Script & sources at: www.thenandnow.co/2023/04/24/introduction-to-the-history-of-anarchism/ ► Sign up for the newsletter to get concise digestible summaries: www.thenandnow.co/the-newsletter/ ► Why Support Then & Now? www.patreon.com/user/about?u=3517018
The only genuine 'leader' is wisdom born of a respect for truth.. It is the severe lack of naturalised 'elder wisdom' that leads to the kind of politicised world we suffer today. When the Europeans invaded the Americas they saw themselves as having the 'right' to obliterate everything from a position of 'superiority', where in fact they couldn't have been more wrong; replacing a self-sustaining series of inter-connected micro systems based on elder-wisdom philosophy with a savage greed for self-interest, leading ultimately to self-destructive behaviour.. It all really boils down to control. External, ever increasing and changing forms of control by exterior and self-interested 'forces', or personal responsibility through self-control, which negates the need for the external, but does still require a form of on-going and naturally evolving wisdom tradition.. Neither are without problems, but the wisdom option can see where those problems arise and has the ability to deal successfully with them. It also has the added bonus of never blindly sinking into a self-destructive state, and thus will remain sustainable..
Fun Fact: William Godwin was married to Mary Wollstonecraft and their daughter, Mary, was the wife of Percy Shelley. She wrote a little something called Frankenstein.
@Spartan 506 Yes I agree that power relationship exist and are inherent to our western societies, but that doesn't necessarily mean that is a natural quality of humans to rule over others and be ruled by others (one of the pillars of communism / anarchism is that investigations have shown that primitive societies relied on cooperation rather than hierachization).
And if anyone wants to follow or be lead by someone else, that potential leader of men can be killed. But then in order to kill him effectively, there needs to be some organisation or direction to make it happen and that needs a leader. There must be equal agreement at all times and if someone naturally tries to take charge rip his throat out.
People keep telling themselves 'Humans always *lived like that' .That's not true. Hierarcy started once someone put lines on a piece of land and said 'this is mine', and the rest believed it. Tribes in the amazon live without 'rulers right now. ' .So it's possible.
Everybody should have a home, nobody should be involuntarily hungry, people should not be imprisoned and stigmatized for possessing an illegal substance. The surveillance state is the most rapidly progressing enterprise because those with the wealth and power realize people are realizing how corrupt this corporatocracy is
@Abraham Serafino how my country literally tells people you are old enough to vote at 18 even though we never get recieve solid foundation to base our politics off of. It's why their are so many people voting against their own interest.
@Abraham Serafino Wow insults that means you have a good point. You are the type of swine that makes it easy for the politicians to control us the way they do.
Anarchist means I can shoot you in the head without consequences. What's so great about that? Everybody would shoot everybody in the head until one guy takes control and puts order and we're back to Kings.
I found out in history class, I was an anarchist (mutualism), when I was about 10, 40 years ago, but kept it quiet because it was spoken about only negatively. Yet I could find nothing wrong with their principles and manifests.
suspiciously and coincidently, all other types of society types are talked negetively about. In truth, capitalism is (by far) not the best societal system but i think it was innevitable. Someone somewhere will innevitably become on top and innevitably that would be unfair and now so nobody notice, they talk badly about other types of societies in schools. Everyones original and greatest source of information
@@davidhays2846 idk why first world white leftists being tone deff is an indictment of platformism as an organizational strategy. The AK Press Collective worked with Alexander to help gather evidence on Schmidt and, although I can't speak for whatever "milieu" you are involved in, I at least don't know anyone who went to bat for the fascist. This whole subject strikes me as an indictment against whoever you were particularly organizing with if anything and not necessarily Platformism or Especifismo as an organizational principle. Unless ofc you're saying that being infiltrated should be seen as a failure. If so it's definitely not a failure that's remotely unique to us. Maybe don't throw the baby out with the bath water idk.
Kropotkin is really underrated in my opinion. He was one of the most influential ecologist ever and his ideas are just recently started to be understood and seen how right he was about altruism.
@@daitopallw , wrong, they held the same, exact ideologies, with the same, exact motives. Híțĺer was just a little more drug-addicted, and a little more perverse.
I mean, I appreciate the video but this history of anarchism might more accurately be deemed a European history of anarchism. There have been many, many renditions of indigenous forms of anarchism which historically and currently still exist.
Marcelo Rincon While I agree with it, it can be said that there's some resemblances, and also possible communications with Anarchism with Amazonian indians. Clastres work for example, as Graeber described it, does a lot of contributions to Anarchist thought.
@Marcelo Rincon I desagree with you. There is a book called 'Anarquismos en confluencia, Chile y Bolivia durante la primera mitad del siglo XX' published by Ivanna Margarucci and Eduardo Godoy, wich principal topic is about the history of the anarchist movement at the frontier of Chile, Bolivia and Perú (región andina). The history (the historians) has taken care to hide the history of the anarchist movement across the world. Hence the hypothesis: 'does not exist an anarchist movement on those regions' is very common and accepted. Precisely, the autors are committed to prove the opposite hyphotesis.
This video was primarily about anarchism as a coherent political philosophy which to my knowledge was founded and has been based primarily in what is usually called "the West" from Godwin to Bookchin.
I know what you are getting at but you are actually imposing western ideals on indigenous cultures by claiming them Anarchist . The lack of a state does not therefore equal Anarchist .
The only genuine 'leader' is wisdom born of a respect for truth.. It is the severe lack of naturalised 'elder wisdom' that leads to the kind of politicised world we suffer today. When the Europeans invaded the Americas they saw themselves as having the 'right' to obliterate everything from a position of 'superiority', where in fact they couldn't have been more wrong; replacing a self-sustaining series of inter-connected micro systems based on elder-wisdom philosophy with a savage greed for self-interest, leading ultimately to self-destructive behaviour.. It all really boils down to control. External, ever increasing and changing forms of control by exterior and self-interested 'forces', or personal responsibility through self-control, which negates the need for the external, but does still require a form of on-going and naturally evolving wisdom tradition.. Neither are without problems, but the wisdom option can see where those problems arise and has the ability to deal successfully with them. It also has the added bonus of never blindly sinking into a self-destructive state, and thus will remain sustainable..
@@fluentpiffle Those Indians were sacrificing children to their gods so they weren't so innocent either. If anything the less savage "savages" won, we should all be glad else we'd be like Mexico.
Great video-I’m familiar with the topic, and this is probably one of the best intros I have seen. Keep it up-your videos deserve more views, and will eventually get them, I’m sure.
Just a heads up Darwin never said survival of the fittest is the law of evolution. It was the survival of those that can adapt to the best will survive and pass on their geans. “It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change.”
@@m0rgenthau maybe you coupd tell me what percentage of the Bolsheviks were? I mean, i know its in the 80s somewhere. I know that Maex was a hack writet incapable of original thinking employed as a front man for wider interests.. Also i know that outside/alongside the Armenian Genocide he created the greatest massacre of christians in the history of the world. I know about the young turks and their true affiliations. And i know that if you speak about these things someone will always pop up to try and smear you. Never disprove. Just smear. That is all i need to know. Thanks though.
@@nathanprentice5759 If you are implying that Emma Goldman was a Bolshevik, you could not be more wrong. Completely, utterly, devastatingly wrong. theanarchistlibrary.org/library/emma-goldman-my-disillusionment-in-russia I'm pretty sure you are just as wrong about the Young Turks. You want to try me?
