all.
I love this video
True anarchist believe not in chaos or violence and believe in self collapse of governing powers and monetary systems. But if nessessity calls for it will stand against tyranny and controlling powers.
I think ever human should be able to do whatever they want in their lives
Wow this is amazing. After this video I have come to hate the connotation attached to the word anarchy and being an anarchist.
He was a fine man, who will forever be underated!!!
Totally.
There are only three ways to get someone to submit, voluntarily submission, submission through trade, and submission through coercion. Power is the ability to effect change. Everybody wants to change the world so everyone wants power. Power does not corrupt.
Yup I’m an anarchist. I’m against all forms of hierarchy
yes, I am anarchist...
Against All Authority
Yo what is that font called that you use in the middle of the screen? That's the font they use in Modern Warfare
Reckoner www.dafont.com/reckoner.font
Which Modern Warfare? The one I see most is Eurostyle... The Text font in this video is a little different. It's Bank Gothic.
@@jordesign I meant CoD 4
@@thatyoutubechannel9953 That is Bank Gothic.
No masters, every human must be free, freedom is our birthright.
I don't need you to tell me if I am
I was an Anarchist since my first days of adolescence...and I always knew it...
they say "to strip everything of the rule of law and police would look like that movie The Purge."
they think it's automatically consenting to violence, once people think the law's not necessary.
I never really understood what an Anarchist is but yea I definitely resonated with this video.
Yes
But if structures are erased and we stop seeking power and be all happy, wont the "you wouldnt even think about harming someone" defeat the entire principle of free will and the principle of freedom of thought and would descend into a dystopia with rules set by everyone around us on how we should think and not see bad? Good cannot be defined without bad, never. Then it wouldnt even mean anything
I aparently always been anarchist without even knowing the definition or it's existance how interesting
I'm confused, wouldn't anarchism leave everyone vulnerable to one bad person taking over because of the power vacuum? what checks and balances would there be to stop this from happening? I get that power corrupts and a strong enough state is inherently bad, but if there is no state originally what's to stop a new state from developing and taking over to form a dictatorship?
theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-anarchist-faq-editorial-collective-an-anarchist-faq-full#text-amuse-label-seci511
What a stupid argument. THAT was the best objection you can find?
If your best argument against the dissolution of the state is that it might result in the creation of a state.... But to answer your question, anarchism requires that people stop believing in the myth of authority. If people no longer accept the legitimacy of someone ruling over them, then there is no power vacuum - no space for a tyrant to come along and fill.
oh my god im an anarchist
Direct democracy resistance solidarity
I want to know more...
How would anarchist society prosecutes a criminal....?
Can the society have a monetary system....?
How would a society reward an individual who does the big and hard work...?
What if the person doing hard work felt discriminated....?
I believe at the beginning Anarchy was prevent then came the known system of leader and law.
Every question you have is answered here: theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-anarchist-faq-editorial-collective-an-anarchist-faq-full
im a anarchist i agreed at all, anarchy is freedom
Yes 🏴
yes
A society based on consent seems like utopia... However, communities based on anarchist structures should be possible. If everyone in that community agrees on these principles that is...
What's the difference between an Anarchist and a Libertarian?
Libertarian = not stupid, values freedom, doesn't want tyranny, but realizes there needs to be a government to protect against crime, etc. Normally capitalist and almost always support a democratic system of government, but there can be left-libertarians that believe that the democratic government should decide who is most deserving of resources and believes in a form of much less extreme socialism.
Anarchism = idiot who thinks all government is tyrannical, and wants to live in a completely free society where there is no laws and everyone should be able to do whatever they want.
Anarchists are libertarian socialists
Well, good to know I'm definitely not an Anarchist.
Thanks.
Monarchist here. In all regards I can identify as an anarchist, as I am a hardcore individualist and consider anarchist principles to be the best. However, while a monarchy is as good as the monarch, democracy is as good as it's people, and in some places people tend to be just not good. Is this the result of them being oppressed and broken by social inequality? Yes, and I don't think that absolutely everybody can fully recover from it. Free willed individuals will fight for their freedom and have an opinion less clouded by manipulation, but as long as they have equal rights with people who are easily manipulated into voting for the best manipulators insteas of the best leaders or prefer the comfiest lies over the best decisions, free willed people will be in the minority.
