What I mean by 'anarchy' | Sophie Scott-Brown | Inside anarchy
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 27 июл 2024
- Sophie Scott-Brown delves into the meaning of everyday anarchy.
What does freedom really look like?
Watch the full talk at iai.tv/video/inside-anarchy-s...
Absolute freedom of the individual? Or chaotic dystopia? Anarchy is one of the most violently divisive political ideals going. Join outspoken theorist, Sophie Scott-Brown, as she sets out her vision of anarchy for everyone.
#anarchy #anarchism #liberty #freedom
Sophie Scott-Brown is the former Director of Gresham College and fellow at the University of St Andrews. An inspiring intellectual historian with research interests in modern European political thought, Anarchism, and the history of education, Sophie is also a fellow of the Higher Education Academy and of the Royal History Society.
She is an author excited by historical biography as a means of understanding ideas. Her work includes The Histories of Raphael Samuel: A Portrait of a People’s Historian and Colin Ward and the Art of Everyday Anarchy.
00:00 Intro
00:23 Everyday anarchism
00:53 Objections to anarchism
05:44 Positive vs negative liberty
08:43 The social individual
11:08 A social account of liberty
12:58 What anarchism isn't
13:36 What anarchism is
The Institute of Art and Ideas features videos and articles from cutting edge thinkers discussing the ideas that are shaping the world, from metaphysics to string theory, technology to democracy, aesthetics to genetics. Subscribe today! iai.tv/subscribe?Y...
For debates and talks: iai.tv
For articles: iai.tv/articles
For courses: iai.tv/iai-academy/courses
How can we maximise the degree of freedom available to us in any given situation? Leave your thoughts in the comments.
To watch the full talk, head to iai.tv/video/inside-anarchy-sophie-scott-brown?RUclips&
Have to admit that there are several entrepreneurs locally that the Paris commune may not have approved of, but they can be kind in a patronising kind of way. Lapdog.
I don't understand the question.
@@Micheal313 Cannot blame you. Talk about statistical analysis and the fascist apologists immediately want to discuss racism and scewed data in relation to it. Racists probably invented the phrase 'any publicity is good publicity'.
It's so refreshing to have another person talking about those ideas. I'm talking about it almost word by word, starting a decade ago.
Refreshing, I'm felling less lonely ob this path. Thank you, Sophie.
@@Shan7y77 I'm pretty sure you're not the only one. Anarchist philosophy has been talked about by various important figures in the past as well, and it's very likely they share your thoughts. So don't feel alone.
"John Burroughs has stated that experimental study of animals in captivity is absolutely useless. Their character, their habits, their appetites undergo a complete transformation when torn from their soil in field and forest. With human nature caged in a narrow space, whipped daily into submission, how can we speak of its potentialities?" ~ Emma Goldman
Yeah that's correct. What might best be called natural anarchism -- humans living under natural law -- is the only true anarchism because agricultural civilization itself is structurally hierarchical, rendering as fiat/idealistic/oxymoronic all other theories of 'anarchism.'
The key to a mature anarchism, which, like any mature understanding is a systems theory, is a foundation in the classical cultural anthropology that peaked as a field in the 1970s that then, for obvious political reasons, was subsumed by fiat 'anthropology.'
True (natural) anarchism is ever-increasingly relevant because we are now five years post- Peak Total Global Oil Liquids production which means the multidecadal(?) terminal collapse of industrial civilization is well underway. What normies wave away as the "new normal."
Why not upload the whole video? :'(
The one on the website seems to be very laggy.
I used a part of her book about Colin Ward for my PhD thesis...very well written.
Like your style of anarchism. Much more acceptable to me than a nihilistic version and I'm glad I heard you can function with such views and it gives me hope of sensible speech when confronted by those taught I am their enemy pig.
Anarchism is never nihilistic. People, individually, want to survive and thrive in life, it’s our nature.
Statism has lead to some pretty nihilistic societies, think communism, socialism, nationalism, national socialism. We actually know what more government equals as far as nihilism is concerned.
The old ism's look less attractive with capitalism's consumerism ruining the planet.
@maxbarker356 what is statism?is it the same thing as communism and socialism?and how did it make nihilistic societies?