@@joelmarin1840 your right on that white rose society in 1932 against the Nazi regime were all beheaded. Well one survived and wrote books on it. Pretty interesting stuff
Thank you to: Owen Pitcairn and Robert Moore For sponsoring this video on Patreon with pledges of $10+ It's a huge help and is the only way I can make these videos, so thank you!
I like to think that anarchism is taking things like liberalism and utilitarianism seriously, i.e. refining them and bringing them to a philosophical conclusion. I'm hesitant to make that comparison, though, since liberalism has always been wielded as the justification for capitalism, even in it's infancy
@@elchingon12346 You wouldn't be the first to make that comparison. Noam Chomsky talks a lot about how anarchism is essentially the modern embodiment of the timeless values of classical liberals, while modern liberalism is essentially an embodiment of the conclusions of classical liberals, which of course were products of their times (markets being better than monarchy was essentially the conclusion).
It is an honour to anarchism that it is one of the few subjects Statist at Universities have left untouched. Even the publishing world stays clear of Anarchism. Hitler's profitable; even Stalin still sells. But few have heard of the big man, Mikhail Bakunin. Not even a documentary on that brave aristocrat. He lived a life of revolution and a life so intriguing it would make a great film.
Anarchism as I understand it doesn’t mean ‘no rulers’. Guidance is a powerful thing that increases moral and cooperation. Anarchism is removing rule where consent is not fundamentally active in its rule. Governments have some sort of democracy but is not direct. Anarchism allows people who want to guide guide and people who want to be guided guided but grants no power over the other to either position. Personally I believe this is going to take a lot of re-wiring of society, therefore it becomes essential to form a minarchist state where the sole purpose of the government is to prevent the accumulation of power and wealth Maybe I got that all wrong but I’d love to debate
I treat my anarchism like my atheism - not a belief but a conclusion. Given what happened in '08 and the long-term futility of what they've done to try and patch the system since then, it's not a goal to be aimed for but an inevitability to be prepared for. When the economy collapses, that's the framework we're going to have to work within so trading networks and skills exchanges need to be set up ready.
@@gomffs Also, being against. Anarcho syndicalism just makes you look like a bad guy, the philoposhy wants the working class to control the means of production, why wouldn't you like that? no trickle down economics.
That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. You can’t call your self and anarchist and advocate a political ideology or whatever you want to call it. That makes you a statist
Cool video.. it’s not easy to fit a whole history into a short video but nice one. One point on Proudhon and mutualism.. the real genius of Proudhon was his identification of the economic and monetary forces responsible for inequality. His theory’s are as much political and social as they are economic and monetary and what distinguishes him from many of his contemporaries (anarchist and non-anarchist) was his identification of the problem laying in the monetary sphere and his insistence that changing the monetary system would have to be the first step to creating a more equal and productive society.. to be honest, I see Proudhon more as an economic and monetary theorist who was waaaaaaaaay ahead of his time!
I have my personal preference on how we or rather I should live but at the same time I am perfectly comfortable with cooperating with groups of people to live in a shared ideological system as long as it meets certain requirements which I think is essential for communal cooperation
I struggle to conform to a single ideology. I feel like countries shouldn’t conform to the expected policies and reforms of certain ideologies and political structures they identify themselves with. Once you make it part of your identity, you push to make yourself the quintessential example of just that. Make decisions and changes based on what works and what’s best overall. Not because it fits into the box you’ve made for yourself.
On that note, you might be interested in learning about UBUNTU Contributuionism Here's an introduction: ruclips.net/video/GbiFCwZdqgM/видео.html And another one ruclips.net/video/RXY8Rbx3fwIb/видео.htmlut I'd recommend the first video
I think it's good to work from a set of principles and a good understanding of different political schools of thought, so that you can act and change accordingly. If you want to make decisions based on what works, you first need to know what you want to achieve, and what principles are behind it.
I know that this is only one of thousands of, "Hey, you should do..." suggestions, but this really makes me want to see what you can do with Henry George. There isn't nearly enough discussion of him.
And what about Louise Michel and/or Emma Goldman? Her both had very big implications on (libertarian) education issues (Louise), women's-right movement, political theory and as social activists (on the field! not only theory allowed): for example Louise was a very important figure on Paris Commune and Emma played an importat rol on Spain Civil war (obviously there is a lot to talk about her both). Really makes me sad that no one was mentioned on the video as influential figures, even when her both are regarded as founders of anarcha-feminism. I know that you mentioned the "classical" schools of anarchism, but the influences of this two womans is really important. I hope that this was not intentionally. Maybe for a second video, would be a good idea to talk about the Anarchism and the proposals on different areas (feminism, education, ecologism, etc.) However, nice video! I discovered your channel and I really liked ur videos! Regards
As far as I'm concerned Proudhon was prescient as to how many western societies have turned out with police state surveillance of it's own citizens and the ongoing rise of the criminalisation of poverty and resistance - a fresh kind of state social control, manipulation, propagandising and ethno-nationalist focused public policy. The legacy of corporatist capitalism.
@@fuckamericanidiot I'm not sure what's "mean spirited" about wanting to protect individual autonomy (both positive and negative liberty) to the greatest extent possible, and remove authority and subordination of individuals by others. In fact, I would argue that those who think that authority, which is always ultimately accountable only to itself, and which restricts the ability of people to solve their own problems, live their own lives, and develop their own capacities, can ever consistently be used as a force for good, are the ones who are "myopic."
can you do any videos that connect art and politics like bauhaus architecture or the brazilian modernism, nazi neoclassical projects for berlin, brazilian concretism, russian/soviet/chinese constructivism or mexican muralism? thanks... i guess this could be a good series of videos that would set your channel apart from the rest
You don't have to do things to boost your public image. You can do things out of empathy too and that could be encouraged. This is still a benefit to yourself as you could feel good about yourself
Anarchism, Communism and Socialism are the most misunderstood ideologies, a lot people tend to talk about them like they're pure evil and then when you ask them to define these ideologies and they're either wrong or can't even explain it.
I see where you come from. But this the argument for that. It just sounds good on paper but when you execute the plan your going to run into problems. Just look a stalin he took power as an absolute dictator, Trotsky had to flee, and Lenin was afraid that if Stalin were to take into place that system would fail(more or less). Its the power hungry we should watch out
Read “The Most Dangerous Superstition” by Larken Rose (Spoiler Alert, The Most Dangerous Superstition is Authority) it basically deconstructs your belief in the authority of government. (Be warned he is an “ancap” which is not a legitimate ideology really, but his book does deconstruct archy very well so not gonna stoop down to ad hominem.)
I would advise everyone to keep their political affiliations private online, especially in a video on this topic. Big brother is not so keen on ideologies such as this.
The personal endeavors of the individual shall not be infringed by the accumulation of private wealth by those same individuals. Within this we must define what is individual expense and through it a commitment towards personal progression and that of a monopoly of a system that should be held privately but is instead held by the means of distributive control. Any person can endeavour to be a part of society by their commitment within the general social contract, but when the system does not allow personal input and is instead beholden to privately owned means which require supplication towards that authority if means...
@@lobservatoiresituationnist3583 I honestly don't know if you're taking a piss or what, but I do think anarchism as a whole, naturist anarchism as well, have pretty good points to be talked about. Maybe not not as a way to be implemented as a general social system, but as a way of puting the powers that be in check. But you might as well be a fucking troll making fun of a smarter girls talking about shit you can't quite grasp for yourself.