While believing in individual freedom, I think that it's the most important thing, and sadly if people aren't ready for it, it's better to have a monarch guide them than let them elect a gluttonous oligarch who will drive them into greater misery and poverty.
Thus, I'm kinda too authoritarian to be an anarchist, but too anarchist to get along with any authoritarianism supporters, as they tend to *not* value individualism.
one thing about socialism (i was in the PSL for a brief period) that i always questioned but "they" would never answer: if you agitate so that the workers take over the means of production, then what? i mean, how do you prevent the same hierarchical structure repeating itself. i think they actually do have an answer, but i'm not buying it anymore.
Why would people make another hierarchical structure if they see how horrible it was and how much destruction it has caused in the past? And the few that would want to make one wouldn't succeed since the overwhelming majority of people would know how harmful it is anyway.
@@rickdingenenzo ya i know what you mean. but i wonder sometimes if it's in our nature somewhat; to be the boss--so to speak; to be in charge.
I watch Technoblade because I wanted to learn a little more what it actually meant. I know having a motive for anarchy is something interesting to learn about what your true personal beliefs are about how the world can change in a different way. I know everyone is intelligent in their own ways and everything is so different nowadays.
Yes, I am!
The vision of the anarchist is also a boys dream, ... that's the vision of the anarchist!
Democracy, two wolfs and one sheep voting on what's for lunch!
The one criticism anarchists fail to ever respond to: Not all humans are rational. So the argument that "everyone just wants to do X" does not hold for those irrational people.
The only reason people are irrational is because the system we live in doesn’t rationality. If we lived in an anarchist society then irrationality would be very uncommon.
@@Vivian_228 No, people are born irrational. We're animals. It's inescapable. Idk how you could possibly think "society" or "the system" somehow has complete control over your brain, whether it acts rationally or not.
@@Google_Censored_Commenter sure, we’re born irrational, but that is replaced by rationality as we get older and smarter. Our society doesn’t like rationality because rational people can see the flaws in our symbols, and the rich people at the top of society know that this is a threat to their power and money. Our society is structured in a way that keeps the working class poor, uneducated, and irrational and keeping us fighting amongst ourselves and prevents people from becoming rational and intelligent using the “education” system (I prefer to call it the indoctrination system) and removes your individuality to turn you into the perfect factory worker. The fact you can’t see this shows how indoctrinated you are.
I've heard of this essay before, and I would half-agree with this. I think it would be better described as "Could Anarchism be a fit for you?", "How much do you agree with Anarchy?" or "Do you align with Anarchy?" rather than "Are you an Anarchist?" because, while everything said in the video about anarchists and anarchism is correct, there's a lot that's left unsaid.
First and foremost, the critical component is "the total liberation of all sentient beings". You need to hold this as a value and approach the world from this perspective, in order to see the world as an Anarchist sees it, and to begin to see issues and approach solutions that would lead towards an anarchistic society.
This leads into #2, the unity of means and ends. Simply put, this goes as follows: The means that you employ will determine your outcome before you've reached it, and conversely, the ends that you aspire to therefore dictate the means you can use. You cannot use the state to achieve a stateless society, and you cannot use capitalistic structures to liberate yourself from capitalism; the only thing that can result from those is more state, and more capitalism. As such, you'll often find many anarchists simply refusing to vote in elections; from the anarchist perspective, it's generally thought of as a waste of time for this reason, though it can have tactical use in a given place or time.
I think these details are important to include and clarify, otherwise you'll have a bunch of liberals and libertarians who, while usually well-meaning, are calling themselves "anarchists" while still approaching the world from an entirely un-anarchistic point of view, with wild views, solutions, and tactics that don't make any sense in an anarchistic framework.
Humanity disgusts me.
The biggest reason why is when we compare ourselves to another species that also works based on social interactions, wolves.
When an alpha is given the position of alpha they don’t just make all the other wolves do there bidding, they are simply the best pack member at supporting the pack and that’s why they are alpha.
On the other hand we humans have a completely unfair society on the fact that people who simply take and never give such as psychopaths can become some of the most powerful beings on the planet, while not supporting there land at all.
Every wolf at heart has the same goal, survive and reproduce, and because of that similarity they almost always care for eachother because there all fighting for the same thing.
On the other hand we humans barely ever share goals and means to accomplish said goals.
