Anarchism is not childish. Capitalism fosters a denial of responsibility that goes up the hierarchy. What we as anarchists want to do is take control of our own lives and care for each other and the earth, and more importantly, take responsibility for those things as individuals. What is childish is to think that you still need to be told what to do.
@@livewire2759 And what if their parents die? Should we not have a means to help them, to take up the role of the parents? Do you not think the Child and Family Agency have a positive role? What if the parents are incredibly despicable and teach their kids to be horrible people? It’s a simple question: what if the parents aren’t good parents? I recognise that the state is simply a means to back up private property. I’m aware police forces were set up to prevent workers from taking over factories and that public safety was an afterthought. But the government would have a role in a post capitalist world enforcing laws.
@@GoblinKing-im2uz Responsible parents should plan ahead... including making arrangements with other family members or friends to take the children if they die. In many cases, friends and family step up to adopt the orphaned children anyway, which is far better than any and every government orphanage/foster care/ect... program that has ever existed. If I die, I know my children will be taken care of, will yours be forced into state custody and run through the ringer of foster parents who only do it for the free government money?
I discovered this great man 14 years too late, it seems, but I love him with all my heart. Such a vital and eloquent speaker, who has done more to spark my imagination, lift my spirits and satiate my class rage than anyone I've ever met in the flesh. Plus he had a lovely beard.
Its never too late my friend . Although I was lucky to have hung out with him on several occasions and enjoyed his company before and after his shows in the northern California mountain towns I lived , he is still alive in us that still know who he was and still is .
I found about him only about a year ago. Coming from a working poor background and already a union supporter, Utah Phillips inspired me to get a start in labor organization by joining the Wobblies.
I was raised in Salt Lake City in a Mormon community by Republican parents - my father an insurance agent and they imposed upon me their values and limited World view - but one day they blew it when they let me take guitar lessons down at a music store where Bruce Phillips was teaching . He would teach me some guitar , but mostly , he would rant and rave about stuff that I was too young or too stupid to understand , as he played some guitar (the BEST of course!) and rambled through some material both musically and politically of which I give him credit for my guitar playing to this day and my position on anarchy which I fully endorse ! R I P Mr.Phillips !
According to wikipedia: Phillips was born in Cleveland to Edwin Deroger Phillips and Frances Kathleen Coates. His father, Edwin Phillips, was a labor organizer, and his parents' activism influenced much of his life's work. Phillips was a card-carrying member of the Industrial Workers of the World (Wobblies) headquartered in Chicago. His parents divorced and his mother remarried. Phillips was adopted at the age of five by his stepfather, Syd Cohen, who managed the Hippodrome Theater in Cleveland, one of the last vaudeville houses in the city. Cohen moved the family to Salt Lake City, Utah, where he managed the Lyric Theater, another vaudeville house. Phillips attributes his early exposure to vaudeville through his stepfather as being an important influence on his later career. Phillips attended East High School in Salt Lake City, where he was involved in the arts and plays. He served in the United States Army for three years in the 1950s. Witnessing the devastation of post-war Korea greatly influenced his social and political thinking. After discharge from the army, Phillips rode the railroads, and wrote songs.
he was Unitarian Universalist. basically a combination of two like religious views that God is too merciful and compassionate as to condemn anyone to hell for acting how they created them. If there was ever a religion I as an atheist and anarchist could be friendly to, it'd be that.
I grew up in an atheist Quaker community - no specific creed or dogma, EXCEPT to figure out your relationship to others and the universe on your own. Sounds like an atheist anarchist religion to me. Sadly that was in the 1970s and early 1980s. Those folks have dispersed and the many (most?) of the Quakers I interact with now are fairly dogmatic about their religious views.
Went to the Vancouver folk festival every year as a kid, and Utah Phillips was always there. Once I was caught in front of him crossing a crowded bridge while horsing around with my friend. Didn't share a look or a moment with him or anything, just noticed he was behind us with his denim overalls. But somehow I feel honoured to have shared a space with the man. Rest in peace
Responsibility to each other equally on a horizontal completely egalitarian scale. There is caring and solidarity to replace the negative enforcement and punishment of authority. Responsibility to a community has much more power than responsibility to a state that that does not represent your interests and that rules by fear and manipulation. i.e all states
@rkummel011235 True. But Utah is right about people often confusing Anarchy with chaos and violence. I remember something Howard Zinn said once. He said: "Yes I'm an anarchist If I can explain to you what that means to me". I feel the same way. Alot of people will look at you funny if you tell them that your an anarchist, if you tell them you're an "libertarian socialist" they might not understand what the hell you're talking about. I call myself both, if I get to explain myself.