@@octaviannkya9417 He uses the word statism in his own understanding of it. Actually it is probably a very poor term since it leads to questions of a diversity as complex as individuals concepts of the word 'love'. We could spend all night waffling on about definitions when how to cope with dominance and unfair control would be far more important to address.
@@richardchapman1592 statism is far more precise a term than love. Terrible comparison. Rather than casting aspersions about other people’s understanding of something, prove your own understanding.
Fancy dismissing statism in a conversation about “unfair control” as you put it. That’s rather strange given the context of the two to each other.
If we work around the idea of this quote
“Surviving the Universe is a true goal”
Everything should fall into place to ensure that outcome.
Thank you for educating and busting the bad image of anarchy unfortunately most people still belief... anarchism or doom - im not makin the rules.
Yea, it can make one despondant but sticking to the rules of Jesus whilst guided by authority to the apex of the roof of a church sect to be tempted may show you that true believing isn't to be messed with.
The reason they believe that is because of the ancoms and anarco-syndicalist
That was really nice! Finished the video on the other site with no problems. Thank you for sharing your ideas!
Ursula Le Guin's The Dispossessed
Welcome to the idea of true democracy! Anarcho-syndicalism and contractualism is the answer for an egalitarian society, simply because there is no one answer. The only problem is educating and empowering citizens to believe they truly can achieve a better life through responsible participation in governance ☺️
There's room for anarcho-communism and democratic confederalism too. Anarchist society is about having a plurality of solutions. It makes it more robust when something fails, but mostly tolerance is good for its own sake.
Oof democracy isn't a part of anarchism.
If you want others voting on how you live your life that is no different than having a government
I personally would rather have the best doctor, the best airline pilot, and the best electrician than be egalitarian.
Further forcing the "equality" is by its nature tyrannical
I look around me and think..
We need food, shelter, clothes, and each other. Each other is super deep. We literally come out of each other's bodies.
Humans are like the tuned fruit of the Earth, adjusted and intended for something.
Why do you be? Why do you persist? Why does anyone truly persist? I know why I do.
The fair share and hoarding objections. We already have those issues in the system we have built.
upload full vids please your website is broken, cant watch videos as a member
Also learning to deal better with with uncertainty and ambiguity is a skill that needs to be deliberetly done
This very much just sounds like an idealized democracy. I would argue that no one truly wants anarchy, even the version most people think of still has its hierarchies and culture that each group would follow. The very concept is against human nature since humans are social and true anarchy is a very antisocial way of living and forming any kind of group means making a personal sacrifice on some level.
Well, at about 6minutes you have your answer
It's not a great idea to be snarky about reasonable questions. I'm an anarchist and have wrestled with these ideas for four decades.
How should people live?
What should I do now?
Answer these questions and you will have a chance to do the right thing.
Also it’s important to learn about how technology is not value neutral and how multi-polar traps work. A lot of the objections to what human nature is , all human nature studies are human nature studies within civilization made up up many multipolar traps. We didn’t study things before civilization. In fact the dark ages themselves where still occuring in civilization😊
Read Errico Maletesta!
I like it. How do we get there?
Stop paying taxes
Start small. Join or set up a cooperative. i.e., get practice cooperating with people without hierarchy. This will get a bit messy in larger groups, because human interaction is inherently complex. So make sure you take care of yourself as well and don't burn yourself out. Don't try to change the entire world on your own, just do what you can (and want).
As you and everyone around you get more and more used to cooperating with people without hierarchy you will get better at it and you can expand and get more members in. Over time as you join or set up more and more different cooperatives (I advise against having a single huge coop to do everything) more and more of your needs will be met without hierarchy, and at some point you'll notice you've spent an entire year without interacting with any kind of hierarchy. At this point you'll realize you've already lived in an anarchist society for a year.
work with what you can
@@Ndo01 if you look around for someone to get it started, and find no one. It’s because the person you’re looking for is yourself
I think..I’m in love.
That's the problem with thought.
