As a Marxist, I need to point out that practical applications of Marxist theory in actual circumstances of a compromised reality also do not turn out to be perfectly aligned with the theory - anarchism is not an exception in that.
‘’Who is right, the idealists or the materialists? The question, once stated in this way, hesitation becomes impossible. Undoubtedly the idealists are wrong and the materialists right. Yes, facts are before ideas; yes, the ideal, as Proudhon said, is but a flower, whose root lies in the material conditions of existence. Yes, the whole history of humanity, intellectual and moral, political and social, is but a reflection of its economic history.’’ God and the State; M. Bakunin ~ 1871
Only to contradict it a few paragraphs below... "Until we shall account to ourselves for the manner in which the idea of a supernatural or divine world was developed and had to be developed in the historical evolution of the human conscience, all our scientific conviction of its absurdity will be in vain; until then we shall never succeed in destroying it in the opinion of the majority, because we shall never be able to attack it in the very depths of the hut man being where it had birth. Condemned to a fruitless struggle, without issue and without end, we should for ever have to content ourselves with fighting it solely on the surface, in its innumerable manifestations, whose absurdity will be scarcely beaten down by the blows of common sense before it will reappear in a new form no less nonsensical. While the root of all the absurdities that torment the world, belief in God, remains intact, it will never fail to bring forth new offspring. Thus, at the present time, in certain sections of the highest society, Spiritualism tends to establish itself upon the ruins of Christianity." God and the State; M. Bakunin ~ 1871
Noam Chomsky describes anarchism as the belief that so forms of authority need to be justified, if unjustified, it needs to be overthrown. I like this definition. Some forms of authority are justified. No dumping garbage in the river, things like that are justifiable forms of authority. I think a delegate system of authority is a good idea, and I am an anarchist. I see two parts to anarchism, vision, my vision of what could/should be, and tactics, how to realize said vision. In my opinion anarchism and communism compliment each other nicely. Historically many anarchists were Marxist btw.
I'd be very careful with that definition, it's easy to understand, but also easy to think that authority would just need to be "justified" and then it's fine. Every authority in existence has justified itself with everything from heroic tales to economic doctrin. No authority as in power over someone is justifiable. As a stupid example: Let's say you have a group project to finish and you've decided on a work split together. No one in your group has any "authority" over you, even if a person would want that you do double the work, they have no way of enforcing anything. But if you end up doing nothing at all they also can't do anything. All they can do is complain to the authority - who then decides on your fate, most likely with only limited information. It's a top -> down decision. And perfectly justified be it in education or workplaces. In a social-anarchist structure there is no authority at the end who decides for everyone else. You've agreed on a work split, if something doesn't work out you can first try to talk with your group, if that doesn't work out (e.g. one guy is just as A**hole) - the affected people from your group will address the broader department, maybe a simple solution can be found, like swaping etc. If not and a drastic measure is needed which would affect the whole workplace (like expulsion) depending on the size, your department would need to elect deligates who represent - under an agreed upon, revocable mandate - their case & solutions to the whole workplace. In end you vote. At no step in this escalation did anyone have any authority over someone else. At every step, everyone who's affected was directly involved in the decision making. And i'd say anarchism & communism don't just compliment each other, they necessitate each other. No state or authority has ever given the means of production - or power in general - back to it's people and into their controle. Not even self declared socialist ones.
This guy argues a red herring. Most anarchists believe in classes, and believe in analyzing the world and not just doing things because they're fun. If i was arguing the way he argues, i would say Marxists don't believe in fun.
I don't think that they were arguing, they were more critiquing historical instances, and theoretical bankruptcies of specific Classical Anarchist movements from the 1840-1939. Examples they bring up is the problems of direct action, problems of propaganda of the deed, problems of the reactionary substitutionist organizations Anarchists had similar to Kautskyists and Stalinists (examples listed is Alliance of Social Democracy, Makhnovia, and the National Confederation of Labor-Iberian Anarchist Federation (CNT-FAI)) as well certain idealistic philosophical trends like Proudhon's analysis on Mutualist communes, Nechayev catechism theory, and many more examples.
@@socialistlynx1264 well, actually... "Direct Action" is a term Marxists and Anarchists use in the 30s to describe strikes, expropriations and factory occupations. Trotsky does so too. If that term means anything different today, it is likely because the Reformists ceded it.
@markusglanzer6672 The first international was the first time used in 1864 by Mikhail Bakunin to describe the action of revolutionary groups that must be more active rather than focus too much on theory. This would then lead to debates between Karl Marx and Frederick Engels against Mikhail Bakunin and Sergey Neyachev in the International Working Men’s Association. "No amount of reasoning or agitation will succeed in converting these moral unfortunates. The only effective way to overcome their resistance is through direct action"- Mikhail Bakunin, On the Policy of the International Working Men’s Association. It is true that direct action is more to cover strikes and spontaneous labor action of the proletariat by people like Rudolf Rocker, Buenaventura Durruti, Peter Kropotkin, and even Emma Goldman. But not only do some of these definitions of it change and fluctuate, it still stems from the theories of Bakunin and Proudhon back in the first international. Only recently in the 21st century has that to change with some Anarchists I know having to reconcile Marxist theory into their own, from Lorenzo Komboa Ervin and Eric Hayes. But then that comes down to the real value that Anarchism has in question, and rather or not its best to just be a Marxist. This is exactly how Eddie Conlon, an Irish Anarchist, and a long time member of WSM in Ireland left WSM, renounced Anarcho-Syndicalism, and became a Heterodox Bolshevik-Leninist and is now a member of SWN in Ireland.
Well there are anarchist who support Marxism but not communism. Honestly the communist manifesto by Marx and Engels seems more appealing to anarchist as opposed to Marxist Leninism of the Soviet Union or Chinese Communist Party. Also in the past anarchist, social democrats aka mensheviks and communist seemed allied in the beginning.
"anarchism understands power in an idealist, abstract way, Marxism looks for a material understanding of where it comes from and how it is maintained, based on a concrete study of history." This is fundamentally wrong and doesn't represent anarchist thought in the least. Anarchism is pretty straight forward when it comes to explaining power, the state, and the consequences of such institutions. If anything I think it's the Marxists who get a little more abstract and hyper focused on theory (not that theory is a bad thing per se) and at least in the case of Marxist-Leninists, ignore or attempt to re write the actual history that resulted from such systems of government. Haven't even started the video yet and I have a feeling I'm going to be watching one giant strawman...