@DMU555 I haven't read his bio, so I don't know. He might have been. I have a bunch of his records, and I respect him a great deal. Both as a songwriter (he was up there with the best Tom T. Hall, Townes Van Zandt etc, etc) I was sad to see him go. The four cd songbook collection is great. I can't get enough of it.
I'm quite friendly to Rastafari, it's more of a peaceful religion and a way of life rather than telling you how to live it, i myself am atheist and an anarchist but I have many friends who are rastas and majority of them embrace very friendly vibes and culture, they reject materialism and greed, and understand that not everyone is perfect
Not sure who is saying Utah was not "religious" and that anarchy means that there is no god, both of these statements in a purely semantic sense can be construed as true I suppose, in regards to this context and this man, however, I assure you Utah is a Christian Anarchist. Ammon Hennacy is a very close friend if not a brother of/to Utah who showed him what it is to be a christian anarchist. Feel free to research this. Although a very popular 'definition' of anarchy is the "no gods, no masters' slogan/mantra look at the etymology and it is of ancient greek and means without ruler/chief. In an applied meaning it is horizontal democracy, mutual aid, consensus, and voluntary. One who believes in The Divine and/or Christ need not, nor should they "lord" their belief over others. That being said those who do not believe also need not lord that non-belief over others. In a purely Spiritual context Faith in Jesus should be one of compassion and unity a common thread through out of all life that need not be pushed or proselytized. Leo Tolstoy's The Kingdom of God is within you is a seminal work on this subject for those interested. There is also The Book of Ammon as well. Many prominent anarchist 'fathers' or thinkers do however hold to an expression of anarchy without any form of God and are very clear on that point. I would only say that much of what is called God or more so 'religion' is a form of oppression just like what is called democracy or freedom is oppression in disguise. ~ For myself I see Anarchy as a removing of these false positives and an insertion (non-violently) of genuine freedom- physically, politically, and spiritually. an anarchist need not be a christian or any other 'religion', but a christian(real) by default is anarchist- IMO ~
Right. Put in simple words: Anarchism does not at all suggest that there is no god. Or that there is a god. Either one. Nor does it put pressure on people to disregard their personal spiritual believe. It simply leaves it as individual choice, And since individual choice is the most held value, freedom of religion is a value of anarchism. As long as it happens on a individual, voluntary basis. Religion just can not be used to govern/oppress people - while the still popular phrase "for god and country" suggest just that. That the leader and the country act with an other worldly approval, that gives them the "god-given" right to act. Actually for a christian that "god-given" should be pure blasphemy... The problem is that people love to be controlled. And are in fear of being responsible. They call for "strong leaders". And they are willing to use any kind of excuse, wrongful argument, and fear factor to disregard any philosophy that is based on equal share of rights, duty and responsibility in favor of being controlled. That includes the clearly untrue "anarchists are against religion" argument. Anarchist are against religion as a governing principle. Else they don't care.
Anarchy is the mutually voluntary association of individuals or groups. There are many flavors, and I prefer the one that includes the non-aggression principal of do no harm. Not to be taken as pacifism.
I think you should learn about the history of anarchism and what the term actually means. Etymology is one thing but a political philosophy is another. Anarchism is an entire political philosophy with a history, and in it's history it has never simply meant no authority. It means that, but it means more than that. And there have been many christian anarchists, like Leo Tolstoy.
this guy wants to correct utah phillips about what anarchy actually means, lmao if you can't see how ridiculous this is you gotta do some reflecting dude
you can have a non-coercive government, that takes care of people, and simply coordinates efforts to allow people to accomplish the most in the best interest of all. We just don't have it.
In an anarchist community, how would the problem of factions be dealt with? People tend to form groups that fit with their interests, and seek the power to protect them. In the absence of the state or any kind of hierarchy, who would prevent the voluntary hierarchies form forming and gaining power? Think of the warlords of Afghanistan or Africa. Think of the Mafia.
You're missing the point. Anarchy doesn't mean that no one tells you what to do... i.e. Lord of the Flies chaos. It means you have to actually learn how to tell yourself what to do... which means taking responsibility for your own actions and learning how to get things done that need to get done. He was also a pacifist... which means finding ways to get things done without violence or the threat of violence or violence implied.
you see the idea is that god doesn't have to factor in, because you don't need some "higher power" to guide you, and you can think for yourself. and it's O.K.to have the religious opinion, and hopefully you can make that decision for yourself, on your own terms, not out of fear, or peer pressure. it shows up in your mythology under "free will" and ought to be embraced. Bottoming out? you don't need me to tell you: raping is bad killing is usually bad, among other things. Anarchy needs Autonomy.
There's a big ass gap between how things should be and they actually are. They always seem Pollyannish about the fact that there are venal and evil people in this world.