You know it. 😂
I think folks tend to overcomplicate what is pretty basic: You don't want to be murdered, so you don't murder. same goes for theft, assault and slander .. what is the penalty? whatever your would be victim, his or her friends, family, neighbors, and the odd guy who happened to see that was walking by decide .. could be you have to make an apology .. could be you get fed to a wood chipper feet first. I would recommend avoiding the error to begin with, and swiftly seeking amends when one has offended .. learned that from a cool cat named Jesus - have you heard of him? 💜
Hi Green. You are advocating mob justice to enforce mob decided ‘laws’. You also appear to be implicitly advocating that the strongest and perhaps the most violent person or group gets their way when delivering ‘justice’. This combination is often referred to as mob rule. There are many historical examples of how disastrous this is. Lynching isn’t a very reasonable long term legal strategy. [I once witnessed mob ‘justice’, delivered at a traffic accident of all things, in Bangladesh: not a pretty sight. Interestingly, the crowd then picked out a couple of random bystanders to attack.]
Oddly, you then invoke Jesus? [I have to admire your flexibility.]
@@SystemsMedicine The Kings of the Earth use their overwhelming force to justify their 'law' -did you find it to be Just? Of course not - but then again, have we as men been taught the proper way of being? Hmm, I see that I am the problem here! This is Why I recommend the Good Teacher, Sir!
@@Green.Country.Agroforestry Wow Green… your reply is pithy and convincing. [I have more than merely changed my mind; I’ve changed my outlook.] I’m smiling as I write: if I ever meet you in my local cool dive pub, drinks and hors d’oeuvres on me. Cheers, and thanks for your response.
Nah, the animists treat true Christians as playthings. Got plenty on that but get attacked for mentioning it.
It's not fair to answer with - 'I don't know' on the most important question about anarchy. How to keep control without of permanent police authority? Or we should all be police officers on odd/even days. Even though we all have different definitions on what one can, or cannot do.
By the time the police are involved, it's too late, the deed is done... but the essential factor is simply that control is not only an illusion but unnecessary. Control is the problem as it is one person, or a group, saying; this is the only way. That is ignorance of the actuality of life. It denies freedom of learning, or exploring, of developing.
All of those questions have been answer, very thoroughly, by anarchist scholars who have been writing on the subject for the past 250 years. She's merely presenting the "I don't know" answer as the appropriate reaction to those questions because they're kind of unimportant to what modern anarchists want to accomplish, which is push the world to a more equitable, free place.
@@LyricalTampon
ANARCHY:
Anarchy is a state in which there are no rulers; a rejection of hierarchy. The earliest recorded use of the word, from the early sixteenth century, simply meant “absence of government”, albeit with the implication of civil disorder. A similar but ameliorated meaning began to be employed in the nineteenth century, Christian era, in reference to a Utopian (that is, an idealistic) society that had NO GOVERNMENT.
The English term was borrowed from the Medieval Latin word, “anarchia”, borrowed from the Greek word, “anarkhía” (“lack of a leader, lawlessness”), from “ánarchos” (“without a head or chief, leaderless”), from “an-” + “-archos”, derivative of “archós” (“leader, chief”) + “-ia”.
It should be obvious that ANARCHY can never ever succeed, because even the smallest possible social unit (the nuclear family) requires a dominator. Any family will fall-apart without a strict male household head. Factually-speaking, without the husband/father, there is no family, by definition. The English noun “husband” comes from the Old Norse word “hûsbôndi”, meaning “master of the house”. A family is deficient without its head, just as a body without its head is incomplete. The same paradigm applies to the extended family, which depends on a strong patriarchal figure (customarily, the eldest or most senior male). Likewise, with clans, tribes, villages, towns, cities, and nations or countries.
Unfortunately, there are many otherwise-intelligent persons who honestly believe that an ENTIRE country can smoothly function without a leader in place. Any sane person can easily understand that even a nuclear family is unable to function properly without a head of the house, what to speak of a populous nation. The reason for anarchists’ distrust of any kind of government is due to the corrupt nature of democratic governments, and the adulteration of the monarchy in recent centuries. However, if anarchists were to understand that most all so-called “kings/queens” in recent centuries were not even close to being true monarchs, they may change their stance on that inane “system”.