I love your RUclips video it's really informative! I would suggest maybe getting rid of the music or shortening it or fading it more, when I started listening to the video I couldn't concentrate on the words because of the music and again at the end, that might be off putting for some people. Keep up the amazing video, thank you so much for creating such an informative one!
the only reason why im a Anarchist is that i don't believe in the governments or presidency the only person i ever answer to is God im not the type of anarchist that goes out and starts riots tho i don't do that but again i do agree with the hate to the government and being a free person thats the only reason why im a Anarchist im not violent like people thinks some of them are i just don't believe in the government or presidency
It will be interesting to discover the origins of these spooky tales. It is my own personal experience that make my past sound like fiction. There is an intelligence that fits the description of some mythical stories and the reality of its existence is still a mystery to me.
The soviet union had nothing to do with what Karl Marx wanted. Karl Marx wanted an anarchistic society similar to sterner. They just held some lessor disagreements on how to get there. Lenin in the other hand thought that it did not matter what you did, for as long as you worked to achieve communism. This led to a lot of violations of his own ideals and regressions away from communism, because these people just did what they felt was necessary. It is the typical politicians losing its soul. Lenin also thought that he had to force an industrial revolution and indoctrinate the people in marxist theory. Since Karl Marx's ideas where based on an industrialized society. Lenin lacked the ability to thinking critically and adapt to the material conditions. So he just introduced state capitalism and tried to force industrialization. He died before the great leap forward could be achieved in Russia, which required a sociopath in power. If Lenin did not die early then something similar to what Mao did in China would happen, but in Russia instead and earlier.
@@novinceinhosic3531 Not during the Russian revolution. Then it was widely banned. Lenin talked about praxis, but the dude was a moron. He ruined the revolution and just created the Tsarist Russia 2.0 electric boogaloo (this time it is red). No person in history has done so much harm to the socialist movement as that red fasc piece of shit. No, I did not say that. What I do say is that revolutions are risky business. Going from an autocracy to democracy is hard. There will always be pieces of shits like Lenin to ruin everything. I believe in the people, but I can understand if someone who knows about Lenin has lost hope. Red fascists are depressing. Lenin is the reason why Karl Marx is so controversial in the west. Lenin is why some westerners think the nazis and all other fascists where socialist. Lenin is the reason behind the cold war.
The main problem with anarchy is that it offers no feasible solution to any the problems it identifies. I’m all for thinking for oneself but WTH good does that do if you have nothing and no one?
Sounds good on paper, but seems really hard to put into practice. The main flaw I seem to see is that the difficulty of defining the ideology and division in its interpretation is what fundamentally leads to anarchism's inpracticality.
New to the whole concept of anarchism. Can someone enlighten me on how decisions would be made in an anarchist society? From what i understand voting will not exist since it could lead to a majority tyranny
One way practiced is "consensus". Its a process to reach agreement within a group. Consensus can be defined as "no strong opposition", not unanimity as one might expect. The basics of it is that people identify a particular issue and discuss solutions. If there are disagreements then people will try solve them and find a solution that satisfies each member, or at least a solution that is not strongly opposed by each member. There are certain criteria for what a valid strong opposition is, usually to do with it violating some group principles or being harmful to the group. Personal preference is not a valid reason, for example. Obviously concensus can't be reached in every matter. If people have tried and failed to produce a generally satisfying solution, depending on the nature of the issue, the group can putthe issue aside until thoughts or solutions have changed, or if a decision has to be made then some form of majority voting can be done. However, members would still have the right not to participate. So if someone still really hated the solution, they don't have to participate in its implementation, and ate of course free to continue arguing their case. You can also not participate if you just generally dislike the solution.
Pierre - Joseph Proudhon speaks of : ( Considered by many as the father of Anarchy ) ' We know what they are, and what they are worth ! They spider webs for the rich and mighty, steel chains for the poor and weak, fishing nets in the hands of government ' You probably a little puzzled now, P.J.P was talking about laws. Born 15 Jan 1809 died 19th 1865. He had written correspondence with Karl Marx, spent three years in prison for insulting President Louis-Napoleon Bonaparte 1849-1852.
Old comment, but I wanted to reply anyway: In contemporary anarchism it's usually agreed upon that anarcho-syndicalism is the method, and anarcho-communism the outcome. Even to this day many anarchists believe that syndicalism is the method through which we can achieve anarcho-communism.
You forgot Lao Tzu who's philosophical text "Te Dao Dejing" can also be interpreted as an Manual for an Anarchic Monarch. Yes, Anarcho-Monarchism is a thing.
Ruben Granz no it’s just an abstract philosophy. However Daoism indeed was an ancient belief that included anarchist principles. Ultimately one cannot have anarchy (absence of rulers) and monarchy (one ruler).
Anarcho-Communism is an oxymoron. Anarchy is about the individual and Communism is about the collective. It's not anarchy. The word you're looking for is synarchy. Anarchy comes from the ancient Greek "an archos," which just means no rulers. Synarchy means "joint rule." Communists are synarchists, not anarchists. Anarchy values the collective, but not at the expense of the individual. Communism/synarchy values the collective over the individual.
There’s kinda no real dichotomy between the collective and the individual good. This is because the collective is made up of all the individuals. If every individual works with each other to find common solutions that work for everyone then each individual person can do what they want and it is facilitated by the collective work being done. What’s best for the collective is best for every individual and what best for every individual is what’s best for the collective. It’s all about collectively accounting for everyone’s needs and facilitating the material means of everyone accomplishing their individual wants.
I've been learning about Marx for several years now, and have occasionally dipped my toe into anarchism. What I still don't understand is the fundamental difference between Marx's conception of communism, and left-Anarchist conceptions of anarchism. They look the same to me. Self-managed workers, classlessness, statelessness, the abolition of private property in the means of production, and a commitment to radical individual freedom and autonomy as a means for social emancipation ("the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all"). Where are the actual rifts and differences? In the video you say that these various anarchists criticised Marx, only to go on to say that they said the same kind of things that he did. For example, you say that Bakunin disagreed with Marx about the dictatorship of the proletariat, and that he preferred worker self management. Okay... so did Marx. That was his aim, a free association of producers. The dictatorship of the proletariat doesn't refer to a political arrangement, but to a social one, wherein rather than living in the dictatorship of the bourgeoise (as we do now), we flip the social order on its head. That doesn't mean an _actual_ dictatorship, it refers to a social order where the interests of the worker dictate the direction of society, rather than the interests of capitalists. This is necessarily part of any transitional period between a class-based society and a classless one. The only alternative would be to somehow move immediately from one state of affairs to the next.
The American definition of "Libertarian" is a very unique thing. Everywhere else in the world, the word "Libertarian" and the word "Anarchist" are interchangeable, referring to people like Stirner and Kropotkin alike. American Libertarianism is it's own thing, concerned with the defending of private property and the free market. Stirner was an anti-capitalist, as he saw the market as another oppressive hierarchy which hampers the individual, no different than the state. Indeed, one of his most vital frameworks was the notion of Illegalism. While collectivist anarchists like Bakunin and Kropotkin advocated property theft as a means of building a revolution, Stirner advocates for property theft merely for its own sake. If you are an American Libertarian who is interested in more conventional anarchist thought, Mutualism would probably be a better option, as it leaves the free market intact.
He is mostly criticizing all those abstractions that we strive for, identify with, or those ideas that we use to get together and he would definitely refuse to say that he is a libertarian. His critique is the most fundamental and therefore philosophical that i have ever seen. If you ask me, i would say that it is the very core Essence of anarchism because even though he would also refuse to identify as anarchist, in the end he strives for ABSOLUTE autonomy or the refusal of any Control over his own will.
