@@jlord9638 Why should we be at the mercy of "good" rich people. For every good rich person, there are ten bad ones. Workers should have 100% control of their workplaces and the capital that they produce. Owners, C-teams, and boards of directors are overpaid and overvalued. Cap maximum lifetime wealth at $10 million and make the inheritance tax high enough that it takes all but $10 million from those who inherit the wealth. There is not reason for any billionaire to exist; there are only about 1600 of them world wide. Three of them in the US have more wealth than 50% of Americans combined. The only nuance that I allow with the oligarchs is that they should be given a choice between liquidating their wealth and facing the guillotine. I'm too soft on their crimes.
Charlie Chaplin was an absolute genius....and anarchy means no rulers, not no rules....it is based on the supposition that moral, ethical and critically thinking people govern themselves
@dildosdildo123 Well, you don't really get to do real democracy without anarchism, the institution of private property we have today under liberalism makes it so that if you have more money you have greater say in how things are done - some democracy that is! Chaplin's rhetoric in that speech is perfectly aligned with socialist and anarchist ideology, but if that isn't evidence enough for you, then maybe the fact that he said himself that he is an anarchist (google it) might be a clue
@dildosdildo123 I didn't say they were the same thing. If you're trying to say they are mutually exclusive I guess you would be right if words could only have one single extremely rigid meaning, but under more commonly used understandings of these words there's no reason an anarchist, rulerless, society couldn't be run democratically you confused pedant
That's because Chaplin actually was an anarchist politically. He always found government and capitalism to be utterly absurd things and being a self made man, always found himself sympathizing with the working class. "As for politics, I'm an anarchist. I hate Governments and Rules and Fetters. Can't Stand Caged Animals, people must be free"
You are right Murphy, it is Charlie Chaplin. Thank you for adding this information :) The scene is from the movie "A King in New York" (1957). The young boy is actor Michael Chaplin (born 7 March 1946). Michael is the second child and eldest son from Charlie's fourth and final marriage to Oona O'Neill. Kind regards from Amsterdam :)
It's controlled opposition. It's why modern anarchists confuse globalisation with freedom these days. National freedom doesn't matter to a modern anarchist because they're just pawns of the globalist economy.
@@Aura-bu9jb we know when someone speaks hate, they don't know anything about anarchy. Anarchy is a ideal that we all need to know so bad things such as corrupt authority doesn't get in the way.
@@ellisbkennedy652 as an anarchist, I agree, but people today don't know when to shut up when things aren't their business, at least not everyone is like that
It was making fun of red-scare and McCarthyism and it was made in Europe while Chaplin was on exile (for suspicions of communist sympathies) and didn't air in the US until 1972
You could, but it would be brought down. The idea is to make people think its all free speech and lie about how it was brought down. Not by a group suing the anarchist for some false pretense, but rather by the so called compromise of liberals to shut them up.
This video is a scene is from the movie "A King in New York" (1957). The two main actors in this scene are Charlie Chaplin and Michael Chaplin (born March 1946). Michael is the second child and eldest son from Charlie's fourth and final marriage to Oona O'Neill.
In a time of when many liked young girl and it was normal, people seems to forget pedophilia is only a recent Taboo, that doesn't old people weren't wrong, judjing from modern eyes is pretty arrogant
@@sampajam6256what the fuck did you just say? jesus christ that’s the most ignorant shit i’ve ever heard. this was literally 70 years sgo they knew damn well it was wrong back then
@@amberharmsen2497 Ayyyy, ADHD anarchism gang. Check out the book series Perspectives on Anarchist Theory, as well as the book African Anarchism if you haven't. Some of my favorite theory literature right there! :) Lately I've been reading issue #32 of that series and it's been incredibly insightful!
I started studying anarchism lately too)) You guys can listen to an audiobook here in youtube for free and great quality, it's called "the conquest of bread" by Kropotkin - It's a great anarchist book, highly recommend it.
Steve Ryan force feeding someone an ideology will always be brainwashing. Let people make there own minds up about life, isn't that the principle of anarchy?
***** well, i'm not sure where you go to school, but where i go to school (London) i don't get told to love what the government does. I get told about trigonometry, molecular formulae, thermo-physics, philosophy, english literature, etc.
+Lilac Cloud Really? I've never once heard Chomsky agitate for abolishing government. In fact, most of the time hes agitating for greater government power "for the greater good"
Lilac Cloud Libertarian socialist is an oxymoron. How can you be for freedom on the one hand and then be in favour of the collective having control over your day to day life on the other?
Lilac Cloud The fact that you use the term "right" or "left" shows that you don't understand what true libertarianism is, as it transcends those archaic terms. Its means liberty from collective tyranny. It means individual liberty supersedes any notion of collective "greater good". If you choose to work for a boss, then its not authoritarianism, its voluntary. I can choose what company I work for. I cant, however choose whether or not to follow government laws. The underlying premise of true libertarianism is voluntary interaction.
Lilac Cloud You are the one that's ignorant and completely oblivious to libertarianism/voluntaryism. Libertarianism is a simple concept. A belief in the non-aggression principle and a belief in the voluntary interaction of free individuals. THATS what it is in EVERY country. When one person has power over another person without that persons expressed consent, then it is no longer true libertarianism. Go read some Spooner, Rothbard or even Some Larken Rose and educate yourself.
+TheIrishny fuck off dude, and fuck rothbard too. libertarianism as a term was invented at the end of the 19th century by the french anarchist communist Elisee Reclus as a substitute that anarchists could use in a time when the simple mentioning of that word brought up the full repression of the state. In the 1890's there were anarchist newspapers which were called the libertarian either in the US or in France. even rothbard admits that he had stolen that word from the "left". and you mofo's have tried to do the same thing with anarchism. nowhere in the world except the fascist US does anarchism mean ancap or libertarian anything other than an anti-authoritarian socialist (i.e. anarchists, anarchist-communists, libertarian socialists, anarcho-syndicalists, council communist, left-communists). you should fucking educate yourself with anything other than the writings of cripto-fascists which allow you to consider yourself a radical while also imagining a different world in which you could retain all your privilleges and have even more. nowhere on this planet where oppressed and exploited people are trying to organise will they adopt any of the ancap garbage. nobody fucking likes you. you are usully white, middle-class heterosexual men which are trying to play the radical type in a way which permits them to internalise and justify all their privilleges, while in the same time advocating for even more inequality and oppression.
