I became an anarchist as a teenager when I was very naive about human nature. Then, I became a liberal when I was learning about human nature. The more I learned about human nature, the closer I got to being an anarchist.
I was an anarchist, then a liberal, then a conservative, and now im closer to an anarchist Christian, at least philosophically. Life is a funny ride. I think you need to really understand the otherside of opinions to fully know yourself.
I genuinely love Zoe's low effort photo edits. Her analysis is always well developed and sharp, it's so funny to have it contrasted with quasi-shitpost pics in the background. Such an under appreciated channel
@@Rishi123456789 Zoe is a trans woman. You can recognize that someone's biological sex and outward gender expression are different. Outside of that, awesome comment
@@Rishi123456789 Wow. What an ignorant viewpoint. Your Techno Naturism or whatever comes across as way more delusional than any notion of Trans- gender Identity. Maybe try educating yourself a little bit on the subject before embarrassing yourself next time.
Picking Sailor Moon for an anarchist photo is divine irony when her story is literally about her becoming a monarch but doesn't know what she's doing so the rest of the story is about her daughter coming back in time to help her young mother make better choices so that she becomes a benevolent ruler that can accept dissonant opinions. 👌👌 Quality
I've been temporarily taking a break from a story I started writing several years ago, because while researching anarchism for a story about "the balance between two extremes", I accidentally became an anarchist...
Amazing we love to hear it. Something I hate about the idea of being unbiased is that what you think of as centrism necessarily alienates whole ways of thinking simply because they fall outside an arbitrary and binary political divide. For example someone rejecting anarchism outright simply because it’s “far left”. There’s an interview where an anarchists puts it quite well and says something about how ideas not generally found in the common discourse can at first sound ridiculous and absurd, this helps to obscure what they actually are and keeps people willfully ignorant of alternatives.
That's awesome! I think there are so many people like that who, because anarchism is usually "eliminate state and create chaos and apocalypse", simply don't know about it and don't know that it's actually a really evidential and logical ideology.
But people don't see that they're being ruled by idiots. As this video keeps saying, they see authority figures _as_ 'The State.' Can you put 'The State' on the phone for me right now? ruclips.net/video/76sX2tZSx9g/видео.html. Did you support Mitch McConnell's efforts to block heroic first responders from getting needed medical aid? No one tried to _stop_ him. Even though his interference & the $ he was paid to do it are both illegal acts, not one person saw the criminal individual committing these. They saw The State in all its Physical Glory showing off its power. That's what's missing from these discussions. _consciously,_ you all know what I'm saying is true. *Subconsciously,* you're all terrified of engaging in discussion that Daddy-Government our Ultimate Protector might construe as dissent. People succumb to their subconscious (SC) fears multiple times a day. All it would take to get over those would be to remember that politicians are not the state. Ahh, but doing so would cause most people to have a _different_ SC fear overwhelm them. Oh well, next time.
@@alexgomez6723Well, society needs to realise the benefit of working together instead of against one another, something that is almost impossible for those who have lived their entire lives in a society that has instilled the opposite in them. It's kinda like what Moses does with the 40 year walk to the promised land in the old testament. He leads the people through the desert for that long not because the distance is that big, but in order to ensure no one born in slavery will reach Ha'anan, even he himself dies before that. Hopefully I was able to explain what I mean in an understandable way. One love ❤️
Anarchists are spot on considering the notion of enlightened or benevolent dictatorships advocated by certain philisophers going back to Plato. The idea of non democratic power being used by a select few according to some notion of superior strength, virtue or intellect is a pernicious one which sadly returns with each new generation of Humanity. If Anarchists are naive, it is not about the supposed goodness or badness of their fellow humans, it is about how exactly to win people over from Archism. At best most people prefer minimal state interference to a stateless society which is all too easy to depict as undesirable by hostile intellectuals and authority figures. Anarchism also has the same problem that all revolutionary ideologies have; that is touching upon the subject of force in the desired future society in regards to defence and security. Thomas Hobbes argued that a covenant without a sword is simply words which I fear is true of all societies regardless of statism.
@@Aconitum_napellus Well Someone will need a sword metaphorically speaking. Even the most anti- authoritarian system needs some kind of power to back itself up. Just hopefully not some unaccountable group like the army or police in a conventional state.
@@Rishi123456789 Truthfully I don't think any political systems made by people can be inherently peaceful. No system will ever exist without an adversary, even if only an abstract one. Also how will everyone be on a raw vegan diet in your utopia if said society has a non compulsory educational system? If Educators are afraid of "indoctrination" then they won't really succeed in arguing for good things socially like teaching children they shouldn't be racist or transphobic etc. A non compulsory approach will lead to a culture of fair weather liberals at best, easy pickings for any emergent reactionary force.
@@jeffersonclippership2588 Yes, they are. And, yes, they would, and will likely continue to do so for the foreseeable human future. Though, as a filthy reactionary and former anarcho-libertarian(filthier still), I feel compelled to ask: what exactly is meant by "ruling themselves" ? I'm not from around these parts. I snuck in through an open window 'round back; forgive me if my question is stupid, but please answer it anyway
"Social wrongs do not depend on the wickedness of one master or the other, one governor or the other, but rather on masters and governments as institutions..." 👏👏👏
the big problems.. no, there is no one master to blame. Bill Gates the man? Jeff Beso the man? Zuck the robot? no, not directly. are they really any more culpable? they have set themselves up in compartmentalized workflows that legal protect them from liability. Every individual that lets the evil continue? every worker down to the janitors that clean the bathrooms? well ... if the masters arn't committing the evil who at the corp is .... the workers? every person in every anti-social institution is to blame? every commenter feeding this very algorithm is to blame?
@@Andre-qo5ek What are you talking about? The point they were making is that the problem with the system isn't any individual person in power, it's the fact that positions of power exist at all. They were not making the point that, say, Elon Musk isn't bad, just that whether he is bad or not is immaterial to the immorality of these systems.
@@jadegrace1312 "the system" is ethereal, systems can not operate without compliance. the bosses are profiteers, they will use any means to get profit, good or bad. that leaves agency in the workers; the power is in the hands of the workers. thus the workers are the agents of the immorality. it is immaterial if a person is just he janitor or the boss, they are participating in bringing the "systems' to fruition. blaming ethereal institutions is no different than blaming god for the bible. we all know there were PEOPLE that wrote up the bible. and PEOPLE to be held accountable for the things going on in the world, not systems. there are no wheels of destiny that have been placed in motion; unstoppable by mortal change. for an ideology that denounces hierarchy, contracts outlining "institutions" and "systems" conveniently get blamed a lot instead of the people that should be held accountable.
@@Andre-qo5ek What are you talking about? What's the point in focusing on people? We know how to change people's behaviour, it's by changing incentive structures. Thus even if you want to focus on people you get sent back to focusing on institutions. I seriously don't get the purpose of your comment, it really just seems like you want to start arguments. Edit: Also, my favorite part of your comment is how you put "the system" in quotes as if it was some vague, ethereal term, when clearly the system I was referring to is the specific system of hierarchy relevant to each system. I wasn't using it in some sort for vague, recuperated "anti-capitalist" way, I was referring to a specific system. Admittedly, I probably should've said "each specific system" because that would've more accurately conveyed the point I was making.
@@Rishi123456789 of course it was just a brief comment on a video in the void. the range of topics you have jammed into the comment makes it impossible to address in any meaningful way. it was a very nice utopian speech. so thanks for that. but it doesn't actually say much to the video topic. quite the opposite. it feeds the idea of naivety IMO. 1) i question this line particularly "where everyone has raw vegan organic alkaline food". i'm guessing you simply mean available for people who choose to eat this way... but the science doesn't look great for these diet choices for the general public. (i'm no expert by any means of course, just a normal rando) 2) hadn't heard of Minarchism. ... but its the only item that was an actionable item in your speech. Sounds like a standard government before the socio-economic power dynamics take hold ... i'm not sure how this helps your argument. > "In the strictest sense, it maintains that the state is necessary and that its only legitimate function is the protection of individuals from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud, and the only legitimate governmental institutions are the military, police, and courts. In the broadest sense, it also includes fire departments, prisons, the executive, and legislatures as legitimate government functions. Such states are generally called night-watchman states. Minarchists argue that the state has no authority to use its monopoly on force to interfere with free transactions between people, and see the state's sole responsibility as ensuring that contracts between private individuals and property are protected, through a system of law courts and enforcement. Minarchists generally believe a laissez-faire approach to the economy is most likely to lead to economic prosperity. "
I work for a certain vastly and disgustingly large retail company. So on a daily basis my opinion of humans is battered . However the "utopian" goals of anarchism appeals to me all the same. I mean, even if it isn't doable we should still strive for a world of freedom and cooperation amongst the whole world. Why else are we doing this all for otherwise? People generally have been programmed to settle for less. So much so that they laugh or get frustrated with people who yearn for more. I tell ya, that Plato may have been onto something with that cave story
Thank you for the videos you make Zoe, and in illuminating Anarchism for everyone who listens to your videos. I would like to think your videos helped me to become a better person. Thanks again.