We need to translate these videos into Arabic for more interest and a more accurate understanding of Marxism. I hope the Arabic language will be added in the translation of the video
“Anarchists are idealists and marxists are materialists” what happens when anarchists accept dialectical materialism? God this paper thin anti-dialectical argument comes straight from 1908
This is like responding to someone saying "Creationism is based on religion, evolution is based on science" with "what about creationists who accept science?". By definition creationists are not basing themselves on science, but on religion, because if they really accepted science they wouldn't be creationists. The argument is that it's the same with anarchism, an anarchist who accepts dialectical materialism would not be an anarchist, because a dialectical materialist analysis of the state, class etc. leads you to Marxism, not anarchism, which is inherently based on an idealist understanding of these things.
@@alexrandell5559 its historical materialism, and yes anarchists all agree that it is Marx' big philosophical contribution. there is nothing wrong with it until you start trying to project it into the future as a prescription. they agreed on the analysis of capitalism and they later even expanded that critique to include all oppression - not just class struggle. they only disagreed on the methods to reach a fully communal, free society.
@@severed6s dialectical materialism is the philosophical system, historical materialism is that method applied specifically to history. Anarchists do not accept it because Marx's analysis of capitalism also explains the role of the state in a way that contradicts anarchism and leads to specific methods and tactics at odds with anarchism (for example would an anarchist agree that the state, class society and capitalism are all necessary and indeed progressive features of society at a certain stage, that would surely go against anarchism which views hierarchy and authority such as in capitalism, the state and class society as always negative and unnecessary, yet it's a key part of Marx's analysis of capitalism and class society in general and it's role in history). Marxists (including Marx) applied dialectical materialism to understand all oppression, not anarchists. The anarchist understanding of the state, oppression etc. is not Marxist and is not based in materialism, which is why Marxists and anarchists disagree on the methods and tactics needed. To make a similar analogy to the one I made before, saying 'we agree with Marx's analysis we just disagree on methods' is like saying 'we agree with climate scientists analysis that show the Earth is warming, we just disagree that we need to stop using fossil fuels', if you're saying that then you don't agree with the climate scientists because their analysis shows that global warming is being caused by fossil fuels and specific methods, i.e stopping using fossil fuels, follow from that analysis.
the main concept this guy has that Anarchism is not based on materialism but individualism is really stupid. I hate how many so called Marxists who are really Marxist-Leninist's repeat these misguided ideas spread by Lenin about the left opposition. We are not your enemies, our base ideals are rooted in the same things and we strive for the same thing, but we do not want to blindly make the same mistake that saw the deaths of countless comrades, Stalin taking power, the world revolution failing and communism and socialism being left in a degenerated and defeated state. For a united leftist front to ever work and to start a real world revolution before it is too late there needs to be much more understanding and unity between Socialists.
The Left needs to adapt to a nation's issues better, and this Black vs Red bullshit doesn't matter. The State and Society need to be made into a workers democracy.
The problem is that we know that Marxism (which in practice almost always becomes Marxism-Leninism) usually turns into an authoritarian nightmare. The cops become red cops, the government becomes a red government, nationalism becomes red nationalism, but in essence nothing really changes besides the color of the stick that they use to beat the working class. If we as leftists want to unite together to fight far right oppression, we will first need to understand that tankies (Marxist-Leninists) are not on our side. They use leftist principles mostly as cover for implementing an authoritarian dictatorship. If you're still not convinced about this, ask any tankie what they think about Putin; 9 times out of 10 they will say Putin is a great guy because he opposes "American imperialism" or whatever. They'll support a dystopian far right Russian nightmare state if it means they get to perpetuate surface level "America bad" rhetoric. So yes: Society needs to be made into a worker's democracy, and unlike what Marxists want you to believe Anarchism has the tools to do so. Look into anarcho-syndicalism. Look into different contemporary Anarchist authors. Look into platformism (Especifismo) especially.
Okay I find the text to be grossly inaccurate, as anarchist study done by Peter Kropotkin in the Conquest of Bread and Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution, entailed a more empirical study of classless society, based not solely on history and biology, but also through sociology, anthropology, economics, political science, and philosophy.
Fundamentally all anarchist society’s are the same, this is because there is no inherent mechanism preventing degeneracy. This goes for anarcho communism, libertarianism and feudalism.
@@Kye9842the way I meant it was that in anarcho communist society’s there is very little preventing it from degenerating into lesser society’s such as libertarianism or feudalism. Any schmuck can go find a book about libertarianism and go around convincing people that communism is overrated. The best mechanism Anarchists have to offer over time is social stigma. To prevent this, politics need to be grounded to dissuade would be degenerates, and you ground politics with a state. One example of A state mechanism of degeneracy would be propaganda.
I'm actually really interested in a historical materialist analysis of why me and so many of my fellow Gen Xers are/were anarchists. Why did it explode with punk and continue thru rave? Was it the cassette tape? Pirate radio? Did the Keynesian welfare state (free university etc) mean we got complacent about the need to fight for state power in order to defend social services? Myself, I think UK punk-generation anarchism died when residential squatting was banned in 2012.
Anarchism =/ Punk/Rave/Lifestyle culture. The phenomenon that many punks call themselves anarchists lies in its historical weakness when punk first emerged as a subculture. Also, anarchism got beaten down by the marxists and capitalists in the second world war and emerged again in the 68 movement but not from a class perspective but from a cultural and hedonistic perspective, which is due to authoritarian state-capitalist states claiming to be socialist and wanting an alternative to that. I dont wanna make a big analysis here, but my point is that contemporary anarchism might be so flawed because history just fucked it up. There are still many anarchists that actually mean it and who actually organize, read its theory and reflect on it, not just using it as a lifestyle. Me too.
@@COPROO No, it wasn't just a lifestyle. I mentioned squatting because at the time a) I had no choice being poor in London and b) many of us felt that squatting was a class - conscious act. Also this experience left me with the very definite feeling that police are not there for the benefit of working class people. It's a particular set of circumstances that led to people feeling that way and it's connected to the breakdown of traditional forms of social solidarity that occurred in the 70s/80s/90s. But the roots of it obviously go back much further than that.
I’d prefer if this kind of debate did a fair summary of anarchism first plus any valid criticism it makes of Marxism. It’s very partisan and don’t feel I’ve understood the anarchist standpoint
Hey, Ild like to pose an imposition regarding atheist the first third of this argument: I would argue yes you are correct in that Anarchism do it's analysis via the force passed upon the individual but as from my point of view as an anarcho-syndicalist it is possible that after (the anti-thesis of Capitalism that is today the very necessary...) Marxist revolution other layers of force will be exposed that today are not visible. Now am I understand it wrong when I say that I am a marxist but I think that the most rational post marxist revolution ideology and method is anarcho-syndicalism? ...am I just marxist fooled by borgousiea propaganda focusing on the individual force at the same time as I understand that the dialectical method of Marxism is the necessary antithesis to capitalism in these material conditions?