Not obey, do your fair share of the work you have the ability to do, which would be a lot less work, and the consequence for not doing said work wouldn't be imprisonment like in capitalism.
I would say no, you would not be required to do anything, but no one would be required to feed those unwilling to work, either. Being willing to help others does not mean having to take care of those unwilling to take care of themselves. And at the end of the day, we all have to decide for ourselves what it means to do our work in the world.
I live in Canada. We have not had a war on our soil since 1814. We have created some of the greatest technological and medical advances ever. We have a nearly 100% literacy rate, and it takes a major catastrophe for the power to be out for more than a couple hours. What can you do in an anarchist society that you are not free to do in Canada? There are many things you can do in Canada that you cannot do in Chiapas. Like turn on the lights and read.
I would really love to know if you still have the same opinion in 2021 that you held 9 years ago. The coercion in place then led directly to the complete oppression in place now.
haha unless it's anarchist it won't work. if you're referring to one that is voluntary as in a federation of direct democratic communes then your an anarchist. just about anything else isn't anarchism, anything that doesn't give maximum freedom to the individual without giving them freedom to take it away from others is not anarchism.
Following that line of thought, you're better off trying to build a lasting checked and balanced government that looks out for the people, than let every individual person do anything they want to other people-there are nice people, but most peoples idea of anarchism is being able to take and do anything they please. Changing people's mindsets is the challenge. If enough people have a temperament that could succeed without hurting others without government, the government would be nice anyway.
What's with the name-calling? I was enjoying this discussion. Taking a job means assuming duties. Nobody forced these people to become faculty. Choices have consequences. Does you really believe in a world where everyone can do whatever they want all the time? Choosing "A" means you can't have "anti-A."
You are missing my point. I am not arguing that it must be good because it is popular. Anarchy places free choice above all. Most people will not freely choose anarchy. They will choose a hierarchical system. Can you not see the logical contradiction there? It brings us back to my initial question: how do you prevent people from voluntarily forming factions and hierarchies and creating a nation in the heart of your anarchist paradise? For that matter, by what authority are hierarchies wrong?
Sounds good, but....it bottoms out on the Lord of the Flies principle. "An-archy" means no authority, each man doing right in his own eyes. For sure, Utah is a great story teller, but I didn't hear anything about where, or if, God fit into his worldview.
Your question assumes a moral imperative. If a moral imperative exists that says a thing is right or wrong, then yes, you can impose that moral imperative on people against their will. The idea of having rights only makes sense if there is some authority behind those rights. The same authority which grants you your rights also makes demands of you.
Circular reasoning. Your argument depends on your conclusion. You believe that you alone have authority over your life because you alone have authority over your life and you believe that you alone have authority over your life. You argument about people just being a product of their environment is self-defeating, since it means you are just the product of your environment. You are only an anarchist because of the way you were raised, not the merits of the philosophy.
You are correct in that a "god" is not necessary to form moral opinions and act on them. But in the absence of an eternal, perfect moral authority, your moral opinions are no more valid than your choice of breakfast. "Right" has as much inherent meaning as "delicious." If life is just a purposeless cosmic accident, why is taking a life wrong?
In each case they were replaced by tyrants, and the people preferred the tyrants to the "autonomous collective." Look at how the Russians had a lost decade after the fall of communism and then embraced Putin with open arms. People have emotions. Fear is a powerful motivator and uncertainty creates fear. Autonomous collectives, by their very nature, cannot provide any sense of security. You need investors, both capital and labour. Investors need to manage risk, which is hard in anarchy.
Communism wasn't the beginning of the story either. The Tsars' government was completely authoritarian. The Communists changed the flags on top, but kept the authoritarianism that had always been there. I'm pretty sure it was Utah who said, "An anarchist is a man who doesn't need a policeman to tell him what to do." Most people, under the Tsars, under Communism, and under other kinds of government, have been too traumatized to be free of that need for policemen. And we're still living among those traumatized people.
@@johnc206 Lenin didn't overthrow the Tsar. He had already been effectively deposed and replaced with a democratic government. It is simply a lie to say that the Tsar was as authoritarian as the Marxists. It is often the case that there is a short-term moderate government that is easily deposed by extremists. The challenge is to have the right balance of power between the government and liberty.
@@tomforsythe7024 Kindly substantiate the non-authoritarianism of the Tsarist government. I'll grant that twentieth-century technology enabled much larger-scale murder than the Tsars had presided over.
@@johnc206 I concede that it was authoritarian, but not as authoritarian as the Marxists. And, you ignored my point that the Tsar had already been replaced in the February Revolution. (Note: I posted the original comment under my old account. I have become much more distrusting of the state, since then. I am highly sympathetic to anarchists, I just disagree about human nature.)