Okay, so I have been trying to think about how I could write my take on this short clip because I think it is a fascinating combination of satire and serious political critique, and I think I have settled on something that I like. I find this clip to be an interesting microcosm of political debate, especially in today's political landscape. So, we have an older individual of royalty, a brilliant child, and an audience of other children. The older individual represents a mild form of conservatism, emphasizing order and hierarchy, preserving the status quo and keeping to what currently is in place. He, in my opinion, represents a kind of political average joe. The child genius, on the other hand, represents a revolutionary anarchism (note that I use the definition "involving or causing a complete or dramatic change" for revolutionary. We often associate revolutions and revolutionary with violence and conflict, but in this case the idea presented is radically different from how we currently live, and I wanted to clarify that), emphasizing a radical new freedom from all imposed hierarchies. He is, of course, the powerful revolutionary speaker, the mover/changer who walks in the path of people like Lenin and Che Guevara. Now, I feel as though the other children in this scene are overlooked. In this case, they are the audience to this debate. Critically, they are not judges, fully impartial and as unbiased as they humanly can be; they are an audience, swayed by emotion and powerful words. Here, we see a dichotomy between the ideas of old and the ideas of tomorrow; the stability of the status quo and the unstable potential of the radical possibilities. Now what I think is really interesting is who is right and who is wrong isn't of particular importance here. What is important is the reaction of those around you, those who hear the debate take place. What you say could be totally wrong, but as long as you argue in a competitive, argumentative posture, the details become fuzzy and what is left behind in your mind are the main ideas. Because the child, in this case, is the one with the argumentative debate posture, he sways the audience in his favor. This audience favor, in this case, plays out with Charlie Chaplin's signature slapstick. The children mess with Charlie Chaplin's character, make a fool of him. They aren't particularly listening to either one; they are being caught up by the emotion and fervor of the revolutionary's words. Also note that, as the scene progresses, the child genius isn't really talking TO Chaplin's character, he is more talking past him. In my opinion, a lot of what the child says is quite cogent; we ARE forced to have our movements governed by some fancy book given to us by a domineering authority, we DO have our freedoms stripped in the name of some vague sense of order and security, and it IS truly a crime that an energy source as powerful and brilliant as the splitting atom is being squandered to make bombs. I call this a microcosm of debate because, despite how cogent I personally find these points to be, they aren't really being discussed with Charlie Chaplin's character - they are being thrown at an invented person who opposes everything the revolutionary stands for. We see quite clearly at the end that Charlie Chaplin DOES oppose the creation and usage of the atomic bomb, that he was ousted from power because of this position, but the revolutionary keeps on going. He doesn't even give his interlocutor the courtesy of saying people LIKE you want to use the atomic bomb to cause destruction, he directly addresses Charlie Chaplin's character when he makes those statements. End of the day, I think this scene makes for a really good satire and criticism of political debate and the positions that are being represented, all presented in the form of slapstick comedy. On the one hand, we see a child who is at least articulate and most likely quite intelligent representing young, invigorated opposition to long-standing ideas and systems. In my opinion, the criticisms he makes are justified, but there is a glaring issue in the fact that a productive discussion is not being had, and it was never his goal in the first place. There is no true exchange of ideas, there is no discussion; there are only confident, quippy soundbytes. Whether you agree or disagree with what either of them are saying, this kind of aggressive posture should be avoided at all costs when it comes to debates as important as how societies should be ran and how they should work. On the other, we see an older individual representing the old ways with a little deviance. He likes the ideas of order and governance through authority, but he has some disagreements with how some things are being run. He does suffer from the same issue of trying to win instead of trying to properly exchange ideas, but I think some aggression is at least understandable when you're not being talked with, instead being talked at. I may personally think he's wrong, but that also does not mean he should be shouted over.
Can I just put out a thought of mine, that disorder doesn't necessarily mean chaos. Order is control, and to assume that if there is no order that there will be chaos is just a bit of a stretch. As humans we are inclined to protect and survive, there is little reason to suggest that as soon as anarchy is introduced that the whole world will just collapse because of uncontrollable citizens. It would be interesting to have a debate on this, no hate please I am just trying to learn and put forward ideas 😊👍
Well, if there isn't order, who's supposed to keep the prisoners out of your life. I mean, the LA Riots surrounding Rodney king are a prime example. Instead of protesting, they went full anarchy, and did whatever they wanted. Well, that happened to be murdering Koreans for a murder they didn't commit, destroying stores of their own people's even, setting fires where ever they pleased... No one was exempt from what the rioters wanted to do to them. All of that happened because, there were no police. They thought nothing would happen, so there was no authority. No order. Look what happened without that order. Note that I completely respect your opinion, I'm just saying that it's a little naive to think that all humans would just come together to protect and survive. They only do that if their in the same group. Ancient man, when they first created war, they were strangers. It wasn't survival, it was greed. And humans are naturally greedy, even if they don't want the world.
The difference between freedom and anarchy is balance. One person cannot control everything by their own physical being. There must be order and Logistics and rule of law or else the direction of supposed direction will be only invested in itself. I do believe the wolves should rule not the sheep. But what would we become in order for that goal to be reached
Idk, Because of the modern era everyone has different mentalities because we are allowed to - it would be interesting to see how many people would use anarchy to create a peaceful world in comparison to those who we assume are inherently greedy - you guys should watch that movie “The platform” it has such a good representation of the greed that becomes us
Now wrap your mind around the idea that this kind, as a character, is presented to make /fun/ of everything he says. 80 years, and low hanging satire becomes courageous declaration.
He still does sound ridiculous. He is just presenting problems that are evident in society and acting like he said something profound. He doesn't come up with any real, practical solution to the problem.
@@samuelforesta the practical solution, which is the only solution, is the complete and total destruction of political, economic, and social power. Anything short of that will delay, but not halt, the destruction of the planet, and will inevitably plunge us into the despotic monopolisation of power that we struggle against today.
@@samuelforesta The solution (according to the kid) is anarchism. Achieving it isn't easy, but it is possible if libertarian socialist ideologies spread enough. Some modern examples of anarchism: Rojava, the Zapatista Autonomous Municipalities, and Freetown Christiania.
"When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny." Thomas Jefferson The boy is using fear to control others and limits their right to a discussion This makes the boy a Nazi commie who would murder people who thinks different than him
"nazi commie" that's a new one. do you talk about nazbols? doesn't fit that kid. anger is justified. being able to not show your anger requires your detachment from the issues at hand.
OH deary I find someone younger than me who agrees! An OLD person told me 5 years ago. "You and I have failed. But the young ones will get this straigt. Eventually. And when they do. Hell hath no fury". I hope he was right. I got "Algorithmally" fired from my job as a high school science(Chemistry/math) teacher. Because I did my job well. 2nd in the nation... 12 censor duties. same year. But I taught my students things they COULD do. But also why they should not. Socialist until the day I die.
@@SomberdemureSocialism: Socialization of the means of production, rejection of private property Libertarianism: The philosophy which puts individual liberty over everything else. Skepticism in an highly authoritarian state. You're the one in cognitive dissonance.
You know that Chaplin made this in reaction to having been blackballed, blacklisted, and prevented from re-entry into the U.S. by the fascist anti-communists (who, ironically, mimicked the worst traits of Soviet Communists in their quest to find and persecute political dissent) of HUAC. Perhaps the satire is heavy-handed and the gags too broad, but it's very enjoyably performed by Chaplin and his son Michael (playing Rupert). No surprise that this didn't see exhibition in the U.S. until after 1972....
The modern definition of Anarchy is an intentionally bastardized interpretation of the original, etymological word. "An-Archon" or "An-Archos"...simply put, it means Without Ruler or Without Rulers. The more people study the principles of liberty and what generates, propagates, puts into action and maintains liberty, freedom and natural law, the more will realize that government is anathema to liberty, freedom and natural law. Modern government is primarily interested in theft of property through compulsion. Regardless of whether or not you know where the money you hand-over through tax goes and whether or not you use the infrastructure or social services they provide, if you are not given a choice to voluntary contribute that money, you are being robbed. The government doesn't trust communities to take care of themselves and their own. But the greatest theft of government is that of the self-monarchy that is the free, human individual. That is equivalent to slavery by proxy.
Steve Ryan 1. Thats another part of anarchism too. 2. A carrot would fall under personal property like a car, house even some land etc, private property is referred to the means of production or the tools and location (like a factory etc) that is under management of private individual(s) ie a boss or a board of directors. Property is theft refers to this type. 3. That is the most simplistic argument that I have ever heard
This clip is both sad and funny. BECAUSE ITS TRUE. Thinking that you could do this in the 1950s. Today in face of much lesser enemies. You would not be able to turn the camera on. Before you got arrested on terrorist charges...