Simply put I know the history of the first international and still pose that there is no antagonistik devision necessary between anarchism and Marxism but instead these are supporting ideologies but to not have the state once again captured by Soviet beuracracy or boguisoa (spelling) capitalist state
Dear young friend, reason capitalism is winning is it provides workers with: enough money to buy beer, pay for Netflix and sport channels, enough time to enjoy both including walking the dog! If you believe ‘workers’ are interested in organising/running local business/communities, you are seriously mistaken. But genuinely, best of luck!! Cheers
Not sure bout that, before the worker revolution, capitalism exploit them much wilder than now. If you think Capitalism can provide beer, netflix or sport. Shit wouldn't happened if there's no work labor movement.
*You* are mistaken; they are interested in doing those things, as has been proven throughout history and the present. This video is flawed, but even then you do not care to engage with the ideas that it presents. Learn more or continue to stagnate with parroted rhetoric about socialism.
Need to use standard terms or not use them at all, because he is using an alternate definition of capitalism. Classic definition of capitalism is "Private ownership of the means of production", as opposed to State ownership or public ownership. So, the term "capitalist state" is an oxymoron. As an anarchist, I'm against a ruling class, exploitation, the State, yada yada yada, but the entire goal is a free society with no-one controlling anyone else's bodies or actions.
Nationalized property can also be private property dude, capitalism even arose from state control of industry in differing bourgeois revolutions, like in America, France, and Haiti. Furthermore the state entails an authority of a ruling class over a non-ruling class that enacts violence through legislative and judicial means. If we were to just abolish the state without the capitalist mode of production and thus still have individuals accumulating capital, they would just be the state, with their own private security acting like the police, boards acting like congresses, and workers acting like citizens. Not only is this theoretical, it actually took place in company towns like Bisbee Arizona, Jerome Arizona, Guadalajara Mexico, and other places. Many even say this is currently happening with the brutal drug wars in Mexico, Guatemala, and Columbia right now. That's why as long there is the capitalist mode of production, there will be a state
I dont know why you add "from the individual" in your anarchism definition, it sounds like you're building a strawman to better defeat it... Edit: yep, strawman all the way down... Truly disappointing.
@@bismarachman9691 sure, anarchism would be the opposition to all forms of hierarchy, replacing those with horizontal, consensual relationships. anarchism means "without rulers", not "without rules". it does not necessarily oppose government/organization, like the video claims, it just opposes hierarchical ones. anarchists oppose the state, which we define as a monopoly on violence, and this is a fundamental disagreement with more authoritarian forms of socialism, which view the state as synonymous with government/organization. we can have stateless government/organization, without monopolising violence. this type of government would be characterized by direct consensus democracy (that does not mean "everyone agrees 100%, it means everyone gets a voice at the table), or if there are representatives, they would be revocable at all time, would not rule over others, but would carry the will of the people that chose them (a horizontal bottom up system, instead of a hierarchical top down one)
@@DiMadHatter That's literally what Marx, Lenin and Trotsky advocate. The dictatorship of the proletariat via Soviet Democracy is just that - organizing workplaces, neighborhoods, towns, regions, the country, the world, using the principles of democratic centralism. That means the working class decides how production is done, it means we decide all laws and have the right to recall all leaders through a vote. It means all leaders get paid no more than the average working wage. The State and Revolution by Lenin lays it out in detail if you're interested
Did you remove my last comment? Ok, i reply again. There are many branches of anarchism. From mutualism, to class war anarcho communism. From the sort of postmodern/existencialist Stirnerite anarchism, to the idealist/social progressive kind of anarchism You can't just talk about 'anarchism'. You have to be more specifik. Its not like marxism, that its all more or less the same theory. No, its very diverse. Its a bit like hinduism. In hinduism there are also a lot of Gods and practices etc. If you would compare it with religion Anarchists don't ignore the material subject. For example. Proudhon starts his study by looking at property and possesion. A study in the material conditions of capitalism and statism. What makes property possible? Is property good, or bad? etc etc Some anarchists have a pure materialist view of the world. They think in terms of power, and class war. These anarchists often like writers like Foucault and Stirner, sometimes also Sartre Other anarchists are very idealist, they often have a trotskyst, or christian background. They align themselves with social progressive movements (they align themselves with the social progressive sides of neoliberal political discourse) Within the anarchist milieu, this is a big debate, and a clash. Than there is a debate between the anarchists that are ok with markets and money, and the ones who are against that. There is also a debate between anarchists who are revolutionary, and the ones who are individualist (live in the here and now)
Horrible premise. Hierarchy IS material fact. Who has the weapons is a material fact, who makes the laws is a material fact, how power is distributed is a material fact. Anarchists don't take a historical view? You get up on a stage and spout lies RIGHT AWAY. Do not expect to be treated with compassion when you have obviously not afforded that same compassion for your political rivals.
in another sense, merely acknowledging material facts doesn't make you a materialist - you also have to explain the history, current existence and future development of phenomena through a materialist lense, and finally you also have to provice a course of action for humanity that is in accordance with this material analysis. Anarchists fail at different stages of this process.
@@redwillrise "WELL ACKTCHUALY, anarchists do not have a materialist view of history, and thus no historical view, because they are not marxists and only marxists can have a materialist view of history, and thus historical view" 🥸
Which system involves less government force and also these systems are not compatible. How do you have a redistribution society without forceing people at gun point to give in.
You build up anarchically organized trade unions until they have the numbers seize the means of production. Because the unions are already organized in a bottom up anarchist fashion, people (even those who were not anarchist when they joined the union) will have had time to get used to the idea of anarchism and will have had practice making decisions and such. Crucially, nobody is forced to do anything, although if you try to go around starting a government, people would probably put an end to that fairly quickly.