You make a point that Kropotkin has much in common with Rousseau, however, Kropotkin's idea of mutual aid and Rousseau's noble savage don't point to the same conception of human nature. Rousseau had a romantic idea of human nature and thought that universal love leads to cooperation. For Kropotkin, however, it is mutual benefit that drives cooperation, not a romantic ideal of universal love.
Anarcho-Syndicalism is the political ideology that I most strongly identify with. Noam Chomsky is based. but because I am what they call a "class reductionist" others in the space think I am far right, but this video confirms it for me that I am actually a leftist. thank you.
Libertarianism and Taoism are not anarchism. Quite the opposite. Freedom of choice and the principle of consent are the foundation of a polite society and liberty.
@Matthew Quinlan thats how everyone here knows you know nothing of anarchism thats literally what theyve been trying to prevent from the opportunist MLs and wannabe leninists to actual dictators.. you need to start reading
I've never had a good explanation of what an anarchist society would treat dissenters. By 'dissenters' I mean anyone whose acts or views are inconsistent with the continuance of an anarchist society. This could be a Communist, a bandit, an intellectual who sought to persuade others to abandon anarchism, a psychopath who raped and killed, or a parent who sought to obtain advantage for his or her child. If anyone could direct me to a good answer, I would be very grateful. I have been posting this question on anarchist comment sections for about 8 years now. I have never had an answer that accepts that someone living in an anarchist society might want to disavow anarchist principles.
Script & sources at: www.thenandnow.co/2023/04/24/introduction-to-the-history-of-anarchism/
► Sign up for the newsletter to get concise digestible summaries: www.thenandnow.co/the-newsletter/
► Why Support Then & Now? www.patreon.com/user/about?u=3517018
ruclips.net/p/PLygqavJysUHJhpSxXn2jf2QqZp9Bic_ef
@@Anarquistas1 pppppppppppppp
@aua ✓ lmao whoops
The only genuine 'leader' is wisdom born of a respect for truth..
It is the severe lack of naturalised 'elder wisdom' that leads to the kind of politicised world we suffer today. When the Europeans invaded the Americas they saw themselves as having the 'right' to obliterate everything from a position of 'superiority', where in fact they couldn't have been more wrong; replacing a self-sustaining series of inter-connected micro systems based on elder-wisdom philosophy with a savage greed for self-interest, leading ultimately to self-destructive behaviour..
It all really boils down to control. External, ever increasing and changing forms of control by exterior and self-interested 'forces', or personal responsibility through self-control, which negates the need for the external, but does still require a form of on-going and naturally evolving wisdom tradition..
Neither are without problems, but the wisdom option can see where those problems arise and has the ability to deal successfully with them. It also has the added bonus of never blindly sinking into a self-destructive state, and thus will remain sustainable..
Nestor Makhno left the chat.
Fun Fact: William Godwin was married to Mary Wollstonecraft and their daughter, Mary, was the wife of Percy Shelley. She wrote a little something called Frankenstein.
while she was in a lodge with Lord Byron
And the rich get richer and poor get poorer
dont care
@@landlockedcroat1554 Yeah, you don't care so much that you write a comment.
@@josephstalin7389 Another Fun Fact: William Godwin was an Anarchist before it was cool.
The core of anarchy is that no human has power of other humans,
@Spartan 506 Elaborate, pls
@Spartan 506 Yes I agree that power relationship exist and are inherent to our western societies, but that doesn't necessarily mean that is a natural quality of humans to rule over others and be ruled by others (one of the pillars of communism / anarchism is that investigations have shown that primitive societies relied on cooperation rather than hierachization).
And if anyone wants to follow or be lead by someone else, that potential leader of men can be killed. But then in order to kill him effectively, there needs to be some organisation or direction to make it happen and that needs a leader. There must be equal agreement at all times and if someone naturally tries to take charge rip his throat out.
@Spartan 506 Exactly, people write books about what anarchy looks like and how to achieve it - it still has the same horrible result.
People keep telling themselves 'Humans always *lived like that' .That's not true. Hierarcy started once someone put lines on a piece of land and said 'this is mine', and the rest believed it. Tribes in the amazon live without 'rulers right now. ' .So it's possible.
Everybody should have a home, nobody should be involuntarily hungry, people should not be imprisoned and stigmatized for possessing an illegal substance. The surveillance state is the most rapidly progressing enterprise because those with the wealth and power realize people are realizing how corrupt this corporatocracy is
I agree with all of this but because my country doesnt offer education on political systems or thought I don't know what I would be called.
@Abraham Serafino how my country literally tells people you are old enough to vote at 18 even though we never get recieve solid foundation to base our politics off of. It's why their are so many people voting against their own interest.
@Abraham Serafino Wow insults that means you have a good point. You are the type of swine that makes it easy for the politicians to control us the way they do.
@Abraham Serafino I live in the US you fucking moron
Abraham Serafino Um. I believe you’re the troll here. 😂
I love being an anarchist. I wish I would've known about this movement sooner.
Anarchist means I can shoot you in the head without consequences. What's so great about that? Everybody would shoot everybody in the head until one guy takes control and puts order and we're back to Kings.
Fr
Same
same
You’re not a anarchist if you don’t practice it lol
I found out in history class, I was an anarchist (mutualism), when I was about 10, 40 years ago, but kept it quiet because it was spoken about only negatively. Yet I could find nothing wrong with their principles and manifests.
many people exhibit willful ignorance.
Well, I like the fact that people are deterred from shooting me in the back of the head because the government will punish them. But that's just me.
yeah
suspiciously and coincidently, all other types of society types are talked negetively about.
In truth, capitalism is (by far) not the best societal system but i think it was innevitable. Someone somewhere will innevitably become on top and innevitably that would be unfair and now so nobody notice, they talk badly about other types of societies in schools. Everyones original and greatest source of information
@@universal5459 anarchy is inevitable too, in fact, it’s next !
You should revisit this and explore the transition from classical to modern anarchism
Cry in chaz
@@hellatze im not talking about U.S. wankery im talking about international Platformism and especifismo
The naturian anarchists explained by a young girl. ruclips.net/video/0AiKMdq9QZk/видео.html
More anarchism videos!!!
@@davidhays2846 idk why first world white leftists being tone deff is an indictment of platformism as an organizational strategy.
The AK Press Collective worked with Alexander to help gather evidence on Schmidt and, although I can't speak for whatever "milieu" you are involved in, I at least don't know anyone who went to bat for the fascist.
This whole subject strikes me as an indictment against whoever you were particularly organizing with if anything and not necessarily Platformism or Especifismo as an organizational principle.
Unless ofc you're saying that being infiltrated should be seen as a failure. If so it's definitely not a failure that's remotely unique to us.
Maybe don't throw the baby out with the bath water idk.
Kropotkin is really underrated in my opinion. He was one of the most influential ecologist ever and his ideas are just recently started to be understood and seen how right he was about altruism.
Adolf Hitler took great inspiration from him.
@@phoneticalballsack what does adolf hitller have to do with petr kropotkin? They are the complete opposite of each other
@@daitopallw They both hated whites
He was a pínķo c0mmìe.
@@daitopallw , wrong, they held the same, exact ideologies, with the same, exact motives. Híțĺer was just a little more drug-addicted, and a little more perverse.
I mean, I appreciate the video but this history of anarchism might more accurately be deemed a European history of anarchism. There have been many, many renditions of indigenous forms of anarchism which historically and currently still exist.