@@johnc206 It wasn't just the technology, it was the ideology which led to the wholesale slaughter of millions. The Tsar wanted to maintain power for the Tsar. That limited the scope of his abuse. Marxists were (and still are) trying to create a new Man and a new world. They think that anything can be justified, because their goal is pure.
There's no need for a god, for some primitive superstition - a religion, for one to live in a highly moral and ethical way. There's no real need for a state either. People tend to do just fine when they build strong, close communities and nobody interferes with them.
The problem with labor leaders of his ilk is that they got lost in the movement and ceded enormous power to corrupt leaders. That's the primary reason the labor movement is dead today. Anarchy is a silly concept to organize a social movement around. By definition anarchy is disorganization. Society, to exist, requires order. As a folk singer, he's an interesting performer. As a philosopher, not so much. I never heard of Utah Phillips until about 3 or 4 years ago, but I remember a lot of simplistic anarchists from the 60s. It's a rebellious concept born of the cities which grew from the industrial revolution. It is another utopian fantasy by people who have never read Moore's "Utopia".
From the comments I have seen here, the anarchist position is "I get to do whatever I want because I say so." It is dressed up in more intellectual language, but it is the reasoning of a two-year-old.
Anarchy can't "require" anything. Requiring something means imposing authority. Why do you find it unreasonable to expect that people will behave the way they have always behaved throughout human history? How do you prevent people from exercising power over other people without exercising power over them? You might not like the examples of the Mafia or warlords, but you didn't give any solution to the problem posed by greedy, violent men and mob psychology.
Excuses, excuses. The fact that you cannot point to a single prosperous, peaceful anarchist community that can defend itself is a huge problem for you. Blaming capitalists, Fascists, or communists for oppressing these communities does not change the fact that capitalists, Fascists, and communists are always more powerful and easily able to oppress those communities.
Being in a union is freedom of association. But many of the tactics use by unions would be considered collusion, extortion, and racketeering if done by anyone else. You are free to strike, but not to obstruct others from entering your workplace. You have the right to organize, but not to force your employer to only hire members of your union. And if you have a contract, you do NOT have the right to strike.
"Defeated by massive Fascist & more importantly Bolshevik propaganda and military force" Exactly my point. Autonomous collectives are not powerful enough to protect their people. As far as Chiapas goes, would you want to live there? What is it that you like about their province? Poverty? Illiteracy? Lack of electricity? Chiapas is only free because Mexico has decided not to crush them like a bug, and it is the freedom of a vagrant.
Oh Utah. You had some valid points, but being a hobo Unitarian wasn't one of them. I always used to wonder why the conservatives in town hated you so; now that I work for a living to pay for people you think shouldn't have to work, I completely understand their disdain. If only you inspired people to work harder and give more to humanity than to look for ways to steal other's wealth.
look up one dr demento, now im bombarded with those that were on the show....could be worse, i guess, could be bombarded with talentless "influencers" running amok, doing nothing productive 🤷♂️ my god, it's moose turd pie....it's good tho
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
Anarchism is not childish. Capitalism fosters a denial of responsibility that goes up the hierarchy. What we as anarchists want to do is take control of our own lives and care for each other and the earth, and more importantly, take responsibility for those things as individuals. What is childish is to think that you still need to be told what to do.
How did that work out for you?
I’ll tell you, some people do still need to be told what to do
@@GoblinKing-im2uz That's their parent's job, their responsibility, not anyone else, and certainly not a government.
@@livewire2759 And what if their parents die? Should we not have a means to help them, to take up the role of the parents? Do you not think the Child and Family Agency have a positive role?
What if the parents are incredibly despicable and teach their kids to be horrible people?
It’s a simple question: what if the parents aren’t good parents?
I recognise that the state is simply a means to back up private property. I’m aware police forces were set up to prevent workers from taking over factories and that public safety was an afterthought. But the government would have a role in a post capitalist world enforcing laws.
@@GoblinKing-im2uz Responsible parents should plan ahead... including making arrangements with other family members or friends to take the children if they die. In many cases, friends and family step up to adopt the orphaned children anyway, which is far better than any and every government orphanage/foster care/ect... program that has ever existed. If I die, I know my children will be taken care of, will yours be forced into state custody and run through the ringer of foster parents who only do it for the free government money?
I discovered this great man 14 years too late, it seems, but I love him with all my heart. Such a vital and eloquent speaker, who has done more to spark my imagination, lift my spirits and satiate my class rage than anyone I've ever met in the flesh. Plus he had a lovely beard.