Anarchy does not mean no government, no laws. Anarchists are SELF GOVERNING and do have to obey fundamental laws. Anarchy is a system of cooperation, self reliance, voluntary charity.
It's also a stateless political theory, hence no government. That implies authority, which anarchism is specifically against. You wouldn't have a boss in an anarchic society, there would be a coordinator that others in your shared enterprise respect enough to direct the flow of effort. They wouldnt have authority, they can't fire you or tell you to leave, and their entire position is dependant on the others in that group letting them do the job. Imagine if your boss sucked, so you and your fellow employees sat him down and told him in no uncertain terms that if he doesn't correct those issues, then he will simply no longer be your boss and you'll all choose another trusted individual to do the leadershipping.
Plenty of gems in this one. Thank you! I took several screenshots (of the text quotes... despite the obviously masterful photoshopping which I also love lol)
It's generally wise to steer clear of making arguments about human nature, but given how long humans lived in egalitarian and stateless societies, it's tempting to hypothesise about what may in fact be 'natural' for humans.
And I'd like to hear about those egalitarian societies in which we have lived for so long. You can certainly not mean the Dugum Dani of Papua Guinea, who have been extensively researched since the 1960s. You can't possibly mean the Maori, the Yoruba, the Ibo, the Hausa, the Yamomamo, the Zulu, the Great Plains Indians, the Aztecs, or the Corded Ware Culture peoples, among many others, because all these certainly were socially structured in above and below. Given what anthropologists have found out about tribal structures, about 'war before civilization' or 'big men', I do indeed wonder what is so 'natural' for humans.
@Jean Sanchez Irrespective of that, they are most certainly hierarchical societies and it is highly likely that our ancestors have lived much like the Dugum Dani did until the 1960s. There is no anarchism in traditional societies.
@@ewaldseiland8558 Look up Immediate Return Hunter-Gatherers. Specifically the following examples: -Pygmy groups in central Africa (Aka, Baka, Efe, Mbendjele, Mbuti); -Hadza in Tanzania, some San groups in Namibia and Botswana (Ju\'hoansi aka !Kung); -several groups in India such as the Jarawa and Ongee Andaman Islanders, Hill Pandaram, and Nayaka; -In Southeast Asia, the Agta, Batek, Maniq, Penan and others These are all highly-egalitarian societies that are the closest to how our ancestors lived for most of human existence (100,000 years). For the source, see "Egalitarian social organisation among hunter-gatherers" by Jerome Lewis Your examples are all newer than that. In fact, the Aztec empire is younger than Oxford university.
"Muh human nature is to be a piece of crap!" Even taking that at face value, that doesn't inspire me to want to give individual humans (and usually the most ruthless) all kinds of opportunities at forming hierarchies with them at the top, controlling huge amounts of resources that other people need to survive, interpreting religious texts for large numbers of people, writing laws for large numbers of people, etc etc etc. Like really? You think this thing you're referring to as "human nature" is intrinsically cruel and ruthless and selfish, but you also think the solution is to give individual humans, or very small numbers of them, immense amounts of coercive power over very large numbers? People are *bad by nature* and should therefor be given *armies to control?* That makes about as much sense as trying to put out an electrical fire by dousing it in gasoline.
I remember finding something very interesting in John Dewey’s book on human nature, that the imposition of morals are to suppress human nature. And well we all know who controls the normative understanding of morals in our countries
Anarchist and Marxist views on human nature are often seen as a precursor to pragmatism. In particular, pragmatists developed the idea of the primacy of action over ideas and senses.
I have to disagree. I do not know who controls the normative understanding of morals in any country. In countries that lack free media, there is a feedback cycle between propaganda mills and popular opinion. In countries with free media and the internet, there is segregation into various echo chambers.
I think that's wildly off base in the majority of contexts. Most morals as traditionally conceived of - as intuitive judgments, particularly - are clearly nothing more than attempts to justify personal feelings by assigning them external validation through the reification of "morality". Most people don't construct moral positions through anything resembling critical thought or rigor; they merely feel base emotions such as fear and disgust, and make those things the basis for social prescriptions. "Human nature" is for the most part a product of circumstances, neither intrinsic nor unchanging. The closest thing to that would be the sets of positions most people are socialized into. But that's exactly the problem: People try to get an ought from an is, to assign moral primacy to their feelings that are actually just products of the status quo. Some ethical systems are, however, more than that. Particularly some forms of utilitarianism that focus on things other than pure pleasure and pain. I find that much more compelling than pretending our personal feelings are actually some kind of universal moral law.
I think Malatesta wrote about that, but I can't find the exact quote now. But it basically said - as far as I can remember - that a lot of anarchists in his time tried to fully reject the concept of morals and ethics with the very argument that those were controlled by the ruling forces. But he answered to them that they shouldn't just reject them, that they should stick to those aspects of morality that were in line with anarchist thinking and that they should replace morals and ethics where they have better ones as replacements. And I fully agree with that. Morals and ethics are quite important and I wouldn't like to see an anarchist movement that goes full anti-intellectual which is a path that historically led to fascism. And I don't mean that in an exaggerated way. Anti-intellectualism and the glorification of action instead of thinking was and is a core element of fascist thinking. "Thinking is a form of emasculation" for fascists according to Umberto Eco. And a lot of fascists thought of anarchists as those action-guided forces of violence (because they only knew anarchism as the distorted version they knew from the media). For example, the fascist poet Filippo Tommaso Marinetti wrote in his 'Futurist manifest': "We want to glorify war - the only cure for the world - militarism, patriotism, the destructive gesture of the anarchists, the beautiful ideas which kill, and contempt for woman". And the fascists in Italy used some anarchist/syndicalist terms (I don't know which exactly, but something in the direction of direct action, propaganda of the deed ect. ) and some of the early fascists were indeed earlier anarchists who had abolished all morals and then only believed in the purifying force of action and pragmatism.
@@Kuhmuhnistische_Partei wow I don’t mean there is no moral bases for the actions we have in the real world. I just thought what dewy said was interesting, the implication which indicated the establishment of morals that conflict with human nature are used to degrade individuals to the system they are subjected to
Hi Zoe, comment for the algorithm. You are one of the few people where as soon as I see a new video I want to watch it. They're always interesting and informative, and your presentation is just perfect, thank you 👍👍🏴
Some people never seem to learn from experience. No matter how often they had seen the lion devour the lamb, they continued to cling to the hope that the nature of the beast might change. If only the lion could get to know the lamb better, they argued, or talk matters over. Emma Goldman
Sure, but the lion exists in nature too. One million lambs united together stand a much better chance against a thousand lions than a single lamb against a single lion with nobody else around. It's nice poetry but it's only that, it doesn't actually address the unfortunate reality that bad people will still be bad people when you take away state interference (or that charismatic and imposing bad people will still unite new mobs beneath them with nobody around to stop it, so you actually end up facing all thousand of those lions by yourself as a single lonely lamb).
@@TheSquareOnes "bad people will still be bad people when you take away state interference (or that charismatic and imposing bad people will still unite new mobs beneath them " yup... all the wolves(lions) in sheep's clothing. time and time again history shows us that when one lion falls the sheep bleat and a new lion steps in. power vacuums seem to be able to be secured by the sheep. sheep are also governed by a shepard ... how does the Shepard play into this? unless we are saying this is in a state of nature (aka. human less), but that would destroy the Emma Goldman quote. it would be in the sheeps nature TO be fooled and consumed by the lion.