You couldnt do this in the 1950s, its just innocent enough and just framed with enough satire for most people during this time period to brush it off as some sort of joke. There are just as many misinformed then as there are today, its just changed form
@@velnz5475 Aye. But I think it relevant what was endorsed by media in the 1950s. Are now villified and heavily censored. Goodbye USA goodbye USSR. Or more likely hello to its cooperate friends in the WEF, WHO, Bill Gates foundation, Rockerfella foundation, Builderberg. (I know I sound like a tin foil hat.) PLEASE read up on this.
@@frederikhyrup2871 Should we judge it as a irrational consequence of powerful delusions for restricting our basic freedoms for any reasoning or lack thereof? Vilified scape goats or placeholder individuals are tactics unsavory to protect such freedoms as its irrelevant to a reality of humanitys' romance to accessible ignorance.
@kippered beef I disagree, capitalism cannot survive without a government, you couldn’t get the masses to follow ideas of private property and private owners of production, it was forced on to the world through colonialism, slavery and enclosure acts of the common lands, turning free land into private property forcing millions worldwide into cities were they had to sell themselves to a wage to survive. you need a state and standing army to protect these concepts. Cronyism is simply mature capitalism, It is the fate of every single capitalist nation today and that take on capitalism face the same fate. Capitalism brings the worst of human traits (greed,selfishness,exploitative etc) to the top where they are rewarded with riches which they use to corrupt governments and foreign policy. Workers can own there own workplaces democratically (aka socialism) you don’t need a private owner to control everything. Socialism and communism both work great and fine which is why it’s such a threat, there better systems and ways of organizing society. anytime a socialist movement builds or one takes place in another nation it’s immediately attacked, invaded, sanctioned, demonized and all there important infrastructure is destroyed to cripple and topple any attempt at workers organizing and taking control of there lives. The ones that do survive usually fall into paranoid rebel states and become authoritarian to protect there revolution from foreign sabotage and propaganda. Humanity has existed in a communist state for 90% of our entire existence the last 10% is filled with slave lords, feudal lords, and only a couple hundred years full of capitalist. Capitalism is the enemy of freedom and peace in the world today.. will never advance past war, hunger, homelessness etc till capitalism folds worldwide and common people take control of there societys. Socialist and communist worldwide have fought and are fighting to liberate people all over the planet while the west and the capitalist classes fought/ fight to suppress them and fund and support ruthless dictatorships and terror groups to help destroy any notion of a people state or people’s nation.
@@SPACEMONKEY288 Interesting that you say humanity has existed in a communist state for the vast majority of our existence because its also true that humanity has lived at subsidence-levels for that same amount of time or worse. Its only with the more recent development of private property ownership that we have gone beyond that. Also your claims of "you couldn't get the masses to follow private property" is wrong. When Americans pushed out west, there was no law enforcement to protect property, but through voluntary means like contracts, people did largely respect property rights with no government presence.
if the truth is the truth and it is indivisible then TRUTH = 0. the truth does not exist and to make ourselves feel better about that fact we create our own "personal truths" to believe in and tell others. but they are never truly the truth
Government does not equal violence. It equals power. And power does not equal violence either. Power is simply the ability to do things. Even supposedly "anarchist" societies would still have power and government.
@@samuelforesta Hierarchies maintain themselves through violence, coercion, and intimidation. What happens when you ignore an order from your boss? You are punished. What happens if you ignore an order from a cop? You are punished.
Reminds me of my anarchist friends who yell at me and don't let me get a word in. One benefits from SNAP and Medicaid, the other complains that he doesn't qualify for Medicaid. I agree with much of what they say, and I look forward to the collapse of the American empire, but in the meantime, I still vote pro clean energy, pro LGBTQ, pro immigrant, etc.
Why are you mad at anarchists for benefiting off the government? Would you be mad at a prisoner for eating food given to them? There’s no hypocrisy in gaming the system that we are all forced into, a system that steals at every level and transaction possible. They even steal from the dead.
“It's all about money, not freedom, y'all, okay? Nothing to do with fuckin' freedom. If you think you're free, try going somewhere without fucking money, okay?” - Bill Hicks
Good video When people are talking shit about Ferguson protesters ( not looters) I hit them with this And that kid grew up to be a good black bloc anarchist
Ferguson protesters didn't give a single fuck about the truth, they were all just race-baiting liberals that overreacted before the facts of the case came out. Brown was a thug and the aggressor. He deserved what he got. Anarchist checking in.
Black bloc anarchists are a detriment to anarchy. If you have to commit violence and destruction of property to further your goals then you’re just a fascist. Peaceful tactics are the only way forward because you’re just justifying the state in the eyes of the people you seek to liberate.
What's the name of this film? Who is the actor portraying the kid? This is one of the best dialogues I've seen in a 1950s movie. (It's also based af. No gods-no masters! No state-no capitalism!)
Wow, this has my mind blown!! What show or movie is this from?? This kid, wow! Amazing... Editing this in: I found out from another commenter that this is a scene from a film by Charlie Chaplin, titled "A King in New York."
Great tribute YHVH ABBA FATHER GOD YAHWEH be all the glory forever and always the CREATOR of all creations KING 👑 of all kings queens ELOHIM LORD of all lords gods goddesses
+Hunter Gman You mean how they silence you and prevent people from speaking or placing limits upon speech. He just played the same hand played against him beating them at their own game.
This is deep The child represents the left or the right In modern day..the small group being conservatives represented by the child or the left being the child not letting the reason speak and being agressive....could continue but I'm not
I can understand why people want a smaller less far reaching government. But I think that the more pressing issue is creating a government that successfully cares for the people. People are Anarchists, only as long as the government fails them.
Governments only grow and attract power hungry people who will abuse their positions in the government. Even if you had a perfect government it would only be a matter of time before it would be corrupted.
@@JohnDoe-xs5gvi don't even fully disagree with his broad message but his argumentation is just yelling and putting up a bunch of strawmen while whining about "but muh animal don't need passports !1!!" And switching subjects when the other person want to respond. To respond to your question i'm not mad, just feeling second hand embrassement for whoever thought his argument is clever. Because it is not, it's literally just screeching and honestly feel like a 60 years in advance jab at current days leftist kids.
@@Panzermeiller You literally said yourself you don't disagree with him. then go on to get mad over his argument. An argument is an argument no matter how it is delivered. Regardless Chaplin was forced to write this in that way.
@@JohnDoe-xs5gv I didn't say i didn't disagree, i said i didn't FULLY disagree, as in, i get where he's coming from and some of what he say have some sense. However the way an argument is delivered is pretty vital, just throwing those fancy emotionally charged sentence at random and behaving like a rooster isn't a good way of argumenting and i can guarantee you it will make anybody against you roll their eyes and everybody with you cringe in despair. Ideas should be argumented and it should be based on something else than speculations. They way i see it the kid is having the same level of argumentation than boomers when they tell you about how "in the USSR you have no food and communism killed 1000000 gazillion peoples" which was probably the point of the scene, to have a reversed role situation. Because no matter how you turn it his valid points are just parroted statements thrown out of the blue.
@@Panzermeiller It is irrelevant how the argument is delivered. If I said the sky is blue in a calm tone, them screeched and stomped my feet like a toddler while saying the sky is blue, both arguments are the exact same. Whether or not you are convincing is irrelevant. Everything the kid says is correct.
Terrible script and direction. Seems that Chaplin could have been involved in a better project. The kid kept waving his finger over and over while ranting, when the director had so much leeway in doing it right.