Its never too late my friend . Although I was lucky to have hung out with him on several occasions and enjoyed his company before and after his shows in the northern California mountain towns I lived , he is still alive in us that still know who he was and still is .
Joe Hill and Utah Phillips live through us
I found about him only about a year ago. Coming from a working poor background and already a union supporter, Utah Phillips inspired me to get a start in labor organization by joining the Wobblies.
I was raised in Salt Lake City in a Mormon community by Republican parents - my father an insurance agent and they imposed upon me their values and limited World view - but one day they blew it when they let me take guitar lessons down at a music store where Bruce Phillips was teaching .
He would teach me some guitar , but mostly , he would rant and rave about stuff that I was too young or too stupid to understand , as he played some guitar (the BEST of course!) and rambled through some material both musically and politically of which I give him credit for my guitar playing to this day and my position on anarchy which I fully endorse ! R I P Mr.Phillips !
According to wikipedia:
Phillips was born in Cleveland to Edwin Deroger Phillips and Frances Kathleen Coates. His father, Edwin Phillips, was a labor organizer, and his parents' activism influenced much of his life's work. Phillips was a card-carrying member of the Industrial Workers of the World (Wobblies) headquartered in Chicago.
His parents divorced and his mother remarried. Phillips was adopted at the age of five by his stepfather, Syd Cohen, who managed the Hippodrome Theater in Cleveland, one of the last vaudeville houses in the city.
Cohen moved the family to Salt Lake City, Utah, where he managed the Lyric Theater, another vaudeville house. Phillips attributes his early exposure to vaudeville through his stepfather as being an important influence on his later career.
Phillips attended East High School in Salt Lake City, where he was involved in the arts and plays.
He served in the United States Army for three years in the 1950s. Witnessing the devastation of post-war Korea greatly influenced his social and political thinking. After discharge from the army, Phillips rode the railroads, and wrote songs.
cool story!
This is a beautiful story thank you for sharng.
Bruce used to stay with a friend of mine when he visited Kentucky before he became more widely known.
Freedom with responsibility, not freedom from responsibility!
ruclips.net/p/PLygqavJysUHLOfPuzXfUl_ka0nKpxXTEw
True freedom begets responsibility naturally
You are missed every day Utah....
he was Unitarian Universalist. basically a combination of two like religious views that God is too merciful and compassionate as to condemn anyone to hell for acting how they created them.
If there was ever a religion I as an atheist and anarchist could be friendly to, it'd be that.
I grew up in an atheist Quaker community - no specific creed or dogma, EXCEPT to figure out your relationship to others and the universe on your own. Sounds like an atheist anarchist religion to me. Sadly that was in the 1970s and early 1980s. Those folks have dispersed and the many (most?) of the Quakers I interact with now are fairly dogmatic about their religious views.
I hang out with Unitarian Universalists these days.
Why not be friendly to everyone?
Went to the Vancouver folk festival every year as a kid, and Utah Phillips was always there. Once I was caught in front of him crossing a crowded bridge while horsing around with my friend. Didn't share a look or a moment with him or anything, just noticed he was behind us with his denim overalls. But somehow I feel honoured to have shared a space with the man. Rest in peace
this is the most important thing i've heard in years, thanks :)
Responsibility to each other equally on a horizontal completely egalitarian scale. There is caring and solidarity to replace the negative enforcement and punishment of authority. Responsibility to a community has much more power than responsibility to a state that that does not represent your interests and that rules by fear and manipulation. i.e all states
I was raised in salt lake city my whole life and now, 3 years out i hear about this cool slc anarchist from a friend
Damn shame really
Very insightful!
@rkummel011235 True. But Utah is right about people often confusing Anarchy with chaos and violence. I remember something Howard Zinn said once. He said: "Yes I'm an anarchist If I can explain to you what that means to me". I feel the same way. Alot of people will look at you funny if you tell them that your an anarchist, if you tell them you're an "libertarian socialist" they might not understand what the hell you're talking about. I call myself both, if I get to explain myself.
wow I agree so much
@DMU555 I haven't read his bio, so I don't know. He might have been. I have a bunch of his records, and I respect him a great deal. Both as a songwriter (he was up there with the best Tom T. Hall, Townes Van Zandt etc, etc) I was sad to see him go. The four cd songbook collection is great. I can't get enough of it.