John Burroughs has stated that experimental study of animals in captivity is absolutely useless. Their character, their habits, their appetites undergo a complete transformation when torn from their soil in field and forest. With human nature caged in a narrow space, whipped daily into submission, how can we speak of its potentialities? Emma Goldman
Wonderful video, thank you! I love the shitpost pictures along with the very thoughtful commentary. Perfection. Also, I love the Bakunin quote from State and Society (I think) at the end. It really hits the nail on the head. Do you want to prevent men from ever oppressing other men?
Arrange matters such that they never have the opportunity.
Do you want them to respect the liberty, rights and human character of their fellow men? Arrange matters such that they are compelled to respect them - compelled not by the will or oppression of other men, nor by the repression of the State and legislation, which are necessarily represented and implemented by men and would make them slaves in their turn, but by the actual organization of the social environment, so constituted that while leaving each man to enjoy the utmost possible liberty it gives no one the power to set himself above others or to dominate them-
this is a masterwork. it's cathartic to listen to someone so perfectly articulate the views i hold, but did not have the means to effectively express them in word, until now
I very much appreciate this essay, it helped my understanding. I am still curious though: how can anarchy exist without allowing the possibility that new hierarchies can arise? Say a whole continent went anarchist; what prevents a small village of folks from uniting behind a leader, forming a violent army, and going on a conquest spree? How does anarchy permanently quash domination and conquest?
That's what I always come to. The hierarchies are only good at on thing, and that is destroying peaceful, cooperative communities. The mob rules. Gangsterism tends to prevail over decentralized, peaceful societies...at least so far.
@@Jimi_Lee Exactly my feeling. This is why I always feel that while anarchism sounds like an ideal far-future potential, in the meantime we need strong community organization and self-defense, and I believe that this requires a certain amount of hierarchy.
This is the thing that I never understood about anarchy as a philosophy. You can't get around the fact that an organized group with strong leadership is more effective than an unorganized one and will always be able to force its will on everyone else. This sort of thing happens all throughout history, a *lot*, and it's why we have political power structures today at all. The best you can hope for is some say in what the people at the top use state violence to do (which is supposed to be what democracy does, to varying degrees of imperfect success). I think this is what people mean when they say anarchists are naive, and I didn't feel that I got a satisfactory answer to this question from the video (maybe I missed something? Not asking in a sarcastic way).
@@Jimi_Lee This doesn't seem to have answered the question? Or are you saying that anarchy is really more descriptive, rather than prescriptive? As in, it's not something to try to establish and/or maintain, but instead it's just a state of being that exists in between the fall of one empire and the rise of the next? If that's what you mean, I think we're on the same page.
I think this video does a good job at showing how individual famous anarchists understood human nature wasn’t perfect, but it doesn’t deal with the main criticism of anarchism in practise- that being that it has no clear explanation for how an anarchist society could be reached or maintained while man’s nature remains imperfect. While everyone has drives for community and selfishness, anarchism has no answer for how we can transition from a society that promotes selfishness to one that promotes community and it has even less clarity of how it would maintain such a situation without the use of coercion without a state. This is the real naivety people speak of when they say anarchists don’t understand human nature. It’s not whether obscure dead men were aware of it, but how modern anarchists lack the tactics to bring about and maintain an anarchist society.
I: My two cents: to transition from a society motivated by greed and selfishness, we need to disincentivize these behaviors. Capitalism puts them on a pedestal, glorifies them, and makes them, in people´s minds, necessary for survival. To have your college or job application accepted, another person´s must get rejected. Getting a promotion menas someone else doesn´t get one. Winning means someone else loses. Artificial scarcity of success leads to this dog-eat-dog mentality we can observe in the world. When we transition away from capitalism, this way of thinking will lose its merit and appeal, since people won´t be forced to live in a constant competition. Does it make sense, what I mean? I must admit I´m not the best at explaining my thoughts.
@@iamnohere this is my issue though, for anyone to design incentive structures of how society can run, that is in essence going to be a state that requires coercion of some kind. Whether that’s positive reward or negative consequences for acting against the wishes of those designers or both, to design a system by how you wish society to govern itself requires coercion of some kind. Anarchists seem to not have an answer for how this could be done otherwise.
You have the coolest degree and the stuff I learn from works of art like this usually quickly becomes the favorite stuff I ever learned. My nihilism doesn't thank you but I do, very much.
I have one central question regarding ideas like these: Under what conditions or framework could a hypothetical anarchical society remain stable, and not develop into something that is no longer anarchical? Whenever someone proposes an alternative way of organizing society, this is a question that I really struggle to see answered, even on videos titled things like "Socialism explained" or "You're probably already a socialist". Conversely, whenever someone attempts to debunk a proposal like that, they have to fill in the blanks for how the society is supposed to work, so any supporters would be able to say "yeah duh it won't work if you set it up wrong". HOW would you set it up right, in a hypothetical scenario where you could play God and just arrange and educate society however you like?
@@emanuelneagu14 Would education alone prevent the rise of societal structures like: - armed oppressors - debt - democratic organizations - capitalist/feudalist job contracts - religious sects - thieving cliques - socialist communities and all of the other anti-anarchist power-seekers that could desire to topple an anarchist society? Because that is essentially what my question boils down to: How would it be stable, i.e. how would people be unable to topple it in favour of their own ambitions?
@@iwersonsch5131 oh I thought you mean something else by "stable", like marxists are diverse as hell and would want reforms. Sure it's not stable, there's always gonna be some fascists looking to either rob or rule everyone, you're completely right, we never get answers for this stuff from anarchists, that's why I call myself whatever-kinda-socialism-gains-power-excluding-anarchism-for-now-and-trotskyism-always-ist. In some ideal society though yes, education alone would prevent people from willing to be part of any of such groups that wouldn't even exist, that's why most people call anarchists naive about human nature.
@@emanuelneagu14 I'm fine if anarchists only want to propose a framework in which anarchy can remain the dominant description for society, rather than fading almost completely in favour of some form of archy. However, I don't even see that in the current, pretty vague anarchist proposals that I've heard. This is even assuming that people are perfectly educated about anarchy and why all possible ideas for breaking it would be bad ideas. Wouldn't there eventually start being strong enough real-world incentives to exploit a power vacuum by overthrowing it with a governing structure? For example, some subset of the population could hope for: - personal accumulation of wealth - cheaper protection of property - more efficient trade - more efficient production chains - access to resources that happen to be owned by a part of society unwilling to share at a fair price - the desire to make history - desire-driven oppression of individuals, or protection against such oppression?
this is a very good video. it takes the concept "humans bad so humans shouldnt rule humans" and puts context behind it, as well as addressing that humans are also good. by the means of which we grow up, our beliefs will be molded one way or the other, and an anarchist society seeks to teach the value of cooperation rather than dominance
@@emanuelneagu14 depends on how far down the line you're thinking. I had in mind more of a parent raising a child situation. For people with a more established sense of self, I don't have an answer for that beyond "make it unpopular to do so" but in the age of internet those types of people can just cluster around in forums and spread their ideas that way. This is definitely a topic that needs further consideration.
@@dandelionsryans down the whole society, things get the most different they can be from a parent raising a child on the other side of things (far authoritarian right I suppose). Otherwise, nobody wants partial anarchism right? How'd that be even possible in the first place lmao. Well anyway, there should have been an answer to that in order for anarchism to be an option, not like this, being an unanswered question even now. If the answer is found in history, more specific teach all people how to fight like back in antiquity when there was some natural anarchy cause tribes were fighting and wouldn't unite into states, that again today to fight extremists?! No thanks, that's fucked up.
@@emanuelneagu14 you can't create an ideology without existing material conditions or else your "plans" are doomed to fail. if we had the answers for every problem we would have solved them by now. When we throw off the yoke of our oppressors, in whatever time that may be, only then can we answer questions like this because our material conditions will have changed from the present day and we will solve them accordingly
@@dandelionsryans giving various solutions for an imminent problem everywhere has nothing to do with current material conditions, choosing which solution is optimal at a specific time does. The problem is something relatively constant, in our nature, that wouldn't change in just a few years or tens of years. It's a threat that you either oppose either change from the inside. Change could only be through education, hardly, whilst as opposition, I haven't ever heard of any institution or such that's more competent to oppose such groups than states themselves through police or army and despite how incompetent they actually might act sometimes, anarchists don't propose anything in this sense and again the tribal-like system is a huge NO, a big jump back. My conclusion is only education of anarchist theory could work in some already very civilized society where everyone would see how valuable anarchism is. Such a society is light years away from anything currently existing, hell even Marx's dictature of the proletariat idea sounds closer to what could today's people organize to do.