Those abject fools who advocate for some kind of ANARCHISTIC society should be required to adhere to their own asinine ideology within their private domains. So, for example, a man who desires the absence of any form of national leadership, really ought to consent to that very same template upon his own family. He should not presume to be the head of his household, but rather, permit his wife and children to become his equals. Likewise, a housewife ought not rule over her children, an employer must not direct the actions of his employees, and so on, and so forth. Thereafter, it will become blatantly obvious that any form of anarchy cannot endure, assuming, of course, that in the case of a father, his household is not already fractured, which seems to be the case in most families, due to lax leadership as a consequence of poor government, crooked education, and feminism (which has as its not-so-tacit goal of destroying all forms of patriarchal structures, starting from the nuclear family). How unfortunate it is that anarchists usually can see the need for a hierarchical structure within their own domains, such as those mentioned above, yet quite impervious to the necessity of a strong regime on the national level. The hypocrisy is astounding! And for those idiots who would contend, “It is okay for me to be the head of my family but there should not be a government ruling over me”, that is not a logical argument, but merely an unjustified, emotive assertion, motivated by the fact that we humans have not been governed by a legitimate regime for at least a couple of centuries. Of course, this is not to imply that every monarch in ancient history was a holy and righteous king (or even an actual king, by definition), but the fact that we humans have survived this long, suggests that they were not the kind of demonic, evil, murderous, thieving scumbags who have ruled-over every single country and nation on the planet during the past few hundred years or so.
British police are the best form of protection racket there has ever been because so far it is democratically overseen. The criminal protection rackets are usually depicted as more ruthless. However, my experience is that the psychiatric police can, even in Britain, be ruthless through self interest and disinterest of it's operators.
@@TheWorldTeacher You are speaking about stuff that an anarchist doesn't need to believe in - it's YOUR idea of what ALL of anarchists believe. Do all people who adhere to a political party or ideology, left or right or center - do they all believe the same things even down to details? Of course not - do you not hear her say repeatedly "my type of anarchism" or "there are varieties of anarchism"? You can grab the etymology of the word but that doesn't mean you have any idea about what you are talking about. In a nutshell Anarchism is against hierarchies and against "rulers." There is also no claim that anarchism can "solve" all problems and especially not * immediately* - particularly since they haven't been solved by all the other systems to be tried. (And just a note to whomever: "Libertarian" and "Anarchy" are used differently in Europe and the North America - and American "Libertarians" are not what they were in the past even though they might think they are. Tech boys have a rather limited understanding of the world and history).
The end of times are near.
I have melancholy. I feel like I'm in an extermination camp. Nothing I do works. I think ugly people are jealous of me.
Kropotkin never liked Britain and now i see why even the anarchists aren’t anarchists. No but seriously this was a very nice vague form of anarchism at one point she said money would be fine. Congratulations! Your anarchist dream is already here would you like to be a pilot or a doctor? Oh maybe President!
Sounds nice. I wonder what's preventing it from occurring?
accumulated wealth and power. i'm sure people asked the same thing during strong monarchic rule, too, though.
🎉🎉🎉🎉
I’m all for anarchism but I draw the line at the title intersecting with the outline on the first slide of her presentation.
Direct democracy! 😶🌫️
Direct democracy is antithetical to anarchy. Democracy is mob rule.
like we have in Swiss
@@matteoenricocattaneo is it true direct democracy without authoritative representatives?
🤮 screw mob rule
Why not just skip the anarchy descriptor. Since anarchy literally means no structure (and will never mean anything else) you can't have an anarchic structured society.
Yea but consideration of reality proves we use the structures that exist previously.
@@richardchapman1592 No offense meant but, could you please rephrase that?
Unless you were simply making a convoluted attempt at being obtuse or sarcastic.
@@johngatewood4638 sarcasm is related to cynicism. These are natural for me and many of the disaffected due to insult of our intellects.
Was only a philosophical pisstake. Considerations of reality require the structures of thought we are endowed with. Not very practical but pissed off the fuel consuming traffic today by dragging a deconstructed bed to the tip to demonstrate local recycling. That was satisfying in terms of green energy but a confrontation to fuel abusers in an unintended spinoff that frustration induced me to. Apologies for getting autobiographical.
@@richardchapman1592 being a sarcasm based lifeform I should have picked up on that. Because that was some sarcasm of the highest order.
European civilization was initially based in the Catholic Church and Monarchy's which gave way to secular forms of government. More importantly the extended family was the basis for personal governance and social stability well into the Twentieth Century.
A lot of anarchist thinkers have said that monarchy is the best ‘archy’ if an archy must be had.
@@maxbarker356 could you cite a few?