I'm quite friendly to Rastafari, it's more of a peaceful religion and a way of life rather than telling you how to live it, i myself am atheist and an anarchist but I have many friends who are rastas and majority of them embrace very friendly vibes and culture, they reject materialism and greed, and understand that not everyone is perfect
Not sure who is saying Utah was not "religious" and that anarchy means that there is no god, both of these statements in a purely semantic sense can be construed as true I suppose, in regards to this context and this man, however, I assure you Utah is a Christian Anarchist. Ammon Hennacy is a very close friend if not a brother of/to Utah who showed him what it is to be a christian anarchist. Feel free to research this. Although a very popular 'definition' of anarchy is the "no gods, no masters' slogan/mantra look at the etymology and it is of ancient greek and means without ruler/chief. In an applied meaning it is horizontal democracy, mutual aid, consensus, and voluntary. One who believes in The Divine and/or Christ need not, nor should they "lord" their belief over others. That being said those who do not believe also need not lord that non-belief over others. In a purely Spiritual context Faith in Jesus should be one of compassion and unity a common thread through out of all life that need not be pushed or proselytized. Leo Tolstoy's The Kingdom of God is within you is a seminal work on this subject for those interested. There is also The Book of Ammon as well. Many prominent anarchist 'fathers' or thinkers do however hold to an expression of anarchy without any form of God and are very clear on that point. I would only say that much of what is called God or more so 'religion' is a form of oppression just like what is called democracy or freedom is oppression in disguise. ~ For myself I see Anarchy as a removing of these false positives and an insertion (non-violently) of genuine freedom- physically, politically, and spiritually. an anarchist need not be a christian or any other 'religion', but a christian(real) by default is anarchist- IMO ~
Right. Put in simple words: Anarchism does not at all suggest that there is no god. Or that there is a god. Either one. Nor does it put pressure on people to disregard their personal spiritual believe. It simply leaves it as individual choice, And since individual choice is the most held value, freedom of religion is a value of anarchism. As long as it happens on a individual, voluntary basis. Religion just can not be used to govern/oppress people - while the still popular phrase "for god and country" suggest just that. That the leader and the country act with an other worldly approval, that gives them the "god-given" right to act. Actually for a christian that "god-given" should be pure blasphemy...
The problem is that people love to be controlled. And are in fear of being responsible. They call for "strong leaders". And they are willing to use any kind of excuse, wrongful argument, and fear factor to disregard any philosophy that is based on equal share of rights, duty and responsibility in favor of being controlled. That includes the clearly untrue "anarchists are against religion" argument. Anarchist are against religion as a governing principle. Else they don't care.
Sounds like pie in the sky, fellow worker!
Jesus' original Christian fellowship was an anarchy.
When was this recorded?
Awsome
Anarchy is the mutually voluntary association of individuals or groups. There are many flavors, and I prefer the one that includes the non-aggression principal of do no harm. Not to be taken as pacifism.
samuski36 socialism in it's purest form.
@DeflocculatedDentist Haha guess so. In that case I guess I may help myself to a few songs.
I think you should learn about the history of anarchism and what the term actually means. Etymology is one thing but a political philosophy is another. Anarchism is an entire political philosophy with a history, and in it's history it has never simply meant no authority. It means that, but it means more than that. And there have been many christian anarchists, like Leo Tolstoy.
this guy wants to correct utah phillips about what anarchy actually means, lmao
if you can't see how ridiculous this is you gotta do some reflecting dude
@@methyod you just responded to a 9 year old youtube comment bro you got some reflecting to do
you can have a non-coercive government, that takes care of people, and simply coordinates efforts to allow people to accomplish the most in the best interest of all.
We just don't have it.
@Mntgoatsfan He was.
In an anarchist community, how would the problem of factions be dealt with? People tend to form groups that fit with their interests, and seek the power to protect them. In the absence of the state or any kind of hierarchy, who would prevent the voluntary hierarchies form forming and gaining power? Think of the warlords of Afghanistan or Africa. Think of the Mafia.
dragknuckle All those rose up in non-anarchist societies. It would be possible for such to happen again but it's not worth the worry
'anarchist' means 'freedom' to me.
I will not obey, I will not comply.
this is wonderful, Allen Moore would be proud
Responsibility to whom?
agreed
carry it on
Dump the bosses off your back, down the bosses and the bankers! Join the IWW! OBU!
@Mntgoatsfan i highly dought utah was religious. he did do the preacher and the slave remember.
You're missing the point. Anarchy doesn't mean that no one tells you what to do... i.e. Lord of the Flies chaos. It means you have to actually learn how to tell yourself what to do... which means taking responsibility for your own actions and learning how to get things done that need to get done. He was also a pacifist... which means finding ways to get things done without violence or the threat of violence or violence implied.
you see the idea is that god doesn't have to factor in, because you don't need some "higher power" to guide you, and you can think for yourself. and it's O.K.to have the religious opinion, and hopefully you can make that decision for yourself, on your own terms, not out of fear, or peer pressure. it shows up in your mythology under "free will" and ought to be embraced. Bottoming out? you don't need me to tell you: raping is bad killing is usually bad, among other things. Anarchy needs Autonomy.