Marcelo Rincon While I agree with it, it can be said that there's some resemblances, and also possible communications with Anarchism with Amazonian indians. Clastres work for example, as Graeber described it, does a lot of contributions to Anarchist thought.
@Marcelo Rincon I desagree with you. There is a book called 'Anarquismos en confluencia, Chile y Bolivia durante la primera mitad del siglo XX' published by Ivanna Margarucci and Eduardo Godoy, wich principal topic is about the history of the anarchist movement at the frontier of Chile, Bolivia and Perú (región andina). The history (the historians) has taken care to hide the history of the anarchist movement across the world. Hence the hypothesis: 'does not exist an anarchist movement on those regions' is very common and accepted. Precisely, the autors are committed to prove the opposite hyphotesis.
This video was primarily about anarchism as a coherent political philosophy which to my knowledge was founded and has been based primarily in what is usually called "the West" from Godwin to Bookchin.
Agreed, no Josiah Warren & Ben Tucker?
I know what you are getting at but you are actually imposing western ideals on indigenous cultures by claiming them Anarchist . The lack of a state does not therefore equal Anarchist .
Thank you for sharing the truth about Anarchism rather than the myopic public opinion most people hold.
The only genuine 'leader' is wisdom born of a respect for truth..
It is the severe lack of naturalised 'elder wisdom' that leads to the kind of politicised world we suffer today. When the Europeans invaded the Americas they saw themselves as having the 'right' to obliterate everything from a position of 'superiority', where in fact they couldn't have been more wrong; replacing a self-sustaining series of inter-connected micro systems based on elder-wisdom philosophy with a savage greed for self-interest, leading ultimately to self-destructive behaviour..
It all really boils down to control. External, ever increasing and changing forms of control by exterior and self-interested 'forces', or personal responsibility through self-control, which negates the need for the external, but does still require a form of on-going and naturally evolving wisdom tradition..
Neither are without problems, but the wisdom option can see where those problems arise and has the ability to deal successfully with them. It also has the added bonus of never blindly sinking into a self-destructive state, and thus will remain sustainable..
@@fluentpiffle Those Indians were sacrificing children to their gods so they weren't so innocent either. If anything the less savage "savages" won, we should all be glad else we'd be like Mexico.
If I "most people" you mean sane, mature adults.....you should listen to most people.
@@MamaKalash And by "sane, mature adult" you clearly mean yourself.
How is this channel not bigger
Probably because the majority of people aren't awful lol
@@Christopher.Harvey333 ?
@@iswitchedsidesforthiscat its a shitty channel
@@iswitchedsidesforthiscat low effort neo troll
@@thecincinnatisaboteur7574 ?
Please do more episodes like this. Would love to see an entire episode on Stirner & and egoist anarchism.
Forehead man had good points
Your name and profile pic are amazing. Crass is the best.
@@sixela6 That’s not a forehead, that’s Crass.
@@TheBLGL forehead man refers to stirner. the surname "stirner" literally means "forehead guy" in german.
Need better narrator
Great video-I’m familiar with the topic, and this is probably one of the best intros I have seen. Keep it up-your videos deserve more views, and will eventually get them, I’m sure.
Thank you!
I think more people need to watch this considering everyone I speak to seems to think that anarchism is basically a purge film.
Just a heads up Darwin never said survival of the fittest is the law of evolution. It was the survival of those that can adapt to the best will survive and pass on their geans.
“It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change.”
Indeed. Spartans were fit, then they disappeared.
One of the most misquoted quotes of all time
They also pass on their genes.
Sharks
@@Mike-zd8wq so they weren't fit
Emma Goldman: "Am I a joke to you?"
Goldman, Marx, Lenin, Trotsky.....hmmmmmmm, i wonder what single factor links those people?
@@nathanprentice5759 Being lefties - Lenin was not jewish m8
@@m0rgenthau maybe you coupd tell me what percentage of the Bolsheviks were? I mean, i know its in the 80s somewhere. I know that Maex was a hack writet incapable of original thinking employed as a front man for wider interests.. Also i know that outside/alongside the Armenian Genocide he created the greatest massacre of christians in the history of the world. I know about the young turks and their true affiliations. And i know that if you speak about these things someone will always pop up to try and smear you. Never disprove. Just smear. That is all i need to know. Thanks though.
@@nathanprentice5759 If you are implying that Emma Goldman was a Bolshevik, you could not be more wrong. Completely, utterly, devastatingly wrong.
theanarchistlibrary.org/library/emma-goldman-my-disillusionment-in-russia
I'm pretty sure you are just as wrong about the Young Turks. You want to try me?
@@jeffcowdrey1578 think what you want. We all do anyway. At least for now.
Thank you great beards of anarchism.
This video is great, love it! I'm a first time viewer of this channel, you just earned a sub!
Magnificent introduction! One of the best I've seen on RUclips. I would love some extra video essays from you to further explain the movement. Thanks!
Now this is wholesome.
Thanks
I'm now an Anarchist
still based
It's spot on. Anarchy isn't bad only the ones using it in those violent ways are.
I like the topic of morality and ego.
@@jamesphillips7590 ironically people who tried to spread anarchism through history were silenced in a lot of violent forms
@@joelmarin1840 your right on that white rose society in 1932 against the Nazi regime were all beheaded.
Well one survived and wrote books on it. Pretty interesting stuff
@@jamesphillips7590 sounds interesting, gonna research that 🤔 thx
Thanks for not dividing your videos with stupid ads. I really appreciate it.
+ The naturian anarchists explained by a young girl. ruclips.net/video/0AiKMdq9QZk/видео.html
Such a professional presentation, man!
love your stuff. im suprised that you only have 7k subs
Thank you!
Thank you to:
Owen Pitcairn
and Robert Moore
For sponsoring this video on Patreon with pledges of $10+
It's a huge help and is the only way I can make these videos, so thank you!
Anarchy means no rulers not no rules
@Pavor www.google.com/search?safe=off&client=ms-android-motorola&ei=PHDpXtnvCMuU-gTr2qToAg&q=anarchy+word+origin&oq=anarchy+word+origin&gs_lcp=ChNtb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXdpei1zZXJwEAMyAggAMgYIABAWEB5Q_RVY7zNgujpoAHAAeACAAfIGiAGzEZIBDTAuMS4xLjAuMS4xLjGYAQCgAQE&sclient=mobile-gws-wiz-serp
@Pavor dumb pos
Seven comments[ not one of them is actully about the pinned request for support.
Ungrateful lot....
Thanks!
It's interesting to see conections to classic liberalism in early anarchism
I like to think that anarchism is taking things like liberalism and utilitarianism seriously, i.e. refining them and bringing them to a philosophical conclusion.
I'm hesitant to make that comparison, though, since liberalism has always been wielded as the justification for capitalism, even in it's infancy
@@elchingon12346 You wouldn't be the first to make that comparison. Noam Chomsky talks a lot about how anarchism is essentially the modern embodiment of the timeless values of classical liberals, while modern liberalism is essentially an embodiment of the conclusions of classical liberals, which of course were products of their times (markets being better than monarchy was essentially the conclusion).
@@elchingon12346 so it's looking at a retarded clown and going wow this is deep
excellent video, the author is well informed and manages to explain it in an entertaining way!