I have to disagree. Force arises not out of economic power. Economic power became the preferred method of using force because it removes the violence of the use of force from the ones who benefit from it. What difference is it to the victims if they are killed by a bomb as with direct use of force via war or if they die of starvation as they do with the indirect application of force via economic power? Personally I think the quick death is preferable and I am not seeing how one can take the concept that the solution to the problem maintains what is creating the imbalance we constantly cycle through. We see the way Gaza is being dealt with and yes we all are horrified by this but what would we do to stop it? Currently we are seeing protests so do we use protests to convince the state to stop? Yeah right. Do you not see how the state deals with protests? For months Israelis have been protesting the actions of the corrupt state leaders a d do you know what is being done? Those protesters are being dropped off in Gaza. Their government says if they want to help the people in Gaza they can do that and they give you a 1 way ticket into Gaza. The problem is much deeper and arises from a fundamental misunderstood of ourselves. The reason these problems never get fixed is because the means by which psychological control is maintained by the ruling class and their various institutions of control. That is because the story of who we are was lost and rewritten. This can be easily seen by what ideas and cultures are systematically destroyed. When you understand the nature of the genocide still being done to native Americans today and you understand the native Americans were not stupid and not barbarians but had in fact found ways to governmen themselves that had no heiarchy that was compulsory. If one seemed to be their leader that was not because the others in that tribe agreed to it. I don't think it was even voted upon and none of them were forced to submit to any decisions of their supposed leader. The native Americans would not lie or decide. They had no need for laws because they had no property. To them the idea of property was absurd because they saw everything as being on loan from nature and that one day nature would require that to be returned. They existed without the need to exploit the land the animals and other people. Today it's easy to see that because it was never an extermination of people it was the extermination of the culture followed by the language because it is important that makes it so nobody can discover writings in the future that tell any other story except theirs. This instrument is structured around words. Words generate relationships, real and imaginary and story we seem to be told is one that is about good and evil. This idea that people are greedy and selfish and if there were no laws we would descend into chaos. There is this constant warning if imminent danger. Thieves will come in the night to take everything possibly kill you and enslave those you love. That this is the result of our nature as humans when in fact it arises from the very systems put in place as protection. This is the power of words. Words are used to define and once you define yourself you become a prisoner of that definition which may seem real but this is an illusion because when we use the words to write laws and contracts we are missing the fact that once we do this there is always the possibility that new laws may be written that create new limitations or redefine a word abd cause you to no longer have rights because you no longer are a person. The problem we need to see is that if humans, or nature in general was a competitive thing none of us would have been born. Humans would have never gotten this technologically advanced had our nature been selfish and greedy and violent. No. In fact what may appear to be a competition in nature when you closely examine things you see that it was in fact cooperative. Only about 2 sea turtles survive to reproduce and so the turtles may look like it is a race to survive but if that were true what happens if one baby turtle tries to get a head start. Or if one decides to hide and try after the race to sneak past the Predators at night? Both those groups are fucked. The fact is they are cooperating so that a few can survive. The species as a whole cooperates to ensure survival and this is true among all the branches of life. So the problem is we define ourselves as seperate from nature and eachother and that creates the means ny which we can become exploitable. This is mirrored in the bible and the story of creation. In the beginning was the word and the word was god. For most of human history we used words to communicate and our stories were used to create bonds with eachother because our survival depended upon the survival of our group and this social structure became more ans more complex and we were very egalitarian since the thing all of us feared was to be kicked out of our human group. Does that mean we were stuck with this group even if we did not like them? No. There was lots of other groups of humans and humans frequently changed groups. Humans for most of their existence had a totally different understanding of themselves who they were, where they came from, where we were going, how we will get there. If you want a revolution its not enough to simply rebel against authority and point out the problem without a way to get there abd here is the mistake in all the ideas that I believe any person who is indoctrinated into this culture could clearly define this end result because it will be colored by our past. It will be scarred by the trauma and the violence. We can not create a perfect society and should not attempt to be the architect of both a revolution and the foundation of a whole different social order. Not one among us can be trusted with power. The left unites people who are oppressed. The right unites people with stories and rituals. Clearly this is very effective.
Is the law of the survivor....(ismo-ista)... whatever... ideology...is under the law of the capital .... not choice.... sorry...my friend.... keep working...👽🫵
Wow!!! This was fascinating!! I'm all for a free society rooted in personal responsibility and adherence to Natural Law. Check out Mark Passio's RUclips Channel. He's an anarchist who clearly explains Natural Law and how adherence to it is the ONLY solution for humanity.
Marxism and communist anarchism has a huge flaw. If I dont have money how do I leave? Another one the obvious one but its present thru seniority. A shity factory job water everyone makes basically the same wage. What's the point in working harder and doing a good job if I dont have an incentive...
A communist society is moneyless. Therefore, there are no wages. Particularly under anarcho-communism, goods are distributed from those who are more capable of producing them to those who need them the most.
its called the decommodification of human needs from the market based economy. When your basic needs are freely produced, freely distributed, and freely consumed, why even need money? the whole incentive and motivation to work changes, as well as the work itself. the point in working hard is that your incentive is not money - in the form of a wage that is stolen from via taxes and profits. your incentive is to develop the material and ethical well being of yourself and your community.
@@severed6s there is this huge problem with that tho. what happens if you want to move away or quit your job. whats going to happen if i do this? am i basically a slave. slaves get the basics to survive. if property is a crime are you truly free. i am an ancap i like anarchism but syndacism Marxism and communism just dont provide enough freedom in my opinion. i soclism and democracy. a decentralized democracy. what social darwanism.
@@Jdjsksjdhdj what do you mean by slave? do you mean "wage slave" like in today's capitalist economy? yes, in today's economy workers are coerced to work or starve and lose housing. the value of their work is stolen via profits and taxes. Socialism, communism, anarchism all share one important thing in common: 100% of the value of labor belongs to the laborer. "if property is a crime are you truly free." Who says property is a crime? "i soclism and democracy. a decentralized democracy. what social darwanism." this makes no sense. try again...
As a Marxist, I need to point out that practical applications of Marxist theory in actual circumstances of a compromised reality also do not turn out to be perfectly aligned with the theory - anarchism is not an exception in that.
i wonder if he genuinely thinks any of this could hold up in a debate with an anarchist thinker
One of the major British anarchist organziations is called "Class War" .
and the labour party is called "Labour Party"...
‘’Who is right, the idealists or the materialists? The question, once stated in this way, hesitation becomes impossible. Undoubtedly the idealists are wrong and the materialists right. Yes, facts are before ideas; yes, the ideal, as Proudhon said, is but a flower, whose root lies in the material conditions of existence. Yes, the whole history of humanity, intellectual and moral, political and social, is but a reflection of its economic history.’’ God and the State; M. Bakunin ~ 1871
Only to contradict it a few paragraphs below...
"Until we shall account to ourselves for the manner in which the idea of a supernatural or divine world was developed and had to be developed in the historical evolution of the human conscience, all our scientific conviction of its absurdity will be in vain; until then we shall never succeed in destroying it in the opinion of the majority, because we shall never be able to attack it in the very depths of the hut man being where it had birth. Condemned to a fruitless struggle, without issue and without end, we should for ever have to content ourselves with fighting it solely on the surface, in its innumerable manifestations, whose absurdity will be scarcely beaten down by the blows of common sense before it will reappear in a new form no less nonsensical. While the root of all the absurdities that torment the world, belief in God, remains intact, it will never fail to bring forth new offspring. Thus, at the present time, in certain sections of the highest society, Spiritualism tends to establish itself upon the ruins of Christianity." God and the State; M. Bakunin ~ 1871
This guy should have an anarchist on the show with him. Either he genuinely doesn't understand anarchist theory or is trying to skew their ideas.