There's a big ass gap between how things should be and they actually are. They always seem Pollyannish about the fact that there are venal and evil people in this world.
@Mntgoatsfan I mostly like him for his anarchism, his music is good but I'll never be as into him as to buy his work I don't think.
Gone too soon...
So even in an anarchist world you would have to obey, even if you disagreed?
Not obey, do your fair share of the work you have the ability to do, which would be a lot less work, and the consequence for not doing said work wouldn't be imprisonment like in capitalism.
I would say no, you would not be required to do anything, but no one would be required to feed those unwilling to work, either. Being willing to help others does not mean having to take care of those unwilling to take care of themselves. And at the end of the day, we all have to decide for ourselves what it means to do our work in the world.
@@kismetandkarma6428 Obey or starve? I thought Marxists said food was a human right.
@commentatertot I don't think he wa a religious man.
I live in Canada. We have not had a war on our soil since 1814. We have created some of the greatest technological and medical advances ever. We have a nearly 100% literacy rate, and it takes a major catastrophe for the power to be out for more than a couple hours.
What can you do in an anarchist society that you are not free to do in Canada? There are many things you can do in Canada that you cannot do in Chiapas. Like turn on the lights and read.
I would really love to know if you still have the same opinion in 2021 that you held 9 years ago. The coercion in place then led directly to the complete oppression in place now.
We all use the threat of violence, even if we do so passively. In our civilization we are protected by even the possibility of police being called.
haha unless it's anarchist it won't work. if you're referring to one that is voluntary as in a federation of direct democratic communes then your an anarchist. just about anything else isn't anarchism, anything that doesn't give maximum freedom to the individual without giving them freedom to take it away from others is not anarchism.
Following that line of thought, you're better off trying to build a lasting checked and balanced government that looks out for the people, than let every individual person do anything they want to other people-there are nice people, but most peoples idea of anarchism is being able to take and do anything they please.
Changing people's mindsets is the challenge. If enough people have a temperament that could succeed without hurting others without government, the government would be nice anyway.
Utah was an Unitarian. Seriously.
What's with the name-calling? I was enjoying this discussion.
Taking a job means assuming duties. Nobody forced these people to become faculty. Choices have consequences.
Does you really believe in a world where everyone can do whatever they want all the time? Choosing "A" means you can't have "anti-A."
Holacracy
You are missing my point. I am not arguing that it must be good because it is popular.
Anarchy places free choice above all. Most people will not freely choose anarchy. They will choose a hierarchical system. Can you not see the logical contradiction there? It brings us back to my initial question: how do you prevent people from voluntarily forming factions and hierarchies and creating a nation in the heart of your anarchist paradise?
For that matter, by what authority are hierarchies wrong?
hierarchies are inherently violent, violence (outside fo self defence) against others with conciousness is wrong
Sounds good, but....it bottoms out on the Lord of the Flies principle. "An-archy" means no authority, each man doing right in his own eyes. For sure, Utah is a great story teller, but I didn't hear anything about where, or if, God fit into his worldview.
Your question assumes a moral imperative. If a moral imperative exists that says a thing is right or wrong, then yes, you can impose that moral imperative on people against their will.
The idea of having rights only makes sense if there is some authority behind those rights. The same authority which grants you your rights also makes demands of you.
Circular reasoning. Your argument depends on your conclusion. You believe that you alone have authority over your life because you alone have authority over your life and you believe that you alone have authority over your life.
You argument about people just being a product of their environment is self-defeating, since it means you are just the product of your environment. You are only an anarchist because of the way you were raised, not the merits of the philosophy.
You are correct in that a "god" is not necessary to form moral opinions and act on them. But in the absence of an eternal, perfect moral authority, your moral opinions are no more valid than your choice of breakfast. "Right" has as much inherent meaning as "delicious."
If life is just a purposeless cosmic accident, why is taking a life wrong?
Regardless as to whether you think anarchy would be better, the overwhelming majority prefer the nation state.
In each case they were replaced by tyrants, and the people preferred the tyrants to the "autonomous collective." Look at how the Russians had a lost decade after the fall of communism and then embraced Putin with open arms.
People have emotions. Fear is a powerful motivator and uncertainty creates fear. Autonomous collectives, by their very nature, cannot provide any sense of security. You need investors, both capital and labour. Investors need to manage risk, which is hard in anarchy.
Communism wasn't the beginning of the story either. The Tsars' government was completely authoritarian. The Communists changed the flags on top, but kept the authoritarianism that had always been there.