Those two reasons are why I despise humanity so much, we are smarter then wolves and yet we are making mistakes they never make.
I am an anarchist, but I don’t believe we can fix how the world works, so I don’t even try and make it better, I just do what a wolf without a pack does, mind my own business unless I need a meal, and if I’m attacked fight back or run away if the fights not worth it.
This world is cold, and unforgiving, so I will as well.
You attempt to kill me, or attack me and leave as I bleed out and whimper on the inside or outside then the second I can without consequences I will bite down into your throat until your heart stops beating.
Wolves are beautiful animals when you watch them care for there young or flank there meal, but you never release just how comforted there young really feel or how terrified there prey is unless your in there position.
Always been
Im an anarchist
wow never knew
i was a anarchist
I think the stereotype of anarchism being analogous to chaos is still deeply ingrained.
You used context well here though. Nj
it is. anarchists have no plan for revolution beyond "people get mad overthrow the state and things will be better magically". it's a childish understanding of the world that doesn't work and at best results in random acts of violence
@@afgor1088 really??
U sure you have the slightest fuckin about what you are talking about?
Nope.
You surely have not thought much through considering your dumbass reply.
@@afgor1088 you think anarchism is about legislation and algorithmic control?
"Plan for revolution"? That's the kinda stuff that happened way back in time. But things changing into need to adapt to fucking reality.
I'll tell what...
...all man-made systems are just that... Man made systems.
Premise 1- all man made systems are subject to mans fallibility.
Premise 2- all man made systems have died eventually leading into new systems to flower.
Conclusion -( man made plans don't mean a fuckin thing to me and my intellect ) the current system cannot and will not last.
Let go
@@MichaelSmith420fu yes. i'm very sure, i've done a hell of a lot of reading anarchist "theory", i've organized with anarchists, i speak with anarchists regularly i even considered whether it was better than communism for a while
chances are i know more about anarchism than you do since most anarchists are terminally online middle class larpers.
so yeah, anarchism is a borderline counter-revolutionary waste of time
@@MichaelSmith420fu lol. most mature and connected to reality anarchist
I have always had anarchist views even when i was an alt righter, i shared some views about the economic system that fit an anarcjist desription. At least i escaped that shitshow
This channel is all over the place. Do we need violence and force or do we not?
I am a left-libertarian, broadly. I am not an anarchist. I am not going to type out a thesis here, but try finding other sources of information to determine what label you wish to put on your own beliefs, as this video appears to simply be an attempt to portray the most reasonable and broad outlooks on society, and even the most baselines concerns such as corruption and democratic action, as being indicative of anarchist belief. They are not, of course. Believing people can be corrupt does not make you an anarchist. Believing people can act on their own to organise and work in co-operative ways is not anarchism. Voluntary organisation itself is not anarchist. Anarchism is a state of governance - the state being the lack of it. Appreciating having systems operate under a hierarchal system that themselves operate under lateral decision making doesn't mean you must then make the ideological step to support EVERY system operating under these principles.
This video amounts to someone asking you if you like pizza, and then stating that that must mean you'd enjoy living your entire life eating nothing but tomatoes.
The words of the video are 100% from David Graeber's essay. They don't necessarily represent the views/beliefs of us (the hosts of this channel). It's just a video representation of excerpts of Graeber's work. Nothing more.
When I heard the word "swine" applied to politicians I wondered what the test would be that would enable some of them to survive the accusation of group crime they seem destined to have hurled at them during the revolution. I'm a free speech absolutist but I would be too terrified to pursue that path if I heard that word used about any group or class or profession by the new regime. You know the one that was going to be temporary. The last time I remember hearing 'swine' it was Maoists during the Cultural Revolution and before that (I hate to do this) it was National Socialists (full disclosure: I actually read it on posters about Jews in a book on the Final Solution). I'm not comparing you to those movements but I am comparing your use of words, which is, afterall, how we convey our thoughts and intentions. A perceived monopoly on righteousness is the blueprint for your authoritarianism. That train is always on time. You won't even notice when you become what you're fighting against. p.s. hey Mr Tweedy. I agree some people do have a knee jerk reaction to 'anarchist'. For the sake of good PR, what would be a good replacement for 'swine'?
Cheats... You just have to look past the facade shit show politicians and look at the catastrophic war machine they built to keep us in check and exploited throughout our whole lives. They demonstrably work on that while weaving bullshit into words the people want to hear - but we will never get prosperity from them since all they will do is take from us.