***** lel, well im not an anarchist anymoreee but yes that is what socialism is, but for socialism to work you would have another form of government that is not the form we have today, I get you tho. its an economic system that requires that the political state get cruched
One second you say a communist country has no state? Communism is about pretty much total state interference and control. Anarchism is when you have no government.
How is making up shit as you go along working out for you? When does science say anything about freedom, for or against or prescribes anything? Science deals with creating models used to explain facts, make future predictions, and dealing with how nature works. Government is none of those things. This is why governments are based on unscientific ideas, that are dreamy and visionary. Anarchism is not a utopian anything. It is a preference to not have government or any rulers.
+Aria Invictus I dunno, how is it working out for you boy? _There is two main Socialist tenets, Utopian Socialism that is very idealistic and visionary and Scientific Socialism which bases itself on scientific reasoning and the material conditions of society whereas Utopian have very little grounding in either material condition or scientific reasoning._
***** First of all it is not a theory, it is a preference. Learn what Anarchism is before you say more stupid shit and pretend like you do. Anarchism is no more a theory than atheism is a world view. Anarchism: belief in the abolition of all government and the organization of society on a voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to force or compulsion.
+Aria Invictus LOL, how stupid are you? Do not even know what theory means, imao fail. _a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action _ _b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances -often used in the phrase in theory _ The fact that you child have not fucking read the Ideas of Diggers and Robert Owen, Mikhail Alexandrovich Bakunin or even any of the early thinkers that founded the movement of Utopian Socialism and Anarchism. Anarchism is one of many categories within Utopian Socialism. Anarchism does not ground itself in the material conditions of society therefor is not Scientific, to begin with give me one fucking nation that has successfully implemented Anarchism on a large scale, you cannot because there is none. Scientific Socialism is the on that works and has been implemented in countless of nations with ideas such as Marxist-Leninism, Maoism, Juche and Consumer Socialism. It is quite sad you claim to be Anarchist but has not even read Bakunin, pathetic.
![เปิดบ้าน โคตรสวย ป๋องกพล รู้จักตั้งนาน เพิ่งรู้ว่ารวย!!! l [Nickynachat]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/tmgCF_2HfYI/mqdefault.jpg)
Rich people: Can you help us?
Government: It's my pleasure
Poor people: Can you help us?
Government: I gonna pretend not to hear or see that.
The only Reason Welfare exists is so Poor wil depend on the Government
Rich People: No taxes?
Government: "Not a chance."
Poor People: Can you help us?
Rich People: Sure, as long as you dedicate your life to me and my company
@@jlord9638 Philanthropy is a way for the rich to do the minimum they can while continuing to be rich and powerful.
@@jlord9638 Why should we be at the mercy of "good" rich people. For every good rich person, there are ten bad ones. Workers should have 100% control of their workplaces and the capital that they produce. Owners, C-teams, and boards of directors are overpaid and overvalued.
Cap maximum lifetime wealth at $10 million and make the inheritance tax high enough that it takes all but $10 million from those who inherit the wealth. There is not reason for any billionaire to exist; there are only about 1600 of them world wide. Three of them in the US have more wealth than 50% of Americans combined.
The only nuance that I allow with the oligarchs is that they should be given a choice between liquidating their wealth and facing the guillotine. I'm too soft on their crimes.
Charlie was a true anarchist. Just listen to the speech he held in that Dictator movie.
Philosophical Dolphin Charlie Was a hilarious, megamaniacal letch.
Charlie Chaplin was an absolute genius....and anarchy means no rulers, not no rules....it is based on the supposition that moral, ethical and critically thinking people govern themselves
@dildosdildo123 Well, you don't really get to do real democracy without anarchism, the institution of private property we have today under liberalism makes it so that if you have more money you have greater say in how things are done - some democracy that is! Chaplin's rhetoric in that speech is perfectly aligned with socialist and anarchist ideology, but if that isn't evidence enough for you, then maybe the fact that he said himself that he is an anarchist (google it) might be a clue
@dildosdildo123 I didn't say they were the same thing. If you're trying to say they are mutually exclusive I guess you would be right if words could only have one single extremely rigid meaning, but under more commonly used understandings of these words there's no reason an anarchist, rulerless, society couldn't be run democratically you confused pedant
That's because Chaplin actually was an anarchist politically. He always found government and capitalism to be utterly absurd things and being a self made man, always found himself sympathizing with the working class.
"As for politics, I'm an anarchist. I hate Governments and Rules and Fetters. Can't Stand Caged Animals, people must be free"
"An old man"!?!?! That's Charlie fucking Chaplin.
+Murphy Williamson And that kid is his son.
And Charlie wrote that speech.
Amazing.
You are right Murphy, it is Charlie Chaplin. Thank you for adding this information :) The scene is from the movie "A King in New York" (1957). The young boy is actor Michael Chaplin (born 7 March 1946). Michael is the second child and eldest son from Charlie's fourth and final marriage to Oona O'Neill. Kind regards from Amsterdam :)
Haha
Without a passport, they can't move a toe.
Is this the freedom?
It's controlled opposition. It's why modern anarchists confuse globalisation with freedom these days. National freedom doesn't matter to a modern anarchist because they're just pawns of the globalist economy.
It’s still kinda sad how a ten year old can explain it better than me and so many other anarchists
The kid brings up a whole lot of problems, but when it comes to solving them. He has no effective way of doing so.
@@samuelforesta why? Because you never bothered to read anarchist theory?
@@Aura-bu9jb we know when someone speaks hate, they don't know anything about anarchy. Anarchy is a ideal that we all need to know so bad things such as corrupt authority doesn't get in the way.
Its because anarchist are tired of arguing with people who just assume theyre stupid or immature for disliking the government
@@ellisbkennedy652 as an anarchist, I agree, but people today don't know when to shut up when things aren't their business, at least not everyone is like that
I wonder how many punk bands have played this audio at the beginning of one of their songs
oof feeling called out
Mike Hunt I haven’t heard any but they should
i feel called out because i was thinking of adding it to the beginning of a song i’m working on
lmao people saying they feel called out… i do too because i was thinking of that right after i watched this video
@@4nathem4 dewit
This is another one that annoys me since I can only 'like' it once.
Holly shit!
This is what freedom of speech and freedom of press look's like.
Try and run something like this on public television today.
It was making fun of red-scare and McCarthyism and it was made in Europe while Chaplin was on exile (for suspicions of communist sympathies) and didn't air in the US until 1972
You could, but it would be brought down. The idea is to make people think its all free speech and lie about how it was brought down. Not by a group suing the anarchist for some false pretense, but rather by the so called compromise of liberals to shut them up.
@@velnz5475 Also Charlie Chaplin was literally exiled under suspicion of communist sympathies
@@random6033
We were about to, this certainly weren't able to run it on television back then, either!
"Freedom of speech" indeed...
That was Charlie Chaplan’s son, Micheal!!!!! Amazing!
"Lost in terror because he is made to hate instead of love." This says everything right now.
This video is a scene is from the movie "A King in New York" (1957). The two main actors in this scene are Charlie Chaplin and Michael Chaplin (born March 1946). Michael is the second child and eldest son from Charlie's fourth and final marriage to Oona O'Neill.
This kid is a better agitator than I will ever be...
Chaplin was so brilliant
p
no
who liked younger girls very young girls
In a time of when many liked young girl and it was normal, people seems to forget pedophilia is only a recent Taboo, that doesn't old people weren't wrong, judjing from modern eyes is pretty arrogant
@@sampajam6256what the fuck did you just say? jesus christ that’s the most ignorant shit i’ve ever heard. this was literally 70 years sgo they knew damn well it was wrong back then
I wish this was the way all youth of today believed
Well hey it's on the rise. This shit has me so hard that it got me to actually read theory. And I have ADHD.