All of socialist appeal's members has never read peter Kropotkin
@Yagi9903 Kropotkin is an anarcho-communist theorist and philosopher...not just anarchist.
@@BarfdargleAnarcho-Communists are the only real anarchists.
Noam Chomsky describes anarchism as the belief that so forms of authority need to be justified, if unjustified, it needs to be overthrown. I like this definition. Some forms of authority are justified. No dumping garbage in the river, things like that are justifiable forms of authority. I think a delegate system of authority is a good idea, and I am an anarchist. I see two parts to anarchism, vision, my vision of what could/should be, and tactics, how to realize said vision. In my opinion anarchism and communism compliment each other nicely. Historically many anarchists were Marxist btw.
I'd be very careful with that definition, it's easy to understand, but also easy to think that authority would just need to be "justified" and then it's fine. Every authority in existence has justified itself with everything from heroic tales to economic doctrin.
No authority as in power over someone is justifiable.
As a stupid example:
Let's say you have a group project to finish and you've decided on a work split together. No one in your group has any "authority" over you, even if a person would want that you do double the work, they have no way of enforcing anything. But if you end up doing nothing at all they also can't do anything.
All they can do is complain to the authority - who then decides on your fate, most likely with only limited information. It's a top -> down decision. And perfectly justified be it in education or workplaces.
In a social-anarchist structure there is no authority at the end who decides for everyone else.
You've agreed on a work split, if something doesn't work out you can first try to talk with your group, if that doesn't work out (e.g. one guy is just as A**hole) - the affected people from your group will address the broader department, maybe a simple solution can be found, like swaping etc.
If not and a drastic measure is needed which would affect the whole workplace (like expulsion) depending on the size, your department would need to elect deligates who represent - under an agreed upon, revocable mandate - their case & solutions to the whole workplace. In end you vote.
At no step in this escalation did anyone have any authority over someone else. At every step, everyone who's affected was directly involved in the decision making.
And i'd say anarchism & communism don't just compliment each other, they necessitate each other. No state or authority has ever given the means of production - or power in general - back to it's people and into their controle.
Not even self declared socialist ones.
This guy argues a red herring. Most anarchists believe in classes, and believe in analyzing the world and not just doing things because they're fun. If i was arguing the way he argues, i would say Marxists don't believe in fun.
I don't think that they were arguing, they were more critiquing historical instances, and theoretical bankruptcies of specific Classical Anarchist movements from the 1840-1939. Examples they bring up is the problems of direct action, problems of propaganda of the deed, problems of the reactionary substitutionist organizations Anarchists had similar to Kautskyists and Stalinists (examples listed is Alliance of Social Democracy, Makhnovia, and the National Confederation of Labor-Iberian Anarchist Federation (CNT-FAI)) as well certain idealistic philosophical trends like Proudhon's analysis on Mutualist communes, Nechayev catechism theory, and many more examples.
@@socialistlynx1264 well, actually... "Direct Action" is a term Marxists and Anarchists use in the 30s to describe strikes, expropriations and factory occupations. Trotsky does so too. If that term means anything different today, it is likely because the Reformists ceded it.
@markusglanzer6672 The first international was the first time used in 1864 by Mikhail Bakunin to describe the action of revolutionary groups that must be more active rather than focus too much on theory. This would then lead to debates between Karl Marx and Frederick Engels against Mikhail Bakunin and Sergey Neyachev in the International Working Men’s Association.
"No amount of reasoning or agitation will succeed in converting these moral unfortunates. The only effective way to overcome their resistance is through direct action"- Mikhail Bakunin, On the Policy of the International Working Men’s Association.
It is true that direct action is more to cover strikes and spontaneous labor action of the proletariat by people like Rudolf Rocker, Buenaventura Durruti, Peter Kropotkin, and even Emma Goldman. But not only do some of these definitions of it change and fluctuate, it still stems from the theories of Bakunin and Proudhon back in the first international. Only recently in the 21st century has that to change with some Anarchists I know having to reconcile Marxist theory into their own, from Lorenzo Komboa Ervin and Eric Hayes. But then that comes down to the real value that Anarchism has in question, and rather or not its best to just be a Marxist. This is exactly how Eddie Conlon, an Irish Anarchist, and a long time member of WSM in Ireland left WSM, renounced Anarcho-Syndicalism, and became a Heterodox Bolshevik-Leninist and is now a member of SWN in Ireland.
Well there are anarchist who support Marxism but not communism. Honestly the communist manifesto by Marx and Engels seems more appealing to anarchist as opposed to Marxist Leninism of the Soviet Union or Chinese Communist Party.
Also in the past anarchist, social democrats aka mensheviks and communist seemed allied in the beginning.
have you ever perhaps considered you were a marxist? 👉👈
"anarchism understands power in an idealist, abstract way, Marxism looks for a material understanding of where it comes from and how it is maintained, based on a concrete study of history."
This is fundamentally wrong and doesn't represent anarchist thought in the least. Anarchism is pretty straight forward when it comes to explaining power, the state, and the consequences of such institutions. If anything I think it's the Marxists who get a little more abstract and hyper focused on theory (not that theory is a bad thing per se) and at least in the case of Marxist-Leninists, ignore or attempt to re write the actual history that resulted from such systems of government. Haven't even started the video yet and I have a feeling I'm going to be watching one giant strawman...
Why is it called marxism vs anarchism if it doesnt feature the anarchist argument 🤔
These are Trotskyists not Marxist and Trotskyists live in a bubble of only Trotskys ideas congregating themselves on how right they are.
We need to translate these videos into Arabic for more interest and a more accurate understanding of Marxism. I hope the Arabic language will be added in the translation of the video
Feels like he is confusing anomie and anarchy, if he says "they end up in a state because they organize".
Red salute to Comrades
Does he realize that anarchist perform material analysis and theory we also just read history and understand where statism has failed.
Be genuine
“Anarchists are idealists and marxists are materialists” what happens when anarchists accept dialectical materialism? God this paper thin anti-dialectical argument comes straight from 1908
exactly. that statement of his was the one that really stuck out to me. i wonder if he genuinely thinks it could hold up in a debate
This is like responding to someone saying "Creationism is based on religion, evolution is based on science" with "what about creationists who accept science?". By definition creationists are not basing themselves on science, but on religion, because if they really accepted science they wouldn't be creationists. The argument is that it's the same with anarchism, an anarchist who accepts dialectical materialism would not be an anarchist, because a dialectical materialist analysis of the state, class etc. leads you to Marxism, not anarchism, which is inherently based on an idealist understanding of these things.