+ The naturian anarchists explained by a young girl. ruclips.net/video/0AiKMdq9QZk/видео.html
first 4 seconds - Death Grips' "Trash" sample my mind is blown
wait holy shit are you serious
sounds very similar but sadly it ain't
It is an honour to anarchism that it is one of the few subjects Statist at Universities have left untouched. Even the publishing world stays clear of Anarchism. Hitler's profitable; even Stalin still sells. But few have heard of the big man, Mikhail Bakunin. Not even a documentary on that brave aristocrat. He lived a life of revolution and a life so intriguing it would make a great film.
Anarchism as I understand it doesn’t mean ‘no rulers’. Guidance is a powerful thing that increases moral and cooperation. Anarchism is removing rule where consent is not fundamentally active in its rule. Governments have some sort of democracy but is not direct. Anarchism allows people who want to guide guide and people who want to be guided guided but grants no power over the other to either position.
Personally I believe this is going to take a lot of re-wiring of society, therefore it becomes essential to form a minarchist state where the sole purpose of the government is to prevent the accumulation of power and wealth
Maybe I got that all wrong but I’d love to debate
Anarchy does literally mean "no rulers" from the greek "an" meaning "without" and "archy" meaning "rule".
I treat my anarchism like my atheism - not a belief but a conclusion. Given what happened in '08 and the long-term futility of what they've done to try and patch the system since then, it's not a goal to be aimed for but an inevitability to be prepared for. When the economy collapses, that's the framework we're going to have to work within so trading networks and skills exchanges need to be set up ready.
I'd like to hear more about Anarcho Syndicalism from you as that's what I define myself as
@YHWH How is fighting for the working class cringe?
@@jibbobdion5072 You're pretty cringe.
@@gomffs :)
@@gomffs Also, being against. Anarcho syndicalism just makes you look like a bad guy, the philoposhy wants the working class to control the means of production, why wouldn't you like that? no trickle down economics.
That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. You can’t call your self and anarchist and advocate a political ideology or whatever you want to call it. That makes you a statist
Cool video.. it’s not easy to fit a whole history into a short video but nice one. One point on Proudhon and mutualism.. the real genius of Proudhon was his identification of the economic and monetary forces responsible for inequality. His theory’s are as much political and social as they are economic and monetary and what distinguishes him from many of his contemporaries (anarchist and non-anarchist) was his identification of the problem laying in the monetary sphere and his insistence that changing the monetary system would have to be the first step to creating a more equal and productive society.. to be honest, I see Proudhon more as an economic and monetary theorist who was waaaaaaaaay ahead of his time!
"The naturian anarchists explained by a young girl." ruclips.net/video/0AiKMdq9QZk/видео.html
Good and clean video pal, 10/10 from an individualist anarchist
+ The naturian anarchists explained by a young girl. ruclips.net/video/0AiKMdq9QZk/видео.html
Love the United farms workers footage and I must say amazing video
Thank you for this, but....patriarchal. Could you have included at least mention of Lucy Parsons, Voltairine, and Emma Goldman?
@@jackcade68 he levies a good point
You look like a hall monitor who told on people to the teacher
Oy Vey
Love the fact that he didn't even mentioned "anarcho"capitalism.
@@asablkofc well, antifa means just "antifascists" so... yeah, I guess you are right? You don't have to be anarchist to be antifascist.
@@MoraCat666 Every anarchist is, however, an antifascist.
The only type of true type of freedom.
@@MoraCat666 Guess the Nazis were socialist then🤷🏽♂️
@@LK-nh7yj Nothing says freedom like being a slave to capital.
I have my personal preference on how we or rather I should live but at the same time I am perfectly comfortable with cooperating with groups of people to live in a shared ideological system as long as it meets certain requirements which I think is essential for communal cooperation
A very good summation. Thank you!
+ The naturian anarchists explained by a young girl. ruclips.net/video/0AiKMdq9QZk/видео.html
I struggle to conform to a single ideology. I feel like countries shouldn’t conform to the expected policies and reforms of certain ideologies and political structures they identify themselves with. Once you make it part of your identity, you push to make yourself the quintessential example of just that. Make decisions and changes based on what works and what’s best overall. Not because it fits into the box you’ve made for yourself.
On that note, you might be interested in learning about UBUNTU Contributuionism
Here's an introduction:
ruclips.net/video/GbiFCwZdqgM/видео.html
And another one ruclips.net/video/RXY8Rbx3fwIb/видео.htmlut I'd recommend the first video
I think it's good to work from a set of principles and a good understanding of different political schools of thought, so that you can act and change accordingly. If you want to make decisions based on what works, you first need to know what you want to achieve, and what principles are behind it.
+ The naturian anarchists explained by a young girl. ruclips.net/video/0AiKMdq9QZk/видео.html
I know that this is only one of thousands of, "Hey, you should do..." suggestions, but this really makes me want to see what you can do with Henry George. There isn't nearly enough discussion of him.
And what about Louise Michel and/or Emma Goldman? Her both had very big implications on (libertarian) education issues (Louise), women's-right movement, political theory and as social activists (on the field! not only theory allowed): for example Louise was a very important figure on Paris Commune and Emma played an importat rol on Spain Civil war (obviously there is a lot to talk about her both). Really makes me sad that no one was mentioned on the video as influential figures, even when her both are regarded as founders of anarcha-feminism. I know that you mentioned the "classical" schools of anarchism, but the influences of this two womans is really important.
I hope that this was not intentionally. Maybe for a second video, would be a good idea to talk about the Anarchism and the proposals on different areas (feminism, education, ecologism, etc.)
However, nice video! I discovered your channel and I really liked ur videos!
Regards
As far as I'm concerned Proudhon was prescient as to how many western societies have turned out with police state surveillance of it's own citizens and the ongoing rise of the criminalisation of poverty and resistance - a fresh kind of state social control, manipulation, propagandising and ethno-nationalist focused public policy. The legacy of corporatist capitalism.
Still better than anarchy :) Even granting you your myopic mean-spirited view of the world as given, it's still setting the bar real low.
@@fuckamericanidiot What is anarchy to you then?
@@fuckamericanidiot I'm not sure what's "mean spirited" about wanting to protect individual autonomy (both positive and negative liberty) to the greatest extent possible, and remove authority and subordination of individuals by others. In fact, I would argue that those who think that authority, which is always ultimately accountable only to itself, and which restricts the ability of people to solve their own problems, live their own lives, and develop their own capacities, can ever consistently be used as a force for good, are the ones who are "myopic."
Well done video! Thank you for making this
+ The naturian anarchists explained by a young girl. ruclips.net/video/0AiKMdq9QZk/видео.html
I feel that you didn't misrepresented everything.
Very kind my friend.
Anarchy means "without rulers" NOT without rules. ETA: Anarchy only works if those involved adhere to Natural Law.
@YHWH huh?
Correct- see oligarchy
What Fang and claw, or power comes from the barrel of the gun, that is what always happens, people are no good at all, rotten tot the care.
As a woman I oppose your natural patriarchal law because that's what happens 'might becomes right'
I am the law
Then & Now: this video is VERY INTERESTING for me!
can you do any videos that connect art and politics like bauhaus architecture or the brazilian modernism, nazi neoclassical projects for berlin, brazilian concretism, russian/soviet/chinese constructivism or mexican muralism? thanks... i guess this could be a good series of videos that would set your channel apart from the rest
I did a video on Socialist Realism last year (ruclips.net/video/MfJv9QlXVDo/видео.html) - I would definitely like to do more in the future. Thanks!
You don't have to do things to boost your public image. You can do things out of empathy too and that could be encouraged. This is still a benefit to yourself as you could feel good about yourself
Hey, this video was very insightful, thanks. I'm going to look into more of Anarchy's history.