@@celestialbuffalo sure.. lets see.... generally anything that is not thought out to the extend of people abusing it. an everyday example: not locking your bike, your car, your house and being surprised when your property is stolen. * not locking the property does not make a person inferior for their mistake. they just didn't think ahead. big picture example: proposing laisse fair capitalism and not expecting people to sell adulterated products. proposing intellectual property rights and patents and expecting people to not hoard patents and crush competition.
@@Andre-qo5ek In the latter example I'd say that is often the aim of the economic system. As far as not locking things up I'd just say that was a mistake.
I grew up liberal in conservative Indiana, became communist during my teens, then a bitter socialist progressive, and now I’m coming to anarcho -socialism or something idk even. I used to think anarchism was a cop out ideology 😂
I'm a 32 year old adult, and I still vibe HARD with anarchism. I just recognize the inherit power-vacuum anarchy causes in a society. Slavery is legal because there are no laws, might-makes-right would become the norm, corporal punishment becomes arbitrary and random, for any slight perceived by the recipient (the victim being the only person truly capable of enacting justice) and the moment someone organizes, the whole system shows it's fragility. One small group of authoritarians can very easily turn an anarchic society into a brutalist authoritarian state.
People subscribe to a hierarchical social structure within the belief of safety under a leader, thus giving up free will in some way or another. - this happens willingly and is more so seen within cult like groups. One instance is how Andrew Tate has indoctrinated impressionable men, such as those who see themselves as low in a social hierarchy settling or with a loose grasp on reality. This creating a group think mentality of giving up identity to be what they believe to be socially valuable. mainly because of what he shows to be on a basic level (wealthy etc) And it easier to give up their identity to subscribe to his. people who do so, are then exploited to a degree as they have to be a metaphorical sacrificial lamb. - the identity of a independent personality to one that is more supposedly favored and valued in society. By giving up independence to conformity rather than understanding we all have different places within different aspects of society such as being a father, a worker, a partner, friend all involve a different social structure that fluctuates. -you can’t be top of each one without having a sense of autocratic egotistical superiority. Which might I add most social idols promote, making more people that delusional. you need to be self aware and critique specific institutions to maintain a sense of self and community. being able to question institutions and false idols is how we can all look at corrupted and exploitative systems that seek to maintain dominance over people rather than helping them live a life that’s best for them.
I love that you bring some words from my favorite anarchist thinkers, like malatesta and kropotkin, and reclus is amazing too. It's a shame that they are ignored by most people, even in the left. I'm always amazed by the clarity in their words and ideas, and admire their will to speak to the workers, the masses. I think you are doing a great job in trying to do the same! Also, i really am excited to read Mutual aid. A new edition just got printed last year here in Brazil, but i haven't got it yet. Your video just got me looking forward to it a bit more :)
The human nature argument is easy to debunk since it is overlayed by beliefs that limit its very presence. Just look at how kind little children can be! (Or at least that example used to hold for my generation at that time.)
At 19:50, Bertrand Russell said something quite similar in his book "Proposed Roads to Freedom" where he compares anarchism and Marxism. The chapter on anarchism begins (insertion and italicization my own): "In the popular mind, an Anarchist is a person who throws bombs and commits other outrages, either because he is more or less insane, or because he uses the pretense of extreme political opinions as a cloak for criminal proclivities. This view is, of course, in every way inadequate. Some Anarchists believe in throwing bombs; many do not. Men of almost every other shade of opinion believe in throwing bombs in suitable circumstances: for example, the men who threw the bomb at Sarajevo which started the present war were not Anarchists, but Nationalists (this was written during World War I). And those Anarchists who are in favor of bomb-throwing do not in this respect differ on any vital principle from the rest of the community, with the exception of that infinitesimal portion who adopt the Tolstoyan attitude of non-resistance. *_Anarchists, like Socialists, usually believe in the doctrine of the class war, and if they use bombs, it is as Governments use bombs, for purposes of war: but for every bomb manufactured by an Anarchist, many millions are manufactured by Governments, and for every man killed by Anarchist violence, many millions are killed by the violence of States. We may, therefore, dismiss from our minds the whole question of violence, which plays so large a part in the popular imagination, since it is neither essential nor peculiar to those who adopt the Anarchist position."_*
human nature in a confined and seemingly hopeless situation becomes distorted by poverty, inadequate housing, overcrowding, access to resources et al. Any mammal species given such social circumstance would distort just the same. Apes in zoos are not the same as apes in their natural environment. They are often better fed than many humans however. Capitalism needs this degradation of true human nature, which when arises will break the fetters.
I'm an anarchist by nature, and only recently started looking at the actual literature around the formal philosophy. I think I had it worked out pretty close in my head to what the ideology describes. The central point in this discussion sums up a lot of my general assessment of the state of affairs. That is that we know people can't be trusted, especially when it comes to power, so why create more and more powerful positions for them to operate from, ostensibly to protect us from our own nature. Who protects us from their nature?
It's imperfect but ideally that's the point of democracy, to have some level of accountability and punishment even for the "rulers." But again, it's very imperfect and can definitely be improved upon from where we currently are. Going in the other direction and getting rid of any sort of structure seems like it would be counterproductive though, because now there isn't even imperfect accountability. People who want to hurt you can just hurt you, it's entirely on you to negotiate for any sort of help out of a bad situation since nobody is expected to assist you. There's also nothing stopping those people from joining together again into new mobs, so now you have all the bad aspects of the current structure but without any of the positives. It's just gangs going around mugging and conquering the weak, with nobody being strong enough to stop them unless they organize into their own gang... which just escalates until we're back we are today. I think anarchism is philosophically very interesting but it just doesn't sound functional in the world today. Not only that I can't even picture a future world where developments could make it functional, unlike with things like communism were we can at least expect automated production to eventually deal with most of the issues regarding "who has to do all the labor?" Maybe with some sort of transhuman eugenics that fundamentally removes the desire and ability for humans to dominate one another? At that point we're basically just asking for literal magic to solve the problems though.
That's not an exclusively anarchist thought though, most systems that were designed with the idea of being "for the people" tried to take that into account and impose separations and balance of powers. Maybe not perfect ones, but still ones nonetheless. Most Democracies have that in their constitution. Even the USA was build technically on that thought, originally based on a small federal government that wouldn't totally control states. The issue is the amount of power you want, or have to give to have a safe and functional society, and on that point it becomes a very complicated issue. But basically everyone , not just anarchists, are aware that you shouldn't put all power in the hand of one guy.
@@TheSquareOnes That is what we have. Gangs fighting for supremacy. The violence is through the roof. Not much accountability. Lots of government. Law dispensed based on race. Endless war. Go against the warlords in whichever government. Go against the local mafioso or street drug gang. Big corporations are just as likely to kill you as a government if you seriously mess with their profits or live in a third world country. We have all the violence of anarchy on steroids, plus the oppression of the leviathan of modern technical governments. Government doesn't solve any of the problems, just amplifies them and gives us something to fight over. It doesn't change the basic power dynamic of weak and strong.
@@Jimi_Lee We really don't, this is like when people say that having a job is just like slavery. I have encountered zero violence in my personal life which is lucky but also wouldn't be the case without the relatively safe society that an organized civilization has provided. Violence still exists, obviously, but the point is that it isn't a daily threat that everyone needs to consider in order to get or keep what they need.
First of all, thank you SO MUCH for this wonderful, detailed yet condensed and easy to follow presentation 💗 You've gained a loyal listener in me. I would like to ask you, though, where did you find the Honi soit qui mal y pense political caricature? It would probably come in useful for this personal research project I have. Once again, big props to you and here's to binging more of your stuff!!!