@@alexrandell5559 its historical materialism, and yes anarchists all agree that it is Marx' big philosophical contribution. there is nothing wrong with it until you start trying to project it into the future as a prescription. they agreed on the analysis of capitalism and they later even expanded that critique to include all oppression - not just class struggle. they only disagreed on the methods to reach a fully communal, free society.
@@severed6s dialectical materialism is the philosophical system, historical materialism is that method applied specifically to history. Anarchists do not accept it because Marx's analysis of capitalism also explains the role of the state in a way that contradicts anarchism and leads to specific methods and tactics at odds with anarchism (for example would an anarchist agree that the state, class society and capitalism are all necessary and indeed progressive features of society at a certain stage, that would surely go against anarchism which views hierarchy and authority such as in capitalism, the state and class society as always negative and unnecessary, yet it's a key part of Marx's analysis of capitalism and class society in general and it's role in history). Marxists (including Marx) applied dialectical materialism to understand all oppression, not anarchists. The anarchist understanding of the state, oppression etc. is not Marxist and is not based in materialism, which is why Marxists and anarchists disagree on the methods and tactics needed. To make a similar analogy to the one I made before, saying 'we agree with Marx's analysis we just disagree on methods' is like saying 'we agree with climate scientists analysis that show the Earth is warming, we just disagree that we need to stop using fossil fuels', if you're saying that then you don't agree with the climate scientists because their analysis shows that global warming is being caused by fossil fuels and specific methods, i.e
stopping using fossil fuels, follow from that analysis.
@@alexrandell5559 you really like these analogies but i dont think they're working for you
my man's tried for 40mins to downgrade anarchy's ideological and philosophical essence but instead became the rotgut version of Zizek
Guys not even read the most short form intro to anarchism 👍
the main concept this guy has that Anarchism is not based on materialism but individualism is really stupid. I hate how many so called Marxists who are really Marxist-Leninist's repeat these misguided ideas spread by Lenin about the left opposition. We are not your enemies, our base ideals are rooted in the same things and we strive for the same thing, but we do not want to blindly make the same mistake that saw the deaths of countless comrades, Stalin taking power, the world revolution failing and communism and socialism being left in a degenerated and defeated state. For a united leftist front to ever work and to start a real world revolution before it is too late there needs to be much more understanding and unity between Socialists.
The Left needs to adapt to a nation's issues better, and this Black vs Red bullshit doesn't matter. The State and Society need to be made into a workers democracy.
The problem is that we know that Marxism (which in practice almost always becomes Marxism-Leninism) usually turns into an authoritarian nightmare. The cops become red cops, the government becomes a red government, nationalism becomes red nationalism, but in essence nothing really changes besides the color of the stick that they use to beat the working class.
If we as leftists want to unite together to fight far right oppression, we will first need to understand that tankies (Marxist-Leninists) are not on our side. They use leftist principles mostly as cover for implementing an authoritarian dictatorship. If you're still not convinced about this, ask any tankie what they think about Putin; 9 times out of 10 they will say Putin is a great guy because he opposes "American imperialism" or whatever. They'll support a dystopian far right Russian nightmare state if it means they get to perpetuate surface level "America bad" rhetoric.
So yes: Society needs to be made into a worker's democracy, and unlike what Marxists want you to believe Anarchism has the tools to do so. Look into anarcho-syndicalism. Look into different contemporary Anarchist authors. Look into platformism (Especifismo) especially.
Like syndicalism?
Tankie talkingpoints
Okay I find the text to be grossly inaccurate, as anarchist study done by Peter Kropotkin in the Conquest of Bread and Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution, entailed a more empirical study of classless society, based not solely on history and biology, but also through sociology, anthropology, economics, political science, and philosophy.
Fundamentally all anarchist society’s are the same, this is because there is no inherent mechanism preventing degeneracy. This goes for anarcho communism, libertarianism and feudalism.
What is degeneracy in this context?
What is a mechanism that prevents it?
What mechanisms currently exist, or have existed?
@@Kye9842the way I meant it was that in anarcho communist society’s there is very little preventing it from degenerating into lesser society’s such as libertarianism or feudalism. Any schmuck can go find a book about libertarianism and go around convincing people that communism is overrated. The best mechanism Anarchists have to offer over time is social stigma. To prevent this, politics need to be grounded to dissuade would be degenerates, and you ground politics with a state. One example of A state mechanism of degeneracy would be propaganda.
This is a great video, thanks comrades
on your profile pic i mean
oh fckk its a hen
well, nice hen
@@ama-gii that is correct
I'm actually really interested in a historical materialist analysis of why me and so many of my fellow Gen Xers are/were anarchists. Why did it explode with punk and continue thru rave? Was it the cassette tape? Pirate radio? Did the Keynesian welfare state (free university etc) mean we got complacent about the need to fight for state power in order to defend social services? Myself, I think UK punk-generation anarchism died when residential squatting was banned in 2012.
Anarchism =/ Punk/Rave/Lifestyle culture. The phenomenon that many punks call themselves anarchists lies in its historical weakness when punk first emerged as a subculture. Also, anarchism got beaten down by the marxists and capitalists in the second world war and emerged again in the 68 movement but not from a class perspective but from a cultural and hedonistic perspective, which is due to authoritarian state-capitalist states claiming to be socialist and wanting an alternative to that. I dont wanna make a big analysis here, but my point is that contemporary anarchism might be so flawed because history just fucked it up.
There are still many anarchists that actually mean it and who actually organize, read its theory and reflect on it, not just using it as a lifestyle. Me too.
@@COPROO No, it wasn't just a lifestyle. I mentioned squatting because at the time a) I had no choice being poor in London and b) many of us felt that squatting was a class - conscious act. Also this experience left me with the very definite feeling that police are not there for the benefit of working class people. It's a particular set of circumstances that led to people feeling that way and it's connected to the breakdown of traditional forms of social solidarity that occurred in the 70s/80s/90s. But the roots of it obviously go back much further than that.
I’d prefer if this kind of debate did a fair summary of anarchism first plus any valid criticism it makes of Marxism. It’s very partisan and don’t feel I’ve understood the anarchist standpoint
Hey, Ild like to pose an imposition regarding atheist the first third of this argument: I would argue yes you are correct in that Anarchism do it's analysis via the force passed upon the individual but as from my point of view as an anarcho-syndicalist it is possible that after (the anti-thesis of Capitalism that is today the very necessary...) Marxist revolution other layers of force will be exposed that today are not visible.
Now am I understand it wrong when I say that I am a marxist but I think that the most rational post marxist revolution ideology and method is anarcho-syndicalism?