+ The naturian anarchists explained by a young girl. ruclips.net/video/0AiKMdq9QZk/видео.html
Dont forget that umberto was assassinated in response to the murder of peasants.
this channel is great, thanks for sharing this
Anarchism, Communism and Socialism are the most misunderstood ideologies, a lot people tend to talk about them like they're pure evil and then when you ask them to define these ideologies and they're either wrong or can't even explain it.
I see where you come from. But this the argument for that. It just sounds good on paper but when you execute the plan your going to run into problems. Just look a stalin he took power as an absolute dictator, Trotsky had to flee, and Lenin was afraid that if Stalin were to take into place that system would fail(more or less). Its the power hungry we should watch out
People are ignorant and unlearned of how the system works. They focus on the dictorship
... it would be interesting to see modern ways of anarchistic thinking ... maybe a 2. video?
Nice historical overview!
+ The naturian anarchists explained by a young girl. ruclips.net/video/0AiKMdq9QZk/видео.html
Read “The Most Dangerous Superstition” by Larken Rose (Spoiler Alert, The Most Dangerous Superstition is Authority) it basically deconstructs your belief in the authority of government. (Be warned he is an “ancap” which is not a legitimate ideology really, but his book does deconstruct archy very well so not gonna stoop down to ad hominem.)
Add this to my book wishlist
I would advise everyone to keep their political affiliations private online, especially in a video on this topic. Big brother is not so keen on ideologies such as this.
So what. I saw what I want. Nobody rules me
Hahahahahaha what a fucking larp
I cannot understand why a channel that makes such high-quality videos has only 200,000 subscribers
What u expect? 5 million subs? This aint a music video genius, 200k alot, most probably bots
Long live anarchism
"The naturian anarchists explained by a young girl." ruclips.net/video/0AiKMdq9QZk/видео.html
The personal endeavors of the individual shall not be infringed by the accumulation of private wealth by those same individuals. Within this we must define what is individual expense and through it a commitment towards personal progression and that of a monopoly of a system that should be held privately but is instead held by the means of distributive control. Any person can endeavour to be a part of society by their commitment within the general social contract, but when the system does not allow personal input and is instead beholden to privately owned means which require supplication towards that authority if means...
Haven't watched the video yet, but as someone who really likes anarchism, I got to say that I'm nervous about what I'm about to watch.
+ The naturian anarchists explained by a young girl. ruclips.net/video/0AiKMdq9QZk/видео.html
@@lobservatoiresituationnist3583 I honestly don't know if you're taking a piss or what, but I do think anarchism as a whole, naturist anarchism as well, have pretty good points to be talked about. Maybe not not as a way to be implemented as a general social system, but as a way of puting the powers that be in check. But you might as well be a fucking troll making fun of a smarter girls talking about shit you can't quite grasp for yourself.
this channel is SO GOOD
Commenting for the algorithm.
+ The naturian anarchists explained by a young girl. ruclips.net/video/0AiKMdq9QZk/видео.html
I love your RUclips video it's really informative! I would suggest maybe getting rid of the music or shortening it or fading it more, when I started listening to the video I couldn't concentrate on the words because of the music and again at the end, that might be off putting for some people. Keep up the amazing video, thank you so much for creating such an informative one!
Don't understand why need music narrating, need smooth ohe
I'm glad you started with Godwin (though maybe a word about Winstanley?)...
the only reason why im a Anarchist is that i don't believe in the governments or presidency the only person i ever answer to is God im not the type of anarchist that goes out and starts riots tho i don't do that but again i do agree with the hate to the government and being a free person thats the only reason why im a Anarchist im not violent like people thinks some of them are i just don't believe in the government or presidency
What about Lysander Spooner and Benjamin Tucker?
I find the music behind all the videos very distracting from the spoken word.
It will be interesting to discover the origins of these spooky tales.
It is my own personal experience that make my past sound like fiction.
There is an intelligence that fits the description of some mythical stories and the reality of its existence is still a mystery to me.
The soviet union had nothing to do with what Karl Marx wanted.
Karl Marx wanted an anarchistic society similar to sterner.
They just held some lessor disagreements on how to get there.
Lenin in the other hand thought that it did not matter what you did, for as long as you worked to achieve communism.
This led to a lot of violations of his own ideals and regressions away from communism, because these people just did what they felt was necessary.
It is the typical politicians losing its soul.
Lenin also thought that he had to force an industrial revolution and indoctrinate the people in marxist theory.
Since Karl Marx's ideas where based on an industrialized society.
Lenin lacked the ability to thinking critically and adapt to the material conditions.
So he just introduced state capitalism and tried to force industrialization.
He died before the great leap forward could be achieved in Russia, which required a sociopath in power.
If Lenin did not die early then something similar to what Mao did in China would happen, but in Russia instead and earlier.
@@novinceinhosic3531
Not during the Russian revolution.
Then it was widely banned.
Lenin talked about praxis, but the dude was a moron.
He ruined the revolution and just created the Tsarist Russia 2.0 electric boogaloo (this time it is red).
No person in history has done so much harm to the socialist movement as that red fasc piece of shit.
No, I did not say that.
What I do say is that revolutions are risky business.
Going from an autocracy to democracy is hard.
There will always be pieces of shits like Lenin to ruin everything.
I believe in the people, but I can understand if someone who knows about Lenin has lost hope.
Red fascists are depressing.
Lenin is the reason why Karl Marx is so controversial in the west.
Lenin is why some westerners think the nazis and all other fascists where socialist.
Lenin is the reason behind the cold war.
The main problem with anarchy is that it offers no feasible solution to any the problems it identifies. I’m all for thinking for oneself but WTH good does that do if you have nothing and no one?
Sounds good on paper, but seems really hard to put into practice. The main flaw I seem to see is that the difficulty of defining the ideology and division in its interpretation is what fundamentally leads to anarchism's inpracticality.
The only thing that I supported to Anarchism is their music (Huliaipole army).
"maybe the most famos anarquist"
durruti: :,(
To be fair, Durruti often quoted Kropotkin's "The only church that illuminates is a burning church."
nope
+ The naturian anarchists explained by a young girl. ruclips.net/video/0AiKMdq9QZk/видео.html
really intersting stuff very well made and animated
New to the whole concept of anarchism.
Can someone enlighten me on how decisions would be made in an anarchist society?
From what i understand voting will not exist since it could lead to a majority tyranny
+ The naturian anarchists explained by a young girl. ruclips.net/video/0AiKMdq9QZk/видео.html
1 await orders from FBI Agent
2 Comply
3 ???
4 Star Trek Picard
@Social Libertarian true but you won't have freedom in practice
One way practiced is "consensus". Its a process to reach agreement within a group. Consensus can be defined as "no strong opposition", not unanimity as one might expect.
The basics of it is that people identify a particular issue and discuss solutions. If there are disagreements then people will try solve them and find a solution that satisfies each member, or at least a solution that is not strongly opposed by each member.
There are certain criteria for what a valid strong opposition is, usually to do with it violating some group principles or being harmful to the group. Personal preference is not a valid reason, for example.
Obviously concensus can't be reached in every matter. If people have tried and failed to produce a generally satisfying solution, depending on the nature of the issue, the group can putthe issue aside until thoughts or solutions have changed, or if a decision has to be made then some form of majority voting can be done.
However, members would still have the right not to participate. So if someone still really hated the solution, they don't have to participate in its implementation, and ate of course free to continue arguing their case. You can also not participate if you just generally dislike the solution.