De centralisation literally down to local areas , one term government local councillors with a maximum of one term and removable at any time commerce but not capitalism gold , silver or local social credit, no money printing, jobs based on social worth healthcare for all no military accept home defense
@@maxbarker356 no this is utter BS and misinfo.. monarchy is one is the WORST - anarchism is about egalitarian participation and decision makin in every aspect that affects people and each other.
@@TimoDcTheLikelyLad speaking of bs, you’re saying egalitarianism underpins anarchism. No it doesn’t. Where people are free of rulers they are uneven/unequal.
Egalitarianism underpins the various statisms. It takes a considerable amount of government to make people equal. And generally it involves more pulling down the competent contributors to society more than it does pulling up those with little to contribute.
Judging by your photo you’re an Anarcho communist, so you don’t see how egalitarianism is antithetical to anarchism.
Which is interesting because how do you judge what’s equal without some sort of judge/authority/ruler? Individual or corporate? And how do you enforce that equality without using authority/rule ultimately backed by force? Which is what a government is in essence.
Anarcho communism is misinfo. It’s a contradiction in terms.
This is a bit abstract. I've explored several aspects of practical anarchy in my books. I draw inspiration from Lysander Spooner, Murray Rothbard, Marc Stevens, etc..
Way to go. Real anarchists! This lady is more influenced by Kropotkin and is more of a democratic socialist with a bit of sympathy to some voluntarism she’s not really actual anarchist.
@@maxbarker356 Agreed. She speaks too much about democracy which is no respecter of individuals.
@@classic_sci_fi She does talk about the right to not take part, which shows her definition of democracy is closer to consensus than yours.
@@bramvanduijn8086 I haven't heard the whole talk. I hope she's not advocating that we must abide by votes of strangers. I'm glad there's any kind of discussion here at all. Cheers!
It’s all fun and games until you become a slave in the harem.
Long live Leonidas memory.
Anarchy is a nice feeling without any pragmatic possibility. Any theory of “community” like this must be agreed upon and participated in, in totality by its participants. That cannot, has not, and never will happen. Any governmental system or “anarchy” must account for this fact to survive. Anarchy by definition cannot accomplish this.
You’re right to be skeptical, achieving any form of participatory democracy is difficult, and a process. However, I would recommend that you read a bit about the Catalan experience before the Civil War, where collective ownership of land and factories doubled production in a few short years after the introduction of anarcho-syndicalism. It functioned so well, it had to be destroyed by Stalin from the inside, and the fascists from the outside. Also, the Paris Commune is another example… It is hard to imagine it on a very large scale, but one can dream of mature society with a high quality of life for everyone 🙏🏻
@@zenanarchi6889it is somewhat possible, certainly short term in a small society. But, everything you wrote after that supports reality. Someone disagreed, destroyed it, and all you’re left with is your dreams.
Every form of government we have imagined will work in an ideal society. That’s my point, ideal societies don’t exist
No. Actually anarchism doesn't stop individuals from freely associating with whom they wish - anarchism is relationship based
Oof both of those fell apart
its like watching baby's first anarchy lol
After six long boring minutes this lady finally comes up with a wobbly vague first definition of the term. She sure aint no philosophy major. This must be her first speech ever. I didnt know that anarchy also implies logic and word salad anarchy.
She’s sort of describing the United States of America 😂. Absence of permanent authority. We impeach, we vote and our leaders have limits on how long they can stay in office. Supreme Court justices are unfortunately the exception to this
we have a permanent ruling class.
@@snowballeffect7812 well that’s not really much of a rebuttal
@@Provocateur991 how is that not a rebuttal? lol. the claim was that we have no permanent leadership when we clearly do.
@@snowballeffect7812 you just made a statement with no explanation. I’ve never heard someone make a claim and not back it up with data or some semblance of proof. That’s not an argument brotha
@@Provocateur991 i didn't realize something obvious needed supporting evidence. I thought the old white men and capitalists who write all our laws was evidence enough.
boring
Analrchy. That's ehat she said.
ANARCHY:
Anarchy is a state in which there are no rulers; a rejection of hierarchy. The earliest recorded use of the word, from the early sixteenth century, simply meant “absence of government”, albeit with the implication of civil disorder. A similar but ameliorated meaning began to be employed in the nineteenth century, Christian era, in reference to a Utopian (that is, an idealistic) society that had NO GOVERNMENT.