@@grundlehunter69 same here
@@amberharmsen2497 Ayyyy, ADHD anarchism gang. Check out the book series Perspectives on Anarchist Theory, as well as the book African Anarchism if you haven't. Some of my favorite theory literature right there! :)
Lately I've been reading issue #32 of that series and it's been incredibly insightful!
I started studying anarchism lately too))
You guys can listen to an audiobook here in youtube for free and great quality, it's called "the conquest of bread" by Kropotkin - It's a great anarchist book, highly recommend it.
@@grundlehunter69 it is definitely on the rise and I think one of the reasons for its rise is the increasing gap in social/economic classes.
All Kids should be shown that daily in School.
Seriously? that's called brainwashing.
Morti 1 Negative. It's the antidote.
Steve Ryan force feeding someone an ideology will always be brainwashing. Let people make there own minds up about life, isn't that the principle of anarchy?
Morti 1
I totally agree. Well said!
***** well, i'm not sure where you go to school, but where i go to school (London) i don't get told to love what the government does.
I get told about trigonometry, molecular formulae, thermo-physics, philosophy, english literature, etc.
chomsky as a child lol
+Lilac Cloud Really? I've never once heard Chomsky agitate for abolishing government. In fact, most of the time hes agitating for greater government power "for the greater good"
Lilac Cloud
Libertarian socialist is an oxymoron. How can you be for freedom on the one hand and then be in favour of the collective having control over your day to day life on the other?
Lilac Cloud
The fact that you use the term "right" or "left" shows that you don't understand what true libertarianism is, as it transcends those archaic terms. Its means liberty from collective tyranny. It means individual liberty supersedes any notion of collective "greater good".
If you choose to work for a boss, then its not authoritarianism, its voluntary. I can choose what company I work for. I cant, however choose whether or not to follow government laws.
The underlying premise of true libertarianism is voluntary interaction.
Lilac Cloud
You are the one that's ignorant and completely oblivious to libertarianism/voluntaryism. Libertarianism is a simple concept.
A belief in the non-aggression principle and a belief in the voluntary interaction of free individuals. THATS what it is in EVERY country.
When one person has power over another person without that persons expressed consent, then it is no longer true libertarianism.
Go read some Spooner, Rothbard or even Some Larken Rose and educate yourself.
+TheIrishny fuck off dude, and fuck rothbard too. libertarianism as a term was invented at the end of the 19th century by the french anarchist communist Elisee Reclus as a substitute that anarchists could use in a time when the simple mentioning of that word brought up the full repression of the state. In the 1890's there were anarchist newspapers which were called the libertarian either in the US or in France. even rothbard admits that he had stolen that word from the "left". and you mofo's have tried to do the same thing with anarchism. nowhere in the world except the fascist US does anarchism mean ancap or libertarian anything other than an anti-authoritarian socialist (i.e. anarchists, anarchist-communists, libertarian socialists, anarcho-syndicalists, council communist, left-communists). you should fucking educate yourself with anything other than the writings of cripto-fascists which allow you to consider yourself a radical while also imagining a different world in which you could retain all your privilleges and have even more. nowhere on this planet where oppressed and exploited people are trying to organise will they adopt any of the ancap garbage. nobody fucking likes you. you are usully white, middle-class heterosexual men which are trying to play the radical type in a way which permits them to internalise and justify all their privilleges, while in the same time advocating for even more inequality and oppression.
Only the immortal words of Chaplin and his son can save humanity from the evils of power
Okay, so I have been trying to think about how I could write my take on this short clip because I think it is a fascinating combination of satire and serious political critique, and I think I have settled on something that I like. I find this clip to be an interesting microcosm of political debate, especially in today's political landscape. So, we have an older individual of royalty, a brilliant child, and an audience of other children. The older individual represents a mild form of conservatism, emphasizing order and hierarchy, preserving the status quo and keeping to what currently is in place. He, in my opinion, represents a kind of political average joe. The child genius, on the other hand, represents a revolutionary anarchism (note that I use the definition "involving or causing a complete or dramatic change" for revolutionary. We often associate revolutions and revolutionary with violence and conflict, but in this case the idea presented is radically different from how we currently live, and I wanted to clarify that), emphasizing a radical new freedom from all imposed hierarchies. He is, of course, the powerful revolutionary speaker, the mover/changer who walks in the path of people like Lenin and Che Guevara. Now, I feel as though the other children in this scene are overlooked. In this case, they are the audience to this debate. Critically, they are not judges, fully impartial and as unbiased as they humanly can be; they are an audience, swayed by emotion and powerful words. Here, we see a dichotomy between the ideas of old and the ideas of tomorrow; the stability of the status quo and the unstable potential of the radical possibilities. Now what I think is really interesting is who is right and who is wrong isn't of particular importance here. What is important is the reaction of those around you, those who hear the debate take place. What you say could be totally wrong, but as long as you argue in a competitive, argumentative posture, the details become fuzzy and what is left behind in your mind are the main ideas. Because the child, in this case, is the one with the argumentative debate posture, he sways the audience in his favor. This audience favor, in this case, plays out with Charlie Chaplin's signature slapstick. The children mess with Charlie Chaplin's character, make a fool of him. They aren't particularly listening to either one; they are being caught up by the emotion and fervor of the revolutionary's words. Also note that, as the scene progresses, the child genius isn't really talking TO Chaplin's character, he is more talking past him. In my opinion, a lot of what the child says is quite cogent; we ARE forced to have our movements governed by some fancy book given to us by a domineering authority, we DO have our freedoms stripped in the name of some vague sense of order and security, and it IS truly a crime that an energy source as powerful and brilliant as the splitting atom is being squandered to make bombs. I call this a microcosm of debate because, despite how cogent I personally find these points to be, they aren't really being discussed with Charlie Chaplin's character - they are being thrown at an invented person who opposes everything the revolutionary stands for. We see quite clearly at the end that Charlie Chaplin DOES oppose the creation and usage of the atomic bomb, that he was ousted from power because of this position, but the revolutionary keeps on going. He doesn't even give his interlocutor the courtesy of saying people LIKE you want to use the atomic bomb to cause destruction, he directly addresses Charlie Chaplin's character when he makes those statements. End of the day, I think this scene makes for a really good satire and criticism of political debate and the positions that are being represented, all presented in the form of slapstick comedy. On the one hand, we see a child who is at least articulate and most likely quite intelligent representing young, invigorated opposition to long-standing ideas and systems. In my opinion, the criticisms he makes are justified, but there is a glaring issue in the fact that a productive discussion is not being had, and it was never his goal in the first place. There is no true exchange of ideas, there is no discussion; there are only confident, quippy soundbytes. Whether you agree or disagree with what either of them are saying, this kind of aggressive posture should be avoided at all costs when it comes to debates as important as how societies should be ran and how they should work. On the other, we see an older individual representing the old ways with a little deviance. He likes the ideas of order and governance through authority, but he has some disagreements with how some things are being run. He does suffer from the same issue of trying to win instead of trying to properly exchange ideas, but I think some aggression is at least understandable when you're not being talked with, instead being talked at. I may personally think he's wrong, but that also does not mean he should be shouted over.
This is a fantastic analysis of the video.
Its a kid explaining what anarchism is to the audience. The old man is an anarchist actor. Named Charlie Chaplin. He wrote the movie.
Chaplin was an anarchist?
@@nataliekhanyola5669 yes ma'am. Very much so.