...am I just marxist fooled by borgousiea propaganda focusing on the individual force at the same time as I understand that the dialectical method of Marxism is the necessary antithesis to capitalism in these material conditions?
Simply put I know the history of the first international and still pose that there is no antagonistik devision necessary between anarchism and Marxism but instead these are supporting ideologies but to not have the state once again captured by Soviet beuracracy or boguisoa (spelling) capitalist state
Dear young friend, reason capitalism is winning is it provides workers with: enough money to buy beer, pay for Netflix and sport channels, enough time to enjoy both including walking the dog! If you believe ‘workers’ are interested in organising/running local business/communities, you are seriously mistaken. But genuinely, best of luck!! Cheers
Not sure bout that, before the worker revolution, capitalism exploit them much wilder than now. If you think Capitalism can provide beer, netflix or sport. Shit wouldn't happened if there's no work labor movement.
*You* are mistaken; they are interested in doing those things, as has been proven throughout history and the present.
This video is flawed, but even then you do not care to engage with the ideas that it presents. Learn more or continue to stagnate with parroted rhetoric about socialism.
This guy is lost when it comes to the term of anarchy
everything he said is correct about anarchist theory
@@sharkyjeffdefine Anarchy.
no
@@sharkyjeff 😘
@@RuslanSadayev 👍👎
Need to use standard terms or not use them at all, because he is using an alternate definition of capitalism. Classic definition of capitalism is "Private ownership of the means of production", as opposed to State ownership or public ownership. So, the term "capitalist state" is an oxymoron. As an anarchist, I'm against a ruling class, exploitation, the State, yada yada yada, but the entire goal is a free society with no-one controlling anyone else's bodies or actions.
Nationalized property can also be private property dude, capitalism even arose from state control of industry in differing bourgeois revolutions, like in America, France, and Haiti. Furthermore the state entails an authority of a ruling class over a non-ruling class that enacts violence through legislative and judicial means. If we were to just abolish the state without the capitalist mode of production and thus still have individuals accumulating capital, they would just be the state, with their own private security acting like the police, boards acting like congresses, and workers acting like citizens. Not only is this theoretical, it actually took place in company towns like Bisbee Arizona, Jerome Arizona, Guadalajara Mexico, and other places. Many even say this is currently happening with the brutal drug wars in Mexico, Guatemala, and Columbia right now.
That's why as long there is the capitalist mode of production, there will be a state
Capitalist state in this instance just means "the state of capitalist society, which is the state of the capitalists"
I dont know why you add "from the individual" in your anarchism definition, it sounds like you're building a strawman to better defeat it...
Edit: yep, strawman all the way down...
Truly disappointing.
is it not? then do you have a proper Anarchism definition? i genuinely wanted to know
@@bismarachman9691 sure, anarchism would be the opposition to all forms of hierarchy, replacing those with horizontal, consensual relationships. anarchism means "without rulers", not "without rules". it does not necessarily oppose government/organization, like the video claims, it just opposes hierarchical ones. anarchists oppose the state, which we define as a monopoly on violence, and this is a fundamental disagreement with more authoritarian forms of socialism, which view the state as synonymous with government/organization.
we can have stateless government/organization, without monopolising violence. this type of government would be characterized by direct consensus democracy (that does not mean "everyone agrees 100%, it means everyone gets a voice at the table), or if there are representatives, they would be revocable at all time, would not rule over others, but would carry the will of the people that chose them (a horizontal bottom up system, instead of a hierarchical top down one)
@@DiMadHatter How do you propose to get to this ideal communist society without a transitional period?
@@fenceyhen4249 who said there won't be? the transitional period needs to be bottom-up instead of top down.
@@DiMadHatter That's literally what Marx, Lenin and Trotsky advocate. The dictatorship of the proletariat via Soviet Democracy is just that - organizing workplaces, neighborhoods, towns, regions, the country, the world, using the principles of democratic centralism. That means the working class decides how production is done, it means we decide all laws and have the right to recall all leaders through a vote. It means all leaders get paid no more than the average working wage.
The State and Revolution by Lenin lays it out in detail if you're interested
"what good is a revolutionary theory if it doesnt hold during a revolution" the same can be said of communism
You know absolutely nothing about anarchism, that much is clear.
I really didnt realize the point of this video was to mischaracterize anarchism. Dissapointing.
Did you remove my last comment?
Ok, i reply again.
There are many branches of anarchism. From mutualism, to class war anarcho communism. From the sort of postmodern/existencialist Stirnerite anarchism, to the idealist/social progressive kind of anarchism
You can't just talk about 'anarchism'. You have to be more specifik. Its not like marxism, that its all more or less the same theory. No, its very diverse. Its a bit like hinduism. In hinduism there are also a lot of Gods and practices etc. If you would compare it with religion
Anarchists don't ignore the material subject. For example. Proudhon starts his study by looking at property and possesion. A study in the material conditions of capitalism and statism. What makes property possible? Is property good, or bad? etc etc
Some anarchists have a pure materialist view of the world. They think in terms of power, and class war. These anarchists often like writers like Foucault and Stirner, sometimes also Sartre
Other anarchists are very idealist, they often have a trotskyst, or christian background. They align themselves with social progressive movements (they align themselves with the social progressive sides of neoliberal political discourse)
Within the anarchist milieu, this is a big debate, and a clash.
Than there is a debate between the anarchists that are ok with markets and money, and the ones who are against that.
There is also a debate between anarchists who are revolutionary, and the ones who are individualist (live in the here and now)
Great video
Horrible premise.
Hierarchy IS material fact. Who has the weapons is a material fact, who makes the laws is a material fact, how power is distributed is a material fact. Anarchists don't take a historical view?
You get up on a stage and spout lies RIGHT AWAY. Do not expect to be treated with compassion when you have obviously not afforded that same compassion for your political rivals.
that's correct, anarchists do not have a materialist view of history, and thus no historical view. If they did, they wouldn't be anarchists.
in another sense, merely acknowledging material facts doesn't make you a materialist - you also have to explain the history, current existence and future development of phenomena through a materialist lense, and finally you also have to provice a course of action for humanity that is in accordance with this material analysis. Anarchists fail at different stages of this process.
@@redwillrise "WELL ACKTCHUALY, anarchists do not have a materialist view of history, and thus no historical view, because they are not marxists and only marxists can have a materialist view of history, and thus historical view" 🥸
@@Wookie.Boogie correct
@@redwillrise well that sounds very idealistic 😅
Which system involves less government force and also these systems are not compatible. How do you have a redistribution society without forceing people at gun point to give in.