This seems like it's built upon a fundamental misunderstanding of how hierarchies come to exist, by treating them as something that needs to be legislated into existence rather than as naturally arising social dynamics which then inform our government structures. Obviously it's a complicated issue that goes a bit in both directions, like the specific disparity between "millionaire senator" and "dirt poor cashier" wouldn't exist without the concepts of capitalism, a senate and minimum wage retail jobs to create that particular abstract hierarchical imbalance, but the point is that taking away all concepts of government and economics wouldn't stop other hierarchies from being formed in human society. Aside from showing that life probably wouldn't necessarily be utopian and completely equal in an anarchist society, this also points to the problem of how to maintain such a society. We originated in anarchy, it's the natural state of things. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your perspective) the natural state is also for people to organize into increasingly larger groups over time, leading to the current situation where entire continents can be ruled under just a couple flags. It's not clear how it would even be possible to prevent this from happening again since by definition there would be no systems in place to stop people from doing what they want, right? And if what they want is to organize into a small state which then allows them to snowball that social advantage against all the disorganized people around them to grow back to the size of nations, how would one stop that? Finally, this wasn't really touched on in the video at all but I think the biggest issue with anarchism is how to even "transition into" it. Even if it would be perfectly stable and wonderful (which I don't think it would be for the reasons given in the last paragraph, but still), the problem seems to be that you'd need to convince the entire world to transition at the same time. If you don't do this then you end up in a situation where fully organized, developed and most importantly militarily ready states are bordering state-less regions with no clear way to defend themselves from invasion. There is a lot of historical evidence to suggest what would happen next and it doesn't favor the side without an army. Ironically it seems like the only way you could even attempt a fully anarchist period of human civilization again would be to conquer the entire world under one government and then dissolve that without fracturing it back into functional states... so basically impossible. TLDR: Anarchism might be philosophically ideal but probably too fragile to ever be functional. It's the "have you tried just telling the villain to be nice?" of societal structures, great when you get to control all the contrast of the fiction you're applying it in but not nearly as effective when translated to reality.
the idea isn't that hierarchical structures can just be removed and anarchy will happen naturally, rather it's that anarchy must be actively created and sustained by people who wish to do so. Zoe's video "Anarchism as a way of life" details this: ruclips.net/video/VP31dPtbHLc/видео.html&ab_channel=ZoeBaker and her video "Means and Ends: The Anarchist Critique of Seizing State Power" is about "transition" to anarchy ruclips.net/video/vsRyTWBj84E/видео.html&ab_channel=ZoeBaker
I get what you are saying,its more of a cultural revolution rather than anything,i Guess the only real solution Is to let capitalism die and be ready to when It does to actually take action and to built a socialist one (hoping that Marx was right and capitalism destroys itself)
You read as someone who hasn't read any anarchist literature in your life (we've devised strategies and solutions for everything you've listed), and yet believe yourself qualified to render judgment. Do you bring this level of intellectual scrutiny to the rest of your life?
@@DreamersOfReality You read as someone that thinks "no u" is a compelling argument. If you have solutions then share them, don't vaguely gesture at the idea that they're out there.
I think it started with neolilthic revolution. The city states and god-kings began huge changes in the ways human societies are organized. We collectively get so many good and bad things from all these changes we call "progress". We need an organized effort to maximize the good and minimize the bad. All organization comes from the top down though, for personal gains of the powerful. That's the first thing we need to change.
You know, I want to say that I was drawn to anarchism because of so many ML living in a complete fantasy world in regards to the USSR. I live in an ex ML state, Romania, and am fully aware how things were. So I just couldn't side with that. That is why I was a rabid anti conmunist, because I saw it as a sure fire way to dictatorship ( which ML is in my opinion)If not for anarchism, I would still probably be one. Because I have not seen such dogmatic ahistorical stuff like in the USSR nostalgics, maybe save for some cults. And they call anarchists naive.
Don't listen to them ,i am from Albania ,so i know what you are talking,you can be a marxist without being a leninist,its obvious that Marx analyzed capitalistic societies such as France,germany and England,you can't transport that type of idea in pre capitalistic countries but they did anyway,socialism Is the next step After capitalism ,tankies are Just annoying apologists and they are probably the best weapon of the continuation of capitalism as they drive away milions of people interested in a different society
Ok, we need to draw a line between Corporatism and Capitalism. Most of the time when people talk about "Capitalism" they mean Corporatism or, more often, Fascism. Capitalism is where involved parties agree to a mutually agreeable exchange of goods and/or services. A person wants a house built in a Capitalist economy? You agree to a purchase of land and hire a company to build it at an agreed upon cost based off of labor and materials. In Corporatism large companies lobby the government for increased regulation in order to cut out smaller competitors who can't afford the increased cost. In Fascism the government dictates what the companies can or can't build, where and for whom, often via regulation. In other words, the US and Europe are NOT Capitalist economies; they are at best Corporatists and more often borderline on full blown Fascism. It's called a "Third-Way" economy, somewhere between Capitalism and Socialism, and is the hallmark of Fascist governments.
@17:10 we understand here where Kropotkin goes wrong. Like Marx, he was reacting to conditions he saw in the world. The truth is, if you observe the world, the best of people deny themselves the habit of commanding. If you indulge in a _habit_ of commanding you are by definition not among the best of "men." Maybe Kropotkin was corrupted in translation. Or he was just imprecise in his writing and a touch too polemical.
Maybe I misunderstand or I'm missing some key information, but anarchism for me, while theoretically interesting, has some criticial flaws. Nature is brutal and even if we observe monkeys, we already know that they're waging wars just like humans and they can kill just for fun. People need order and order doesn't come from chaos, some form of organization is still required, someone has to enforce order and anarchism doesn't really get rid of violence, but rather ignores problem. Humanity progressed in various ways and while group of monkeys is not a danger for humanity, it's completely different story, when it comes to modern humans. Most people can buy guns. Military of many countries owns weapons capable of ending civilization. I'm not big fan of direction that communism took, but I can't deny that some centralization has to exist, unless someone supports some social darwinism and doesn't care about weaker individuals.
Perhaps we need a contextual planning system to manage human coexistence. There are matters that pertain to individual life where individual makes decisions, matters that pertain to family enjoyments- wherein the family members need to collectively decide and matters that pertain to entire society, wherein a wisdom processing mechanism should be in place. ( Such a societal decision making mechanism should have decentralised and centralized elements depending upon a contextual scheme based upon the topic. I refer to it as contextual planning. These are some broad ideas.
Perhaps we need a contextual planning system to manage human coexistence. There are matters that pertain to individual life where individual makes decisions, matters that pertain to family enjoyments- wherein the family members need to collectively decide and matters that pertain to entire society, wherein a wisdom processing mechanism should be in place. ( Such a societal decision making mechanism should have decentralised and centralized elements depending upon a contextual scheme based upon the topic. I refer to it as contextual planning. These are some broad ideas.
Perhaps we need a contextual planning system to manage human coexistence. There are matters that pertain to individual life where individual makes decisions, matters that pertain to family enjoyments- wherein the family members need to collectively decide and matters that pertain to entire society, wherein a wisdom processing mechanism should be in place. ( Such a societal decision making mechanism should have decentralised and centralized elements depending upon a contextual scheme based upon the topic. I refer to it as contextual planning. These are some broad ideas.
Perhaps we need a contextual planning system to manage human coexistence. There are matters that pertain to individual life where individual makes decisions, matters that pertain to family enjoyments- wherein the family members need to collectively decide and matters that pertain to entire society, wherein a wisdom processing mechanism should be in place. ( Such a societal decision making mechanism should have decentralised and centralized elements depending upon a contextual scheme based upon the topic. I refer to it as contextual planning. These are some broad ideas.
Jared diamond thought that we tolerate murderous and corrupt government because flatter structures lead to more overall murder and violence. He was referencing Papuan society, but the same could be said for traditional Corsican society which operated the vendetta system instead of a top-down legal system: very costly of life! I still yearn for a system based on mutual respect rather than heirarchy.
I became an anarchist as a teenager when I was very naive about human nature. Then, I became a liberal when I was learning about human nature. The more I learned about human nature, the closer I got to being an anarchist.
How about now
That's your intellectual path which might be accurate or not.
I was an anarchist, then a liberal, then a conservative, and now im closer to an anarchist Christian, at least philosophically. Life is a funny ride. I think you need to really understand the otherside of opinions to fully know yourself.
Dunning Kruger Effect in action
@@freniisammiiI think the phrase Dunning-Kruger is often bandied by people who are exhibiting the effect themselves
I genuinely love Zoe's low effort photo edits. Her analysis is always well developed and sharp, it's so funny to have it contrasted with quasi-shitpost pics in the background. Such an under appreciated channel
if there were any justice in this world Zoe would have 10M subscribers.