Why does anarchism involve free enterprise?
@@jessl1934 why wouldn't it?
@@jessl1934 anarchism is total liberty. Freedom to trade goods and services is liberty.
Free Enterprise is NOT capitalism.
The future is now, old man.
Can I just put out a thought of mine, that disorder doesn't necessarily mean chaos. Order is control, and to assume that if there is no order that there will be chaos is just a bit of a stretch. As humans we are inclined to protect and survive, there is little reason to suggest that as soon as anarchy is introduced that the whole world will just collapse because of uncontrollable citizens. It would be interesting to have a debate on this, no hate please I am just trying to learn and put forward ideas 😊👍
Indigo Sphere systemacy and cyclicality vs chaos, unpredictability with respect to an observer
Well, if there isn't order, who's supposed to keep the prisoners out of your life. I mean, the LA Riots surrounding Rodney king are a prime example. Instead of protesting, they went full anarchy, and did whatever they wanted. Well, that happened to be murdering Koreans for a murder they didn't commit, destroying stores of their own people's even, setting fires where ever they pleased... No one was exempt from what the rioters wanted to do to them. All of that happened because, there were no police. They thought nothing would happen, so there was no authority. No order. Look what happened without that order. Note that I completely respect your opinion, I'm just saying that it's a little naive to think that all humans would just come together to protect and survive. They only do that if their in the same group. Ancient man, when they first created war, they were strangers. It wasn't survival, it was greed. And humans are naturally greedy, even if they don't want the world.
The difference between freedom and anarchy is balance. One person cannot control everything by their own physical being. There must be order and Logistics and rule of law or else the direction of supposed direction will be only invested in itself. I do believe the wolves should rule not the sheep. But what would we become in order for that goal to be reached
Idk, Because of the modern era everyone has different mentalities because we are allowed to - it would be interesting to see how many people would use anarchy to create a peaceful world in comparison to those who we assume are inherently greedy - you guys should watch that movie “The platform” it has such a good representation of the greed that becomes us
@@libertiesbreathe5014 freedom=anarchy
This kid is my spirit animal.
Reminds me of Huey freeman in Boonducks lol
haha this kid was speaking the truth. See people....it's been a long time now you are enslaved.
yup
You're a fucking idiot
Chicken Permission * CS:GO and More do you think i am a idiot?
martijn games nl If you support this kid then yes
i will stop this internet discussion bescause you not seem to be at the same level as my.
Now wrap your mind around the idea that this kind, as a character, is presented to make /fun/ of everything he says.
80 years, and low hanging satire becomes courageous declaration.
He still does sound ridiculous. He is just presenting problems that are evident in society and acting like he said something profound. He doesn't come up with any real, practical solution to the problem.
@@samuelforesta the practical solution, which is the only solution, is the complete and total destruction of political, economic, and social power. Anything short of that will delay, but not halt, the destruction of the planet, and will inevitably plunge us into the despotic monopolisation of power that we struggle against today.
@@samuelforesta yeah cause 10 year old kids are famous for their real and practical solutions.
@@samuelforesta The solution (according to the kid) is anarchism. Achieving it isn't easy, but it is possible if libertarian socialist ideologies spread enough. Some modern examples of anarchism: Rojava, the Zapatista Autonomous Municipalities, and Freetown Christiania.
@@eugenioleanza9190Rojava isn't anarchist and the EZLN openly rejects the label of anarchism.
It might be time for you to find better examples.
Found the answer. This is from the 1957 movie "A King in New York". Charlie Chaplin is playing the rich guy. He also wrote and directed the film.
Just look at that. He read all his lines without jump cuts.
Maybe it's true after all, that kids were smarter in the old days.
Instead of letting the state teach them they tought em themselves
😲
What’s your point 💀 their child actors today who literally do the same thing. Lmao 🤣 go on Disney channel
Spooks!
Well said, my property.
Property is a spook. So he is the spook!
spooky
"When government fears the people, there is liberty.
When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."
Thomas Jefferson
The boy is using fear to control others and limits their right to a discussion
This makes the boy a Nazi commie who would murder people who thinks different than him
"nazi commie" that's a new one. do you talk about nazbols? doesn't fit that kid. anger is justified. being able to not show your anger requires your detachment from the issues at hand.
the 1957 version of "we live in a society"
Everyone was losing their minds. However, this was a "pre-gamer" time...
yes
still relevant
Where on earth is this from, it's amazing?
This video is even more important than ever, especially all that has happened the last few years and still ongoing!
Man this is so deep and true
As a socialist 19 year old i agree.
OH deary I find someone younger than me who agrees! An OLD person told me 5 years ago. "You and I have failed. But the young ones will get this straigt. Eventually. And when they do. Hell hath no fury". I hope he was right. I got "Algorithmally" fired from my job as a high school science(Chemistry/math) teacher. Because I did my job well. 2nd in the nation... 12 censor duties. same year. But I taught my students things they COULD do. But also why they should not. Socialist until the day I die.
Socialism is a form of control. You are in cognitive dissonance.
@@Somberdemure Socialism is the rejection of private property.
Private is robbery and exploitative as explained by proudhon.
@@SomberdemureSocialism: Socialization of the means of production, rejection of private property
Libertarianism: The philosophy which puts individual liberty over everything else. Skepticism in an highly authoritarian state.
You're the one in cognitive dissonance.
@MiserableMuon those two are synonyms
Until the dignity and peace of man is restored!
You know that Chaplin made this in reaction to having been blackballed, blacklisted, and prevented from re-entry into the U.S. by the fascist anti-communists (who, ironically, mimicked the worst traits of Soviet Communists in their quest to find and persecute political dissent) of HUAC. Perhaps the satire is heavy-handed and the gags too broad, but it's very enjoyably performed by Chaplin and his son Michael (playing Rupert).
No surprise that this didn't see exhibition in the U.S. until after 1972....
Wait thats his son?! Thats sweet
He must have been so proud of that performance
The modern definition of Anarchy is an intentionally bastardized interpretation of the original, etymological word. "An-Archon" or "An-Archos"...simply put, it means Without Ruler or Without Rulers. The more people study the principles of liberty and what generates, propagates, puts into action and maintains liberty, freedom and natural law, the more will realize that government is anathema to liberty, freedom and natural law. Modern government is primarily interested in theft of property through compulsion. Regardless of whether or not you know where the money you hand-over through tax goes and whether or not you use the infrastructure or social services they provide, if you are not given a choice to voluntary contribute that money, you are being robbed. The government doesn't trust communities to take care of themselves and their own. But the greatest theft of government is that of the self-monarchy that is the free, human individual. That is equivalent to slavery by proxy.
Monty Burns Wonderfully said. :-)
+Monty Burns Property is also theft
Illya Lypyak
I have a carrot. Is it mine, or is it stolen?
Steve Ryan 1. Thats another part of anarchism too. 2. A carrot would fall under personal property like a car, house even some land etc, private property is referred to the means of production or the tools and location (like a factory etc) that is under management of private individual(s) ie a boss or a board of directors. Property is theft refers to this type. 3. That is the most simplistic argument that I have ever heard
Illya Lypyak
It was meant to be simplistic.
This clip is both sad and funny. BECAUSE ITS TRUE. Thinking that you could do this in the 1950s. Today in face of much lesser enemies. You would not be able to turn the camera on. Before you got arrested on terrorist charges...
You couldnt do this in the 1950s, its just innocent enough and just framed with enough satire for most people during this time period to brush it off as some sort of joke. There are just as many misinformed then as there are today, its just changed form
@@velnz5475 Just as many who would agree. End Quote.