You build up anarchically organized trade unions until they have the numbers seize the means of production. Because the unions are already organized in a bottom up anarchist fashion, people (even those who were not anarchist when they joined the union) will have had time to get used to the idea of anarchism and will have had practice making decisions and such. Crucially, nobody is forced to do anything, although if you try to go around starting a government, people would probably put an end to that fairly quickly.
nice video
I have to disagree. Force arises not out of economic power. Economic power became the preferred method of using force because it removes the violence of the use of force from the ones who benefit from it. What difference is it to the victims if they are killed by a bomb as with direct use of force via war or if they die of starvation as they do with the indirect application of force via economic power? Personally I think the quick death is preferable and I am not seeing how one can take the concept that the solution to the problem maintains what is creating the imbalance we constantly cycle through. We see the way Gaza is being dealt with and yes we all are horrified by this but what would we do to stop it? Currently we are seeing protests so do we use protests to convince the state to stop? Yeah right. Do you not see how the state deals with protests? For months Israelis have been protesting the actions of the corrupt state leaders a d do you know what is being done? Those protesters are being dropped off in Gaza. Their government says if they want to help the people in Gaza they can do that and they give you a 1 way ticket into Gaza. The problem is much deeper and arises from a fundamental misunderstood of ourselves. The reason these problems never get fixed is because the means by which psychological control is maintained by the ruling class and their various institutions of control. That is because the story of who we are was lost and rewritten. This can be easily seen by what ideas and cultures are systematically destroyed. When you understand the nature of the genocide still being done to native Americans today and you understand the native Americans were not stupid and not barbarians but had in fact found ways to governmen themselves that had no heiarchy that was compulsory. If one seemed to be their leader that was not because the others in that tribe agreed to it. I don't think it was even voted upon and none of them were forced to submit to any decisions of their supposed leader. The native Americans would not lie or decide. They had no need for laws because they had no property. To them the idea of property was absurd because they saw everything as being on loan from nature and that one day nature would require that to be returned. They existed without the need to exploit the land the animals and other people. Today it's easy to see that because it was never an extermination of people it was the extermination of the culture followed by the language because it is important that makes it so nobody can discover writings in the future that tell any other story except theirs. This instrument is structured around words. Words generate relationships, real and imaginary and story we seem to be told is one that is about good and evil. This idea that people are greedy and selfish and if there were no laws we would descend into chaos. There is this constant warning if imminent danger. Thieves will come in the night to take everything possibly kill you and enslave those you love. That this is the result of our nature as humans when in fact it arises from the very systems put in place as protection. This is the power of words. Words are used to define and once you define yourself you become a prisoner of that definition which may seem real but this is an illusion because when we use the words to write laws and contracts we are missing the fact that once we do this there is always the possibility that new laws may be written that create new limitations or redefine a word abd cause you to no longer have rights because you no longer are a person. The problem we need to see is that if humans, or nature in general was a competitive thing none of us would have been born. Humans would have never gotten this technologically advanced had our nature been selfish and greedy and violent. No. In fact what may appear to be a competition in nature when you closely examine things you see that it was in fact cooperative. Only about 2 sea turtles survive to reproduce and so the turtles may look like it is a race to survive but if that were true what happens if one baby turtle tries to get a head start. Or if one decides to hide and try after the race to sneak past the Predators at night? Both those groups are fucked. The fact is they are cooperating so that a few can survive. The species as a whole cooperates to ensure survival and this is true among all the branches of life. So the problem is we define ourselves as seperate from nature and eachother and that creates the means ny which we can become exploitable. This is mirrored in the bible and the story of creation. In the beginning was the word and the word was god. For most of human history we used words to communicate and our stories were used to create bonds with eachother because our survival depended upon the survival of our group and this social structure became more ans more complex and we were very egalitarian since the thing all of us feared was to be kicked out of our human group. Does that mean we were stuck with this group even if we did not like them? No. There was lots of other groups of humans and humans frequently changed groups. Humans for most of their existence had a totally different understanding of themselves who they were, where they came from, where we were going, how we will get there. If you want a revolution its not enough to simply rebel against authority and point out the problem without a way to get there abd here is the mistake in all the ideas that I believe any person who is indoctrinated into this culture could clearly define this end result because it will be colored by our past. It will be scarred by the trauma and the violence. We can not create a perfect society and should not attempt to be the architect of both a revolution and the foundation of a whole different social order. Not one among us can be trusted with power. The left unites people who are oppressed. The right unites people with stories and rituals. Clearly this is very effective.
Is the law of the survivor....(ismo-ista)... whatever... ideology...is under the law of the capital .... not choice.... sorry...my friend.... keep working...👽🫵
Could you elaborate on what you were trying to say?
40 Minutes of Yapping
This channel is so cringe xDD
You’re cringe
Yeah, they are like their progenitor Engels, using strawmanning 🤣🤣🤣
@@criticalcommunist5 r u from India?
@@viswanathj4443 YEAH.
Good talk, comrade
Wow!!! This was fascinating!! I'm all for a free society rooted in personal responsibility and adherence to Natural Law. Check out Mark Passio's RUclips Channel. He's an anarchist who clearly explains Natural Law and how adherence to it is the ONLY solution for humanity.
Marxism and communist anarchism has a huge flaw. If I dont have money how do I leave? Another one the obvious one but its present thru seniority. A shity factory job water everyone makes basically the same wage. What's the point in working harder and doing a good job if I dont have an incentive...
A communist society is moneyless. Therefore, there are no wages. Particularly under anarcho-communism, goods are distributed from those who are more capable of producing them to those who need them the most.
You don't have to pay everyone equaly, in the soviet union the higgest pay was teen time higher then the lower one.
its called the decommodification of human needs from the market based economy. When your basic needs are freely produced, freely distributed, and freely consumed, why even need money? the whole incentive and motivation to work changes, as well as the work itself. the point in working hard is that your incentive is not money - in the form of a wage that is stolen from via taxes and profits. your incentive is to develop the material and ethical well being of yourself and your community.
@@severed6s there is this huge problem with that tho. what happens if you want to move away or quit your job. whats going to happen if i do this? am i basically a slave. slaves get the basics to survive. if property is a crime are you truly free. i am an ancap i like anarchism but syndacism Marxism and communism just dont provide enough freedom in my opinion. i soclism and democracy. a decentralized democracy. what social darwanism.
@@Jdjsksjdhdj what do you mean by slave? do you mean "wage slave" like in today's capitalist economy? yes, in today's economy workers are coerced to work or starve and lose housing. the value of their work is stolen via profits and taxes. Socialism, communism, anarchism all share one important thing in common: 100% of the value of labor belongs to the laborer.
"if property is a crime are you truly free."
Who says property is a crime?
"i soclism and democracy. a decentralized democracy. what social darwanism."
this makes no sense. try again...
very good analysis !