The English term was borrowed from the Medieval Latin word, “anarchia”, borrowed from the Greek word, “anarkhía” (“lack of a leader, lawlessness”), from “ánarchos” (“without a head or chief, leaderless”), from “an-” + “-archos”, derivative of “archós” (“leader, chief”) + “-ia”.
It should be obvious that ANARCHY can never ever succeed, because even the smallest possible social unit (the nuclear family) requires a dominator. Any family will fall-apart without a strict male household head. Factually-speaking, without the husband/father, there is no family, by definition. The English noun “husband” comes from the Old Norse word “hûsbôndi”, meaning “master of the house”. A family is deficient without its head, just as a body without its head is incomplete. The same paradigm applies to the extended family, which depends on a strong patriarchal figure (customarily, the eldest or most senior male). Likewise, with clans, tribes, villages, towns, cities, and nations or countries.
Unfortunately, there are many otherwise-intelligent persons who honestly believe that an ENTIRE country can smoothly function without a leader in place. Any sane person can easily understand that even a nuclear family is unable to function properly without a head of the house, what to speak of a populous nation. The reason for anarchists’ distrust of any kind of government is due to the corrupt nature of democratic governments, and the adulteration of the monarchy in recent centuries. However, if anarchists were to understand that most all so-called “kings/queens” in recent centuries were not even close to being true monarchs, they may change their stance on that inane “system”.
Those abject fools who advocate for some kind of ANARCHISTIC society should be required to adhere to their own asinine ideology within their private domains. So, for example, a man who desires the absence of any form of national leadership, really ought to consent to that very same template upon his own family. He should not presume to be the head of his household, but rather, permit his wife and children to become his equals. Likewise, a housewife ought not rule over her children, an employer must not direct the actions of his employees, and so on, and so forth. Thereafter, it will become blatantly obvious that any form of anarchy cannot endure, assuming, of course, that in the case of a father, his household is not already fractured, which seems to be the case in most families, due to lax leadership as a consequence of poor government, crooked education, and feminism (which has as its not-so-tacit goal of destroying all forms of patriarchal structures, starting from the nuclear family). How unfortunate it is that anarchists usually can see the need for a hierarchical structure within their own domains, such as those mentioned above, yet quite impervious to the necessity of a strong regime on the national level. The hypocrisy is astounding! And for those idiots who would contend, “It is okay for me to be the head of my family but there should not be a government ruling over me”, that is not a logical argument, but merely an unjustified, emotive assertion, motivated by the fact that we humans have not been governed by a legitimate regime for at least a couple of centuries. Of course, this is not to imply that every monarch in ancient history was a holy and righteous king (or even an actual king, by definition), but the fact that we humans have survived this long, suggests that they were not the kind of demonic, evil, murderous, thieving scumbags who have ruled-over every single country and nation on the planet during the past few hundred years or so.
You're projecting a lot when you try to imagine how anarchists see their role in their household, business, or social club. Have you tried talking to actual anarchists in a somewhat respectful manner? You might get a more realistic view of how anarchists think.
How about audience of this show would reject mrs brown authority over her wallet and made collective democratic decision to go get pizza and then other lady appointed go get it made individual decision that authority of temporary democratic body made wrong decision about property and she decide to keep it for her self. Ms Brown speaks brilliant things but if you scratch that vision a little you can see beneficiants of this things would be gangs and corporations.
it's almost like the other people would vote "no" lol. there's no point in watching if you're not going to listen.
PowerPoint anarchism!! Come and get some.
Explaining anarchy! Not sure about that? But then, dumb people need to have a bridle.
Oof this video....
1.) Never trust a woman with a chest tattoo.
2.) She wouldn’t survive one day in Anarchy.
I was going to give you an answer but then I saw your profile picture and username...
I like your cartoon man picture!
Just FYI, she's not advocating for anarchy. She's advocating for anarchism. The fact that you don't know the difference is very funny given the level of confidence in your comment, though.
@@LyricalTampon Ignorant and confident; the best combo.
3.) she’s advocates for democratic socialism but with a sprinkling of voluntarism because its seems less assertive
4.) lists are great
@@maxbarker356 No she's not. But then you watched the video with your own ideological filter goggles on.
I only click because she’s pretty and than left.
Well that was a whole lot of nice-sounding words about nothing.
What a load of horseshit.
brilliantly-supported rebuttal.