@@velnz5475 Aye. But I think it relevant what was endorsed by media in the 1950s. Are now villified and heavily censored. Goodbye USA goodbye USSR. Or more likely hello to its cooperate friends in the WEF, WHO, Bill Gates foundation, Rockerfella foundation, Builderberg. (I know I sound like a tin foil hat.) PLEASE read up on this.
@@frederikhyrup2871 Should we judge it as a irrational consequence of powerful delusions for restricting our basic freedoms for any reasoning or lack thereof? Vilified scape goats or placeholder individuals are tactics unsavory to protect such freedoms as its irrelevant to a reality of humanitys' romance to accessible ignorance.
@@velnz5475 I glaced over your rant, Untill I saw "Humanitys romance with accessible ignorance". Anodyne and powerfull at the same time. Nice!
Based kid
It really does feel like we’re playing monopoly but all the property is gone
Monopoly is a game about capitalism. That was the creators intentions.
@@SPACEMONKEY288 no the creator was a Socialist
@@thatwolfensteinguy8954 I know lol it was to teach people the inevitable fate/evils of capitalism.
@kippered beef I disagree, capitalism cannot survive without a government, you couldn’t get the masses to follow ideas of private property and private owners of production, it was forced on to the world through colonialism, slavery and enclosure acts of the common lands, turning free land into private property forcing millions worldwide into cities were they had to sell themselves to a wage to survive.
you need a state and standing army to protect these concepts. Cronyism is simply mature capitalism, It is the fate of every single capitalist nation today and that take on capitalism face the same fate. Capitalism brings the worst of human traits (greed,selfishness,exploitative etc) to the top where they are rewarded with riches which they use to corrupt governments and foreign policy.
Workers can own there own workplaces democratically (aka socialism) you don’t need a private owner to control everything. Socialism and communism both work great and fine which is why it’s such a threat, there better systems and ways of organizing society.
anytime a socialist movement builds or one takes place in another nation it’s immediately attacked, invaded, sanctioned, demonized and all there important infrastructure is destroyed to cripple and topple any attempt at workers organizing and taking control of there lives. The ones that do survive usually fall into paranoid rebel states and become authoritarian to protect there revolution from foreign sabotage and propaganda.
Humanity has existed in a communist state for 90% of our entire existence the last 10% is filled with slave lords, feudal lords, and only a couple hundred years full of capitalist.
Capitalism is the enemy of freedom and peace in the world today.. will never advance past war, hunger, homelessness etc till capitalism folds worldwide and common people take control of there societys.
Socialist and communist worldwide have fought and are fighting to liberate people all over the planet while the west and the capitalist classes fought/ fight to suppress them and fund and support ruthless dictatorships and terror groups to help destroy any notion of a people state or people’s nation.
@@SPACEMONKEY288 Interesting that you say humanity has existed in a communist state for the vast majority of our existence because its also true that humanity has lived at subsidence-levels for that same amount of time or worse. Its only with the more recent development of private property ownership that we have gone beyond that. Also your claims of "you couldn't get the masses to follow private property" is wrong. When Americans pushed out west, there was no law enforcement to protect property, but through voluntary means like contracts, people did largely respect property rights with no government presence.
I love this kid.
So much truth in this clip, dont show it to the snowflakes.
I'm a copwatcher and 1st amendment auditor and we have been trying to tell this to people for years, but....sheep🤷🏽
oh, so you're the dolt sticking a camera in everyone's face and acting victimized when told to stop.
@slunkyp7403 nope, not that guy. Unless you walk up to my camera.... 😂😂😂😂
This is the best video I have ever watched ....I only wish I had seen it 20 years ago .
Truth is the truth it is indivisible ....................
if the truth is the truth and it is indivisible then
TRUTH = 0. the truth does not exist and to make ourselves feel better about that fact we create our own "personal truths" to believe in and tell others. but they are never truly the truth
it's obviously staged and the kid probably doesn't even know what he's talking about.
SnuggleStruggle k
Well, Nothing is Sacred
Electon Mechnix Agreed.
SnuggleStruggle k Never?
A young Peter Kropotkin in the flesh
Kropotkin advocated for free enterprise??
Have you actually read any Kropotkin?
"A king in New York" 1957 - with and by Charlie Chaplin
Mother, did it have to be so high?....
too onesided "dialogue", too agressive. However... Yes.
I love how the kids just start a food fight with the old man. 😂
the roman empire didn't collapse with the assassination of caesar.
The Roman empire didn't collapse because Caesar was murdered, but other than that he's right about everything else he said. ✊🏾
In 1957 you didn't have google lol. But yeah.
This kid is based
The king is played by Charlie Chaplin and the boy is his real life son Michael.
Brilliant!
Or rather; "Explaining To An Old Man What FREEDOM Is And Why Government Equals Violence"
Government does not equal violence. It equals power. And power does not equal violence either. Power is simply the ability to do things. Even supposedly "anarchist" societies would still have power and government.
@@samuelforesta Anarchist societies would not have governments. They would have councils, where everyone has the same say.
@@samuelforestathe only thing government has is the power to commit violence and call it law.
@@samuelforesta Hierarchies maintain themselves through violence, coercion, and intimidation. What happens when you ignore an order from your boss? You are punished. What happens if you ignore an order from a cop? You are punished.
This makes me feel nostalgic about times I've never been..
Reminds me of my anarchist friends who yell at me and don't let me get a word in. One benefits from SNAP and Medicaid, the other complains that he doesn't qualify for Medicaid. I agree with much of what they say, and I look forward to the collapse of the American empire, but in the meantime, I still vote pro clean energy, pro LGBTQ, pro immigrant, etc.
Yeah. We can't really do much now except try to make things better than they were.
Libtard anthem
Why are you mad at anarchists for benefiting off the government? Would you be mad at a prisoner for eating food given to them? There’s no hypocrisy in gaming the system that we are all forced into, a system that steals at every level and transaction possible. They even steal from the dead.
Voting. Hahahahaha
HAHAHAHHAHA VOTING
I'm glad anarchism is getting more attention these days but fearful of whether people are really embracing anarchism or plain anarchy.
I love this. Can somebody tell me what it's from? I need to own it.
“It's all about money, not freedom, y'all, okay? Nothing to do with fuckin' freedom. If you think you're free, try going somewhere without fucking money, okay?”
- Bill Hicks
Good video
When people are talking shit about Ferguson protesters ( not looters)
I hit them with this
And that kid grew up to be a good black bloc anarchist
Ferguson protesters didn't give a single fuck about the truth, they were all just race-baiting liberals that overreacted before the facts of the case came out. Brown was a thug and the aggressor. He deserved what he got. Anarchist checking in.
MURDR63 I hate how people think Mike Brown is the only case. Police brutally exist just check out who tamir rice is
Antonio Raya I am well aware that it exists. But they were protesting Brown. Period.
+MURDR63 They don't behave, talk or think like Liberals.
Black bloc anarchists are a detriment to anarchy. If you have to commit violence and destruction of property to further your goals then you’re just a fascist. Peaceful tactics are the only way forward because you’re just justifying the state in the eyes of the people you seek to liberate.
This is high quality propaganda, I love absolutely love it
This has the same vibe as certain political memes
a dump of arguments, thrown like a bag full of bricks
Holy shit that was good! Massive thumbs-up!
Aww it's so cute how they thought they had monopolies back then
The masses need to see this
What's the name of this film? Who is the actor portraying the kid? This is one of the best dialogues I've seen in a 1950s movie. (It's also based af. No gods-no masters! No state-no capitalism!)