No
It seem like i was
Capitalism is the crisis!!! REB, within ANARCHIST Principles, is the solution!
I am!
My unresolved concern regards the known percentage of psychopathy and sociopathy in humans. It's one thing to appeal to a cosmic justice, and another to deal with the reality.
Yes I agree. Some are not made but born. People are not bor blank slates. I find this video super naive.
The one criticism anarchists fail to ever respond to: Not all humans are rational. So the argument that "everyone just wants to do X" does not hold for those irrational people. That's why we need government, not to police those who can reason and argue for their actions, but for those who cannot, and don't want to.
I'm not sure what that has to do with Anarchism?
@@RevolutionandIdeology Well, what am I supposed to do about your illiteracy?
@@Google_Censored_Commenter Neat. Thanks for the comment. You are clearly so much smarter and superior to all of us. I can now see how enlightened and amazing you are. I bow to your superiority. Good talk.
@@RevolutionandIdeology it has plenty to do with anarchism, as anarchism assumes that everyone is the same and is a decent social person
@@RevolutionandIdeology jesus christ, I sense alot of defensiveness, chill out
BIG stretch dude… it can sort of work in tiny tribal groups like a rainbow gathering. For a country of 330 million people, social democracy is more realistic and practical. Anarchy as you stated is based on voluntary participation. Proud boys, Oathkeepers, and other forms of human scum are all it takes to destroy peace. There is a reason the happiest people live in the crappiest climates. Several Scandinavian countries have smartly figured it out what works best. It’s the right balance
There's no reason to think theres a problem of scale as you suggest. A society is just a collection of smaller units anyway. Besides the anarchism of everyday life Graeber (and others previously) suggest exists within and despite capitalist societies, there have been a number of suggestive historical examples such as Ukraine 1917-21, Spain 1936-39 and Rojava now. Self-defence against hostile external forces may be required at times. There's nothing incompatible with anarchism about that. Social Democracy merely puts a band aid on the gushing wound, it can't heal the body politic.
We have not figured it out and we are not happy … greetings from finland
What is the main difference between this and communism? Anarchism and Communism seem like two parts of the same thing.
🖤
Somalia had anarchy for like twenty years......it worked so well for them.
Is 'willful' ignorance bliss as well?
@@RevolutionandIdeology if you like ignorance then yes.
This is utterly cringeworthy. Anything good means you’re an anarchist. There are no ill-effects whatsoever with being an Anarchist outside of Rainbows, butterflies, and free hugs! Lots of free hugs. Everything is Sunny in Philadelphia
I agree with a lot of this, I just don't agree with socialism.
I am hard core anarchist(theoretical)....
But I am government also(law enforcement)
Is it irony or hypocrisy...?
Lol
Maybe instead of being a police officer you could organize a neighborhood watch. I'm sure you have good intentions but the power that police have over a majority of the population is to control and oppress, community based neighborhood watches/militias effectively do the same thing as the police/military but are directly accountable to the people they protect so aren't oppressive
This is perhaps the ultimate hypocrisy. I'd even go as far as to say that you are not truly an anarchist, even theoretically. You (presumably) spend your days literally oppressing the freedoms of others. There's nothing less anarchist than that.
Well having a job because of economic need is a given under the current economic structure, but participating in law enforcement is indeed contrary to anarchist theory.
Anarchism is a Verb, i.e. Something you Do.
Not something you are... Theoretically.
You're a cop, mate.
@@RevolutionandIdeology Well we don't know what he does. I'd rather a theoretical anarchist be a cop than an actual asshole.
It sounds ideal ... but just go to twitter to see that ppl don’t get along and can’t agree on barely anything. Good luck though anarchism .. it’s as it should be (theoretically)
The internet is nothing like real life. People can say or do whatever they want there. Not so in real life.
@@kjdunne8683 Ok let's look at how people reacted when they thought toilet roll was running out!
@@hensojutsu true, but there's a difference between being a crazy Karen and walking up to a black person and calling him an impure n-word.
hensojutsu Well (in theory) those people wouldn’t act that way in an anarchist society, because they wouldn’t have to. I believe it’s the competitive, capitalist mindset that brings the worst out of people.