It took my brain a moment to process but I laughed out loud at Kropotkin smiling warmly while brandishing a couple pistols
@@Rishi123456789 Zoe is a trans woman. You can recognize that someone's biological sex and outward gender expression are different.
Outside of that, awesome comment
I need to pay attention then. I have been listening to this more as a podcast while my hands and eyes are busy. Currently with frying fish.
@@Rishi123456789 Wow. What an ignorant viewpoint. Your Techno Naturism or whatever comes across as way more delusional than any notion of Trans- gender Identity. Maybe try educating yourself a little bit on the subject before embarrassing yourself next time.
Picking Sailor Moon for an anarchist photo is divine irony when her story is literally about her becoming a monarch but doesn't know what she's doing so the rest of the story is about her daughter coming back in time to help her young mother make better choices so that she becomes a benevolent ruler that can accept dissonant opinions. 👌👌 Quality
I've been temporarily taking a break from a story I started writing several years ago, because while researching anarchism for a story about "the balance between two extremes", I accidentally became an anarchist...
Amazing we love to hear it. Something I hate about the idea of being unbiased is that what you think of as centrism necessarily alienates whole ways of thinking simply because they fall outside an arbitrary and binary political divide. For example someone rejecting anarchism outright simply because it’s “far left”. There’s an interview where an anarchists puts it quite well and says something about how ideas not generally found in the common discourse can at first sound ridiculous and absurd, this helps to obscure what they actually are and keeps people willfully ignorant of alternatives.
That's awesome! I think there are so many people like that who, because anarchism is usually "eliminate state and create chaos and apocalypse", simply don't know about it and don't know that it's actually a really evidential and logical ideology.
"We're all idiots. And the idea that some idiots are fit to rule over other idiots is the most idiotic one we had so far" -Me lmao
“Parents just don’t understand” - Will Smith
This is an actually nice way to put this idea. Fit for a casual conversation with friends or family.
ok lol
But people don't see that they're being ruled by idiots. As this video keeps saying, they see authority figures _as_ 'The State.' Can you put 'The State' on the phone for me right now? ruclips.net/video/76sX2tZSx9g/видео.html.
Did you support Mitch McConnell's efforts to block heroic first responders from getting needed medical aid? No one tried to _stop_ him. Even though his interference & the $ he was paid to do it are both illegal acts, not one person saw the criminal individual committing these. They saw The State in all its Physical Glory showing off its power.
That's what's missing from these discussions. _consciously,_ you all know what I'm saying is true. *Subconsciously,* you're all terrified of engaging in discussion that Daddy-Government our Ultimate Protector might construe as dissent.
People succumb to their subconscious (SC) fears multiple times a day. All it would take to get over those would be to remember that politicians are not the state.
Ahh, but doing so would cause most people to have a _different_ SC fear overwhelm them. Oh well, next time.
i will quote u from now one
Awesome video. I've never found the 'anarchism is impossible because of human nature' argument convincing.
How exactly would it work though?
For it to work, most people would need to be on board
@@alexgomez6723Well, society needs to realise the benefit of working together instead of against one another, something that is almost impossible for those who have lived their entire lives in a society that has instilled the opposite in them. It's kinda like what Moses does with the 40 year walk to the promised land in the old testament. He leads the people through the desert for that long not because the distance is that big, but in order to ensure no one born in slavery will reach Ha'anan, even he himself dies before that.
Hopefully I was able to explain what I mean in an understandable way.
One love ❤️
Anarchists are spot on considering the notion of enlightened or benevolent dictatorships advocated by certain philisophers going back to Plato. The idea of non democratic power being used by a select few according to some notion of superior strength, virtue or intellect is a pernicious one which sadly returns with each new generation of Humanity.
If Anarchists are naive, it is not about the supposed goodness or badness of their fellow humans, it is about how exactly to win people over from Archism. At best most people prefer minimal state interference to a stateless society which is all too easy to depict as undesirable by hostile intellectuals and authority figures.
Anarchism also has the same problem that all revolutionary ideologies have; that is touching upon the subject of force in the desired future society in regards to defence and security. Thomas Hobbes argued that a covenant without a sword is simply words which I fear is true of all societies regardless of statism.
Well then either everyone should have a sword or no one.
@@Aconitum_napellus Well Someone will need a sword metaphorically speaking. Even the most anti- authoritarian system needs some kind of power to back itself up. Just hopefully not some unaccountable group like the army or police in a conventional state.
@@Rishi123456789 Truthfully I don't think any political systems made by people can be inherently peaceful. No system will ever exist without an adversary, even if only an abstract one.
Also how will everyone be on a raw vegan diet in your utopia if said society has a non compulsory educational system? If Educators are afraid of "indoctrination" then they won't really succeed in arguing for good things socially like teaching children they shouldn't be racist or transphobic etc. A non compulsory approach will lead to a culture of fair weather liberals at best, easy pickings for any emergent reactionary force.
Also, people are lazy. Most of them probably would prefer a state to rule so they don't have to put in the effort of ruling themselves.
@@jeffersonclippership2588 Yes, they are. And, yes, they would, and will likely continue to do so for the foreseeable human future. Though, as a filthy reactionary and former anarcho-libertarian(filthier still), I feel compelled to ask: what exactly is meant by "ruling themselves" ?
I'm not from around these parts. I snuck in through an open window 'round back; forgive me if my question is stupid, but please answer it anyway
"Social wrongs do not depend on the wickedness of one master or the other, one governor or the other, but rather on masters and governments as institutions..." 👏👏👏
the big problems.. no, there is no one master to blame. Bill Gates the man? Jeff Beso the man? Zuck the robot? no, not directly. are they really any more culpable? they have set themselves up in compartmentalized workflows that legal protect them from liability.
Every individual that lets the evil continue? every worker down to the janitors that clean the bathrooms? well ... if the masters arn't committing the evil who at the corp is .... the workers?
every person in every anti-social institution is to blame?
every commenter feeding this very algorithm is to blame?
@@Andre-qo5ek What are you talking about? The point they were making is that the problem with the system isn't any individual person in power, it's the fact that positions of power exist at all. They were not making the point that, say, Elon Musk isn't bad, just that whether he is bad or not is immaterial to the immorality of these systems.
@@jadegrace1312
"the system" is ethereal, systems can not operate without compliance.
the bosses are profiteers, they will use any means to get profit, good or bad.
that leaves agency in the workers; the power is in the hands of the workers. thus the workers are the agents of the immorality.
it is immaterial if a person is just he janitor or the boss, they are participating in bringing the "systems' to fruition.
blaming ethereal institutions is no different than blaming god for the bible. we all know there were PEOPLE that wrote up the bible. and PEOPLE to be held accountable for the things going on in the world, not systems. there are no wheels of destiny that have been placed in motion; unstoppable by mortal change.
for an ideology that denounces hierarchy, contracts outlining "institutions" and "systems" conveniently get blamed a lot instead of the people that should be held accountable.
@@Andre-qo5ek What are you talking about? What's the point in focusing on people? We know how to change people's behaviour, it's by changing incentive structures. Thus even if you want to focus on people you get sent back to focusing on institutions. I seriously don't get the purpose of your comment, it really just seems like you want to start arguments.
Edit: Also, my favorite part of your comment is how you put "the system" in quotes as if it was some vague, ethereal term, when clearly the system I was referring to is the specific system of hierarchy relevant to each system. I wasn't using it in some sort for vague, recuperated "anti-capitalist" way, I was referring to a specific system. Admittedly, I probably should've said "each specific system" because that would've more accurately conveyed the point I was making.
@@Rishi123456789
of course it was just a brief comment on a video in the void.
the range of topics you have jammed into the comment makes it impossible to address in any meaningful way.
it was a very nice utopian speech. so thanks for that.
but it doesn't actually say much to the video topic. quite the opposite. it feeds the idea of naivety IMO.
1)
i question this line particularly "where everyone has raw vegan organic alkaline food".
i'm guessing you simply mean available for people who choose to eat this way... but the science doesn't look great for these diet choices for the general public. (i'm no expert by any means of course, just a normal rando)
2)
hadn't heard of Minarchism. ... but its the only item that was an actionable item in your speech.
Sounds like a standard government before the socio-economic power dynamics take hold ... i'm not sure how this helps your argument.