Capitalism is natural, and God is good, its impossible to end the capitalism without the state, and its impossible to end God, because he's everything
Wow, this has my mind blown!! What show or movie is this from?? This kid, wow! Amazing... Editing this in: I found out from another commenter that this is a scene from a film by Charlie Chaplin, titled "A King in New York."
If I remember correctly that's actually Charlie Chaplins kid and this is from the movie "A king in new york"
Brilliant, just brilliant.
Anyone else find this via Electric Dragon's "And Robin" album?
Wow,cool,the old Charlie Chaplin.
***** Indeed I do,I enjoy all forms of political,social and or Historical writings and study.
This kid just demonstrates himself as a kid who grasps language well.
Great tribute YHVH ABBA FATHER GOD YAHWEH be all the glory forever and always the CREATOR of all creations KING 👑 of all kings queens ELOHIM LORD of all lords gods goddesses
god is dead and we killed him
based child
that child is adorable and so right xD
Love it. Is that Matt Christman as a child there?
This pretty much sums up what all anarchists are like lol.
Government is illegitimate and evil and so it “taxation”
I don't like the way the kid plays this role but i do like what the character has to say and i have mad respect.
He's attitude is bad, but he's 100% right.
The 99% are always right, and the people that 'Rule' are always wrong.
So much ignorance in the comments...
Whitley Blaine without ignorance there can be no wisdom ;)
Damn.
Yea, did they not see how the kid argued? How he prevented the man from talking?
+Hunter Gman You mean how they silence you and prevent people from speaking or placing limits upon speech. He just played the same hand played against him beating them at their own game.
Just saw a lil partisan rascal having some goofs and laughs is all. Fuck the police
I agree with this kid
This is deep The child represents the left or the right In modern day..the small group being conservatives represented by the child or the left being the child not letting the reason speak and being agressive....could continue but I'm not
This was the most brilliant video I've seen in a minute. Lol. Great stuff
That kid may be opposed to the word rule, but he himself RULES.
I can understand why people want a smaller less far reaching government. But I think that the more pressing issue is creating a government that successfully cares for the people.
People are Anarchists, only as long as the government fails them.
Governments NEVER care for people.
@@hackupboulders Exactly. People who want power are psychopaths only ever caring for themselves.
Governments only grow and attract power hungry people who will abuse their positions in the government. Even if you had a perfect government it would only be a matter of time before it would be corrupted.
It’s impossible for a government (aka ruling class) to care for someone.
Pretty good but I hated he didn't let him say anything.
That is Charlie Chaplin and his son. Charlie Chaplin was a self-admitted anarchist.
Fitting how the Anarchist is a ten year old kid that don't know shit about the world and just yell without even letting his opponent talk.
Mad? Nothing he says here is incorrect.
@@JohnDoe-xs5gvi don't even fully disagree with his broad message but his argumentation is just yelling and putting up a bunch of strawmen while whining about "but muh animal don't need passports !1!!" And switching subjects when the other person want to respond.
To respond to your question i'm not mad, just feeling second hand embrassement for whoever thought his argument is clever. Because it is not, it's literally just screeching and honestly feel like a 60 years in advance jab at current days leftist kids.
@@Panzermeiller You literally said yourself you don't disagree with him. then go on to get mad over his argument. An argument is an argument no matter how it is delivered. Regardless Chaplin was forced to write this in that way.
@@JohnDoe-xs5gv I didn't say i didn't disagree, i said i didn't FULLY disagree, as in, i get where he's coming from and some of what he say have some sense.
However the way an argument is delivered is pretty vital, just throwing those fancy emotionally charged sentence at random and behaving like a rooster isn't a good way of argumenting and i can guarantee you it will make anybody against you roll their eyes and everybody with you cringe in despair.
Ideas should be argumented and it should be based on something else than speculations.
They way i see it the kid is having the same level of argumentation than boomers when they tell you about how "in the USSR you have no food and communism killed 1000000 gazillion peoples" which was probably the point of the scene, to have a reversed role situation. Because no matter how you turn it his valid points are just parroted statements thrown out of the blue.
@@Panzermeiller It is irrelevant how the argument is delivered. If I said the sky is blue in a calm tone, them screeched and stomped my feet like a toddler while saying the sky is blue, both arguments are the exact same. Whether or not you are convincing is irrelevant. Everything the kid says is correct.
Amazing.
When you radicalize the little rascals
Telling the truth is a revolutionary act in a time of deceit.
Wanting to live free is being “radical”
@@TaxationIsTheft439 Thinking that an already free society needs to be destroyed and rebuilt to make a free society is radical.
This kid certainly had the monopoly of speech in this video
Terrible script and direction. Seems that Chaplin could have been involved in a better project. The kid kept waving his finger over and over while ranting, when the director had so much leeway in doing it right.
I wonder what movie this is from?
so true
so false
“Only with a passport!”
And burritos, don't forget burritos.
Oops my anarchy symbol
real
That's the only way anarchist can ever with arguments is not letting anyone else talk and he who speaks the loudest is win...
Sean R. Actually there are four ways.
+Sean R. That sounds like a Communist who thinks that they are an Anarchist.
*cough* statist! *cough*
communism is not a form of goverment tho
socialism is but not communism
which type is more democratic?
the Exceptionalist they both are equally democratic but arguably communism is more becouse it dont have a state.
***** lel, well im not an anarchist anymoreee but yes that is what socialism is, but for socialism to work you would have another form of government that is not the form we have today, I get you tho. its an economic system that requires that the political state get cruched
Fridisen :3 wrong
One second you say a communist country has no state? Communism is about pretty much total state interference and control. Anarchism is when you have no government.
Idk man for the most part he be spitting facts
A lot of what he says is true but Anarchism is nothing short of Utopian Socialism in other words it is unscientific, dreamy and visionary.
How is making up shit as you go along working out for you? When does science say anything about freedom, for or against or prescribes anything? Science deals with creating models used to explain facts, make future predictions, and dealing with how nature works. Government is none of those things. This is why governments are based on unscientific ideas, that are dreamy and visionary. Anarchism is not a utopian anything. It is a preference to not have government or any rulers.
+Aria Invictus
I dunno, how is it working out for you boy?
_There is two main Socialist tenets, Utopian Socialism that is very idealistic and visionary and Scientific Socialism which bases itself on scientific reasoning and the material conditions of society whereas Utopian have very little grounding in either material condition or scientific reasoning._
*****
My question doesn't apply to me. It applies to you. Avoid much? I predict you will do the same.
*****
First of all it is not a theory, it is a preference. Learn what Anarchism is before you say more stupid shit and pretend like you do. Anarchism is no more a theory than atheism is a world view.
Anarchism:
belief in the abolition of all government and the organization of society on a voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to force or compulsion.
+Aria Invictus
LOL, how stupid are you? Do not even know what theory means, imao fail.
_a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action _
_b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances -often used in the phrase in theory _
The fact that you child have not fucking read the Ideas of Diggers and Robert Owen, Mikhail Alexandrovich Bakunin or even any of the early thinkers that founded the movement of Utopian Socialism and Anarchism.
Anarchism is one of many categories within Utopian Socialism.
Anarchism does not ground itself in the material conditions of society therefor is not Scientific, to begin with give me one fucking nation that has successfully implemented Anarchism on a large scale, you cannot because there is none.
Scientific Socialism is the on that works and has been implemented in countless of nations with ideas such as Marxist-Leninism, Maoism, Juche and Consumer Socialism.
It is quite sad you claim to be Anarchist but has not even read Bakunin, pathetic.