I'm pretty sure it was Utah who said, "An anarchist is a man who doesn't need a policeman to tell him what to do." Most people, under the Tsars, under Communism, and under other kinds of government, have been too traumatized to be free of that need for policemen.
And we're still living among those traumatized people.
@@johnc206 Lenin didn't overthrow the Tsar. He had already been effectively deposed and replaced with a democratic government. It is simply a lie to say that the Tsar was as authoritarian as the Marxists.
It is often the case that there is a short-term moderate government that is easily deposed by extremists. The challenge is to have the right balance of power between the government and liberty.
@@tomforsythe7024 Kindly substantiate the non-authoritarianism of the Tsarist government.
I'll grant that twentieth-century technology enabled much larger-scale murder than the Tsars had presided over.
@@johnc206 I concede that it was authoritarian, but not as authoritarian as the Marxists. And, you ignored my point that the Tsar had already been replaced in the February Revolution. (Note: I posted the original comment under my old account. I have become much more distrusting of the state, since then. I am highly sympathetic to anarchists, I just disagree about human nature.)
@@johnc206 It wasn't just the technology, it was the ideology which led to the wholesale slaughter of millions. The Tsar wanted to maintain power for the Tsar. That limited the scope of his abuse. Marxists were (and still are) trying to create a new Man and a new world. They think that anything can be justified, because their goal is pure.
There's no need for a god, for some primitive superstition - a religion, for one to live in a highly moral and ethical way. There's no real need for a state either. People tend to do just fine when they build strong, close communities and nobody interferes with them.
¡HABLA MUCHO Y POCA MUSICA?
That doesn't change the fact that this man was religious.
Like it or not, there IS going to be a state. We must therefore deal with the state.
I have enjoyed this discussion, but all you are doing now is repeating the same fallacious arguments. Still, it has been thought provoking.
The problem with labor leaders of his ilk is that they got lost in the movement and ceded enormous power to corrupt leaders. That's the primary reason the labor movement is dead today.
Anarchy is a silly concept to organize a social movement around. By definition anarchy is disorganization. Society, to exist, requires order. As a folk singer, he's an interesting performer. As a philosopher, not so much.
I never heard of Utah Phillips until about 3 or 4 years ago, but I remember a lot of simplistic anarchists from the 60s. It's a rebellious concept born of the cities which grew from the industrial revolution. It is another utopian fantasy by people who have never read Moore's "Utopia".
anarchism is a belief that there is no god and no government there is nothing higher or lower than yourself we are all equal.
From the comments I have seen here, the anarchist position is "I get to do whatever I want because I say so." It is dressed up in more intellectual language, but it is the reasoning of a two-year-old.
dragknuckle read a book.
Anarchy can't "require" anything. Requiring something means imposing authority.
Why do you find it unreasonable to expect that people will behave the way they have always behaved throughout human history? How do you prevent people from exercising power over other people without exercising power over them?
You might not like the examples of the Mafia or warlords, but you didn't give any solution to the problem posed by greedy, violent men and mob psychology.
Excuses, excuses. The fact that you cannot point to a single prosperous, peaceful anarchist community that can defend itself is a huge problem for you. Blaming capitalists, Fascists, or communists for oppressing these communities does not change the fact that capitalists, Fascists, and communists are always more powerful and easily able to oppress those communities.
Yes, and you can eat all the chocolate cake you want and not gain an ounce.
Here in the real world we have competing interests and selfish people.
Being in a union is freedom of association. But many of the tactics use by unions would be considered collusion, extortion, and racketeering if done by anyone else.
You are free to strike, but not to obstruct others from entering your workplace. You have the right to organize, but not to force your employer to only hire members of your union.
And if you have a contract, you do NOT have the right to strike.
"Defeated by massive Fascist & more importantly Bolshevik propaganda and military force"
Exactly my point. Autonomous collectives are not powerful enough to protect their people.
As far as Chiapas goes, would you want to live there? What is it that you like about their province? Poverty? Illiteracy? Lack of electricity?
Chiapas is only free because Mexico has decided not to crush them like a bug, and it is the freedom of a vagrant.
not an anarchist but im am definetly not an obamaist!! ha
Facist?
Left non statists an right non statists unite
Oh Utah. You had some valid points, but being a hobo Unitarian wasn't one of them.
I always used to wonder why the conservatives in town hated you so; now that I work for a living to pay for people you think shouldn't have to work, I completely understand their disdain. If only you inspired people to work harder and give more to humanity than to look for ways to steal other's wealth.
Left an right anti statists unite
no.
look up one dr demento, now im bombarded with those that were on the show....could be worse, i guess, could be bombarded with talentless "influencers" running amok, doing nothing productive 🤷♂️ my god, it's moose turd pie....it's good tho