Great overview!
+ The naturian anarchists explained by a young girl. ruclips.net/video/0AiKMdq9QZk/видео.html
Wait a sec, did a 200 year old philosophist come up with the term "spook"? I thought 4chan or something made that up but...
Pierre - Joseph Proudhon speaks of : ( Considered by many as the father of Anarchy )
' We know what they are, and what they are worth ! They spider webs for the rich and mighty, steel chains for the poor and weak, fishing nets in the hands of government ' You probably a little puzzled now, P.J.P was talking about laws. Born 15 Jan 1809 died 19th 1865. He had written correspondence with Karl Marx, spent three years in prison for insulting President Louis-Napoleon Bonaparte 1849-1852.
I thought that syndicalism was a type of anarcho communism
Old comment, but I wanted to reply anyway: In contemporary anarchism it's usually agreed upon that anarcho-syndicalism is the method, and anarcho-communism the outcome. Even to this day many anarchists believe that syndicalism is the method through which we can achieve anarcho-communism.
Well done. Bravo.
+ The naturian anarchists explained by a young girl. ruclips.net/video/0AiKMdq9QZk/видео.html
You forgot Lao Tzu who's philosophical text "Te Dao Dejing" can also be interpreted as an Manual for an Anarchic Monarch.
Yes, Anarcho-Monarchism is a thing.
I've heard the term tossed around, but I thought it was tongue-in-cheek.
Anarcho-monarchism? Hahaha
Explain?
Ruben Granz no it’s just an abstract philosophy. However Daoism indeed was an ancient belief that included anarchist principles. Ultimately one cannot have anarchy (absence of rulers) and monarchy (one ruler).
It's a meme ideology.
+ The naturian anarchists explained by a young girl. ruclips.net/video/0AiKMdq9QZk/видео.html
informative and thank you for the book list
Anarcho-Communism is an oxymoron. Anarchy is about the individual and Communism is about the collective. It's not anarchy. The word you're looking for is synarchy. Anarchy comes from the ancient Greek "an archos," which just means no rulers. Synarchy means "joint rule." Communists are synarchists, not anarchists. Anarchy values the collective, but not at the expense of the individual. Communism/synarchy values the collective over the individual.
There’s kinda no real dichotomy between the collective and the individual good. This is because the collective is made up of all the individuals. If every individual works with each other to find common solutions that work for everyone then each individual person can do what they want and it is facilitated by the collective work being done. What’s best for the collective is best for every individual and what best for every individual is what’s best for the collective. It’s all about collectively accounting for everyone’s needs and facilitating the material means of everyone accomplishing their individual wants.
No lol. Same goal, different focuses.
Very interesting video!
Biji Rojava!
I've been learning about Marx for several years now, and have occasionally dipped my toe into anarchism. What I still don't understand is the fundamental difference between Marx's conception of communism, and left-Anarchist conceptions of anarchism. They look the same to me. Self-managed workers, classlessness, statelessness, the abolition of private property in the means of production, and a commitment to radical individual freedom and autonomy as a means for social emancipation ("the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all").
Where are the actual rifts and differences? In the video you say that these various anarchists criticised Marx, only to go on to say that they said the same kind of things that he did. For example, you say that Bakunin disagreed with Marx about the dictatorship of the proletariat, and that he preferred worker self management. Okay... so did Marx. That was his aim, a free association of producers. The dictatorship of the proletariat doesn't refer to a political arrangement, but to a social one, wherein rather than living in the dictatorship of the bourgeoise (as we do now), we flip the social order on its head. That doesn't mean an _actual_ dictatorship, it refers to a social order where the interests of the worker dictate the direction of society, rather than the interests of capitalists. This is necessarily part of any transitional period between a class-based society and a classless one. The only alternative would be to somehow move immediately from one state of affairs to the next.
Anybody else come here for The History of Narchism?
I think you mean Archism.
"The naturian anarchists explained by a young girl." ruclips.net/video/0AiKMdq9QZk/видео.html
Charles Darwin not only did not coin the phrase “survival of the fittest” (the phrase was invented by Herbert Spencer), but he argued against it.
Stirner sounds like the perfect Libertarian.
The American definition of "Libertarian" is a very unique thing. Everywhere else in the world, the word "Libertarian" and the word "Anarchist" are interchangeable, referring to people like Stirner and Kropotkin alike. American Libertarianism is it's own thing, concerned with the defending of private property and the free market. Stirner was an anti-capitalist, as he saw the market as another oppressive hierarchy which hampers the individual, no different than the state. Indeed, one of his most vital frameworks was the notion of Illegalism. While collectivist anarchists like Bakunin and Kropotkin advocated property theft as a means of building a revolution, Stirner advocates for property theft merely for its own sake. If you are an American Libertarian who is interested in more conventional anarchist thought, Mutualism would probably be a better option, as it leaves the free market intact.
@@R0S3inC0NCR33T the capitalist definition of libertarian has been growing up a lot here in Latin America sadly.
He is mostly criticizing all those abstractions that we strive for, identify with, or those ideas that we use to get together and he would definitely refuse to say that he is a libertarian.
His critique is the most fundamental and therefore philosophical that i have ever seen. If you ask me, i would say that it is the very core Essence of anarchism because even though he would also refuse to identify as anarchist, in the end he strives for ABSOLUTE autonomy or the refusal of any Control over his own will.
You make a point that Kropotkin has much in common with Rousseau, however, Kropotkin's idea of mutual aid and Rousseau's noble savage don't point to the same conception of human nature. Rousseau had a romantic idea of human nature and thought that universal love leads to cooperation. For Kropotkin, however, it is mutual benefit that drives cooperation, not a romantic ideal of universal love.
Anarcho-Syndicalism is the political ideology that I most strongly identify with. Noam Chomsky is based. but because I am what they call a "class reductionist" others in the space think I am far right, but this video confirms it for me that I am actually a leftist. thank you.
Very interesting - thank you.
Libertarianism and Taoism are not anarchism. Quite the opposite. Freedom of choice and the principle of consent are the foundation of a polite society and liberty.
+ The naturian anarchists explained by a young girl. ruclips.net/video/0AiKMdq9QZk/видео.html
Thomas Müntzer, our father
Anarchy simple means without rulers not without rules.
You cannot have rules if there isn't anyone (hopefully unbiased) enforcing those rules.
@Matthew Quinlan thats how everyone here knows you know nothing of anarchism thats literally what theyve been trying to prevent from the opportunist MLs and wannabe leninists to actual dictators.. you need to start reading
@consciouseye7209 You will never be 'free' by your definition, except if you leave earth. Even then, only for a time until other humans come.
@Rehunauris you have so much to learn.
@darklelouchg8505 What rules do you think I am talking about?
5:35 to me the idea of people being inherently self-serving is a spook in and of itself which hurts anarchism.
See Civilized to Death: Christopher Ryan on how we may have lived before so called civilization was “invented “....looks like Anarchy
I've never had a good explanation of what an anarchist society would treat dissenters. By 'dissenters' I mean anyone whose acts or views are inconsistent with the continuance of an anarchist society. This could be a Communist, a bandit, an intellectual who sought to persuade others to abandon anarchism, a psychopath who raped and killed, or a parent who sought to obtain advantage for his or her child. If anyone could direct me to a good answer, I would be very grateful. I have been posting this question on anarchist comment sections for about 8 years now. I have never had an answer that accepts that someone living in an anarchist society might want to disavow anarchist principles.