I mostly agree with the video but, i'm not really an anarchist because of the "stupid people" thing, I donmt think anyone is inherently inferior but there are some people that don't seem like they could ever come to an agreement with anyone, also, it seems to me that a culture of democracy may just lead to majoritarianism, for example, I'm LGBTQ, the society I live is deeply conservative, yet the government is surprisingly progressive and has protections, if the society were to be anarchist, who would stop a random bigot for hate criming me?
Now of course, a government can be like that too, but governments in general, as long as they aren't absolute tyranny, can be changed somewhat peacefully.
my initials put together are the anarchy symbol !! Definitely an anarchist !!! lol
I'm in the middle of loving and not loving communism and anarchism.
I think that Humans are greedy and there is always the upper level that humen want to have.So there is always corruption in Communist Idea.Look at the communists countries , if all the people are equal and they should have equal rights , why is it that Mr X , have more power and does less work for the society.
I absolutely repel any monarchy, just hate royal people. Because in some era they ruled the cities doesn't mean that they still own it.
This Earth is gods creation or bigbang creation or whatever , some humen can't say that it's theirs. There should be no borders , no polices , ....
I find that capitalism is ideal towards socialism or communism.
I hope to see the movie Children of men to come true.
I just don't want humans to breed and have kids in this world because it's too dark and your children have to do this endless loop of learning , communicating and electing someone who chooses their life to be whatever they like to be.
Imagine a world with no money , people work on their own , people develop their own foods , their own cloths and their own communities for developing technology.
Nothing to exchange , every person will have a room and they will work for their own benefit , no leaders , no politicians....
"I think that Humans are greedy" - Why? What do you base this belief on? "I just don't want humans to breed and have kids in this world" - You sound like an anti-natalist.
Anarchism sounds to similar to polpots year zero ideology and that showed us how disastrous anarchism can be in the modern era
The dictator Pol Pot and the philosophy of Anarchism aren't remotely similar.
@@RevolutionandIdeology not remotely similar, why would you say that when it obviously is?
It is collective anarchism in its most obvious form
@@theliamofella Right off the bat, it's "statist." There's nothing less anarchy than perpetuation of the "state." Second, there's nothing in anarchism that calls for the peasant proletariat to rule the urban educated. Third, anarchism doesn't support destruction of familial relations (perhaps hierarchy, but not relations). Fourth, most anarchist schools don't outwardly espouse strong pro or con tenets regarding faith (Pol Pot did). Fifth, anarchism is not fiercely anti-intellectual. This list could on for quite a while, but a quick 5 is likely enough here.
I agreed with most of these, but I am definitely not an anarchist.
If you think I am in denial then here is three things:
1. Some of these would be sign of leftism, such as the sharing part.
2. Out of the many political quizzes I have taken, the only one which said I was more libertarian than authoritarian was the political compass test, which is extremely biased towards libleft.
3. I think that intervention from the government is good.
What do you mean sign of leftism, Anarchism is literally radical left idiology, it should show more than just signs of leftism. Anarchism doesn't share anything with conservatives and it shouldn't.
This is paradoxical
You can’t want a society based on empathy and treating others compassionately without being forced to, while also believing no one is inferior to one another, as such a society would inherently be structured against dark triad personalities, socially unacceptable attractions, etc.
Anarcho-capitalism for the win
Anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron tho
I’m an anarcho capitalist/right wing libratarian
no youre not, all of you fail the libertarian and anarchist test by dodging yes or no questions and resort to name calling, for example you support abolishing age laws?
@@K-newbornwhat Are your sorces on that?
Oh your one of them
@@K-newborn oh and im properly more anarchist then most left wingers
This so incorrect that it's not even funny. Anarchy isn't about ideals or principles. That's it. YOU just described moralism.
Technically I didn't describe anything. As stated, the words are from David Graber's essay.
Um...it's about the rule "no rulers" as that is literally the semantic meaning of the word.
Some people are too stupid
But no one is inherently stupid people change if only they where given the chance
HELL NAH IM AN AMERICAN RAHHHHHHH
No wtf
Anarchy is still too influenced by christianity. All anarchist arises from Christian churches and carries the inherent toxicity of it.
Incorrect on an alarming array of levels for only 2 sentences.
Fortunately, here in Germany we have the opportunity to elect a party that meets these demands. appd
Ja
im a anarchist
Yes
Yes
Yes