>
"In the strictest sense, it maintains that the state is necessary and that its only legitimate function is the protection of individuals from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud, and the only legitimate governmental institutions are the military, police, and courts. In the broadest sense, it also includes fire departments, prisons, the executive, and legislatures as legitimate government functions. Such states are generally called night-watchman states.
Minarchists argue that the state has no authority to use its monopoly on force to interfere with free transactions between people, and see the state's sole responsibility as ensuring that contracts between private individuals and property are protected, through a system of law courts and enforcement. Minarchists generally believe a laissez-faire approach to the economy is most likely to lead to economic prosperity. "
rewatching your work to freshen up after some tough thanksgiving conversations. I very much appreciate all your efforts to educate others, thank you!
I work for a certain vastly and disgustingly large retail company. So on a daily basis my opinion of humans is battered . However the "utopian" goals of anarchism appeals to me all the same. I mean, even if it isn't doable we should still strive for a world of freedom and cooperation amongst the whole world. Why else are we doing this all for otherwise? People generally have been programmed to settle for less. So much so that they laugh or get frustrated with people who yearn for more. I tell ya, that Plato may have been onto something with that cave story
Fighting evil by moonlight
Winning love by daylight
Never running from a real fight
Thank you for the videos you make Zoe, and in illuminating Anarchism for everyone who listens to your videos. I would like to think your videos helped me to become a better person. Thanks again.
Anarchy does not mean no government, no laws.
Anarchists are SELF GOVERNING and do have to obey fundamental laws.
Anarchy is a system of cooperation, self reliance, voluntary charity.
And is thus antithetical to marxism.
It's also a stateless political theory, hence no government. That implies authority, which anarchism is specifically against. You wouldn't have a boss in an anarchic society, there would be a coordinator that others in your shared enterprise respect enough to direct the flow of effort. They wouldnt have authority, they can't fire you or tell you to leave, and their entire position is dependant on the others in that group letting them do the job.
Imagine if your boss sucked, so you and your fellow employees sat him down and told him in no uncertain terms that if he doesn't correct those issues, then he will simply no longer be your boss and you'll all choose another trusted individual to do the leadershipping.
Plenty of gems in this one. Thank you!
I took several screenshots (of the text quotes... despite the obviously masterful photoshopping which I also love lol)
Poor human nature, what horrible crimes have been committed in thy name! Emma Goldman
It's generally wise to steer clear of making arguments about human nature, but given how long humans lived in egalitarian and stateless societies, it's tempting to hypothesise about what may in fact be 'natural' for humans.
capitalism is, and will be, a very brief period of human social development
And I'd like to hear about those egalitarian societies in which we have lived for so long. You can certainly not mean the Dugum Dani of Papua Guinea, who have been extensively researched since the 1960s. You can't possibly mean the Maori, the Yoruba, the Ibo, the Hausa, the Yamomamo, the Zulu, the Great Plains Indians, the Aztecs, or the Corded Ware Culture peoples, among many others, because all these certainly were socially structured in above and below. Given what anthropologists have found out about tribal structures, about 'war before civilization' or 'big men', I do indeed wonder what is so 'natural' for humans.
@Jean Sanchez Irrespective of that, they are most certainly hierarchical societies and it is highly likely that our ancestors have lived much like the Dugum Dani did until the 1960s. There is no anarchism in traditional societies.
@@ewaldseiland8558 Look up Immediate Return Hunter-Gatherers. Specifically the following examples:
-Pygmy groups in central Africa (Aka, Baka, Efe, Mbendjele, Mbuti);
-Hadza in Tanzania, some San groups in Namibia and Botswana (Ju\'hoansi aka !Kung);
-several groups in India such as the Jarawa and Ongee Andaman Islanders, Hill Pandaram, and Nayaka;
-In Southeast Asia, the Agta, Batek, Maniq, Penan and others
These are all highly-egalitarian societies that are the closest to how our ancestors lived for most of human existence (100,000 years). For the source, see "Egalitarian social organisation among hunter-gatherers" by Jerome Lewis
Your examples are all newer than that. In fact, the Aztec empire is younger than Oxford university.
Love to see it! Thank you Zoe!!!
"Muh human nature is to be a piece of crap!"
Even taking that at face value, that doesn't inspire me to want to give individual humans (and usually the most ruthless) all kinds of opportunities at forming hierarchies with them at the top, controlling huge amounts of resources that other people need to survive, interpreting religious texts for large numbers of people, writing laws for large numbers of people, etc etc etc.
Like really? You think this thing you're referring to as "human nature" is intrinsically cruel and ruthless and selfish, but you also think the solution is to give individual humans, or very small numbers of them, immense amounts of coercive power over very large numbers? People are *bad by nature* and should therefor be given *armies to control?* That makes about as much sense as trying to put out an electrical fire by dousing it in gasoline.
I remember finding something very interesting in John Dewey’s book on human nature, that the imposition of morals are to suppress human nature. And well we all know who controls the normative understanding of morals in our countries
Anarchist and Marxist views on human nature are often seen as a precursor to pragmatism. In particular, pragmatists developed the idea of the primacy of action over ideas and senses.
I have to disagree. I do not know who controls the normative understanding of morals in any country. In countries that lack free media, there is a feedback cycle between propaganda mills and popular opinion. In countries with free media and the internet, there is segregation into various echo chambers.
I think that's wildly off base in the majority of contexts. Most morals as traditionally conceived of - as intuitive judgments, particularly - are clearly nothing more than attempts to justify personal feelings by assigning them external validation through the reification of "morality". Most people don't construct moral positions through anything resembling critical thought or rigor; they merely feel base emotions such as fear and disgust, and make those things the basis for social prescriptions.
"Human nature" is for the most part a product of circumstances, neither intrinsic nor unchanging. The closest thing to that would be the sets of positions most people are socialized into. But that's exactly the problem: People try to get an ought from an is, to assign moral primacy to their feelings that are actually just products of the status quo.
Some ethical systems are, however, more than that. Particularly some forms of utilitarianism that focus on things other than pure pleasure and pain. I find that much more compelling than pretending our personal feelings are actually some kind of universal moral law.
I think Malatesta wrote about that, but I can't find the exact quote now. But it basically said - as far as I can remember - that a lot of anarchists in his time tried to fully reject the concept of morals and ethics with the very argument that those were controlled by the ruling forces. But he answered to them that they shouldn't just reject them, that they should stick to those aspects of morality that were in line with anarchist thinking and that they should replace morals and ethics where they have better ones as replacements. And I fully agree with that. Morals and ethics are quite important and I wouldn't like to see an anarchist movement that goes full anti-intellectual which is a path that historically led to fascism. And I don't mean that in an exaggerated way. Anti-intellectualism and the glorification of action instead of thinking was and is a core element of fascist thinking. "Thinking is a form of emasculation" for fascists according to Umberto Eco. And a lot of fascists thought of anarchists as those action-guided forces of violence (because they only knew anarchism as the distorted version they knew from the media). For example, the fascist poet Filippo Tommaso Marinetti wrote in his 'Futurist manifest': "We want to glorify war - the only cure for the world - militarism, patriotism, the destructive gesture of the anarchists, the beautiful ideas which kill, and contempt for woman". And the fascists in Italy used some anarchist/syndicalist terms (I don't know which exactly, but something in the direction of direct action, propaganda of the deed ect. ) and some of the early fascists were indeed earlier anarchists who had abolished all morals and then only believed in the purifying force of action and pragmatism.
@@Kuhmuhnistische_Partei wow I don’t mean there is no moral bases for the actions we have in the real world. I just thought what dewy said was interesting, the implication which indicated the establishment of morals that conflict with human nature are used to degrade individuals to the system they are subjected to
Thank you for your continued work in helping people learn more about anarchy. Your work helps bring understanding.
Hi Zoe, comment for the algorithm. You are one of the few people where as soon as I see a new video I want to watch it. They're always interesting and informative, and your presentation is just perfect, thank you 👍👍🏴
Some people never seem to learn from experience. No matter how often they had seen the lion devour the lamb, they continued to cling to the hope that the nature of the beast might change. If only the lion could get to know the lamb better, they argued, or talk matters over.
Emma Goldman
what was Emma Goldman's conclusion to the nature of lamb and -wolf- lion? who was this person observer?
@@Andre-qo5ek I believe the lion represents governments, and the lamb the masses
Sure, but the lion exists in nature too. One million lambs united together stand a much better chance against a thousand lions than a single lamb against a single lion with nobody else around. It's nice poetry but it's only that, it doesn't actually address the unfortunate reality that bad people will still be bad people when you take away state interference (or that charismatic and imposing bad people will still unite new mobs beneath them with nobody around to stop it, so you actually end up facing all thousand of those lions by yourself as a single lonely lamb).
@@TheSquareOnes
"bad people will still be bad people when you take away state interference (or that charismatic and imposing bad people will still unite new mobs beneath them "
yup... all the wolves(lions) in sheep's clothing.
time and time again history shows us that when one lion falls the sheep bleat and a new lion steps in. power vacuums seem to be able to be secured by the sheep.
sheep are also governed by a shepard ... how does the Shepard play into this?
unless we are saying this is in a state of nature (aka. human less), but that would destroy the Emma Goldman quote. it would be in the sheeps nature TO be fooled and consumed by the lion.
@@TheSquareOnes exactly
This is very important, thanks!
3:13 How do you start so strong ("man acts", i.e. praxeology) and end in marxism?
John Burroughs has stated that experimental study of animals in captivity is absolutely useless. Their character, their habits, their appetites undergo a complete transformation when torn from their soil in field and forest. With human nature caged in a narrow space, whipped daily into submission, how can we speak of its potentialities? Emma Goldman
Ironic statement
@@dawkom320 How so?
this
This was a fantastic video & spoke to the issue which I recently had a terrible argument over with a loved one over. We both walked away very hurt.
_Spread the bread, algorhithm!_
Making anarchy by talking sense. Love it!
This is a great video as always 👏.
Wonderful video, thank you! I love the shitpost pictures along with the very thoughtful commentary. Perfection. Also, I love the Bakunin quote from State and Society (I think) at the end. It really hits the nail on the head.
Do you want to prevent men from ever oppressing other men?
Arrange matters such that they never have the opportunity.
Do you want them to respect the liberty, rights and human character of their fellow men?
Arrange matters such that they are compelled to respect them -
compelled not by the will or oppression of other men,
nor by the repression of the State and legislation,
which are necessarily represented and implemented by men
and would make them slaves in their turn,
but by the actual organization of the social environment,
so constituted that while leaving each man to enjoy the utmost possible liberty
it gives no one the power to set himself above others or to dominate them-
An Ancap president was just elected in Argentina. That'll be interesting.
More like a minarchist
Ancaps are not anarchists. Capitalist firms are still coercive hierarchies.
@@alphajackal6648 Point to the coercion then.
Are you coerced to work for a firm? No. Are you coerced to buy from a firm? No.
You can completely ignore the fact that firms even exist and go on just as you would have without them.
this is a masterwork. it's cathartic to listen to someone so perfectly articulate the views i hold, but did not have the means to effectively express them in word, until now
I very much appreciate this essay, it helped my understanding. I am still curious though: how can anarchy exist without allowing the possibility that new hierarchies can arise? Say a whole continent went anarchist; what prevents a small village of folks from uniting behind a leader, forming a violent army, and going on a conquest spree? How does anarchy permanently quash domination and conquest?
That's what I always come to. The hierarchies are only good at on thing, and that is destroying peaceful, cooperative communities. The mob rules. Gangsterism tends to prevail over decentralized, peaceful societies...at least so far.
@@Jimi_Lee Exactly my feeling. This is why I always feel that while anarchism sounds like an ideal far-future potential, in the meantime we need strong community organization and self-defense, and I believe that this requires a certain amount of hierarchy.
This is the thing that I never understood about anarchy as a philosophy. You can't get around the fact that an organized group with strong leadership is more effective than an unorganized one and will always be able to force its will on everyone else. This sort of thing happens all throughout history, a *lot*, and it's why we have political power structures today at all. The best you can hope for is some say in what the people at the top use state violence to do (which is supposed to be what democracy does, to varying degrees of imperfect success). I think this is what people mean when they say anarchists are naive, and I didn't feel that I got a satisfactory answer to this question from the video (maybe I missed something? Not asking in a sarcastic way).
@@shinyary2 Anarchists pick up the pieces after empires destroy themselves.
@@Jimi_Lee This doesn't seem to have answered the question? Or are you saying that anarchy is really more descriptive, rather than prescriptive? As in, it's not something to try to establish and/or maintain, but instead it's just a state of being that exists in between the fall of one empire and the rise of the next? If that's what you mean, I think we're on the same page.
Your channel popped up in my recommendations and combined with that thumbnail, was an instant click for me.
this helped me understand anarchism on a much deeper level so thank you! such a great video, i hope more people see this
Enlightened CEOs, exactly thats is a spot on…
I think this video does a good job at showing how individual famous anarchists understood human nature wasn’t perfect, but it doesn’t deal with the main criticism of anarchism in practise- that being that it has no clear explanation for how an anarchist society could be reached or maintained while man’s nature remains imperfect. While everyone has drives for community and selfishness, anarchism has no answer for how we can transition from a society that promotes selfishness to one that promotes community and it has even less clarity of how it would maintain such a situation without the use of coercion without a state. This is the real naivety people speak of when they say anarchists don’t understand human nature. It’s not whether obscure dead men were aware of it, but how modern anarchists lack the tactics to bring about and maintain an anarchist society.
I: My two cents: to transition from a society motivated by greed and selfishness, we need to disincentivize these behaviors. Capitalism puts them on a pedestal, glorifies them, and makes them, in people´s minds, necessary for survival. To have your college or job application accepted, another person´s must get rejected. Getting a promotion menas someone else doesn´t get one. Winning means someone else loses. Artificial scarcity of success leads to this dog-eat-dog mentality we can observe in the world. When we transition away from capitalism, this way of thinking will lose its merit and appeal, since people won´t be forced to live in a constant competition.
Does it make sense, what I mean? I must admit I´m not the best at explaining my thoughts.
@@iamnohere this is my issue though, for anyone to design incentive structures of how society can run, that is in essence going to be a state that requires coercion of some kind. Whether that’s positive reward or negative consequences for acting against the wishes of those designers or both, to design a system by how you wish society to govern itself requires coercion of some kind. Anarchists seem to not have an answer for how this could be done otherwise.
This is a huge topic. Have you seen my video anarchism as a way of life? It covers some of this stuff
ruclips.net/video/VP31dPtbHLc/видео.html
How to achieve anarchism wasn't really the point of the video.
@@calebr7199 true, but the argument over how achievable an anarchist society is is why people say Anarchists don’t have a clear grasp on human nature.
Absolutely fantastic analysis, Zoe. Thank you for this.
systems render behaviors render systems render behaviors
You have the coolest degree and the stuff I learn from works of art like this usually quickly becomes the favorite stuff I ever learned. My nihilism doesn't thank you but I do, very much.
Thank you so much for this well researched rebuttal!
Incredibly informative and deeply factual. Thank you for your work.
I have one central question regarding ideas like these:
Under what conditions or framework could a hypothetical anarchical society remain stable, and not develop into something that is no longer anarchical?
Whenever someone proposes an alternative way of organizing society, this is a question that I really struggle to see answered, even on videos titled things like "Socialism explained" or "You're probably already a socialist". Conversely, whenever someone attempts to debunk a proposal like that, they have to fill in the blanks for how the society is supposed to work, so any supporters would be able to say "yeah duh it won't work if you set it up wrong". HOW would you set it up right, in a hypothetical scenario where you could play God and just arrange and educate society however you like?
education and debunks of ideas, study and arguments
@@emanuelneagu14 Would education alone prevent the rise of societal structures like:
- armed oppressors
- debt
- democratic organizations
- capitalist/feudalist job contracts
- religious sects
- thieving cliques
- socialist communities
and all of the other anti-anarchist power-seekers that could desire to topple an anarchist society? Because that is essentially what my question boils down to: How would it be stable, i.e. how would people be unable to topple it in favour of their own ambitions?
@@iwersonsch5131 oh I thought you mean something else by "stable", like marxists are diverse as hell and would want reforms. Sure it's not stable, there's always gonna be some fascists looking to either rob or rule everyone, you're completely right, we never get answers for this stuff from anarchists, that's why I call myself whatever-kinda-socialism-gains-power-excluding-anarchism-for-now-and-trotskyism-always-ist. In some ideal society though yes, education alone would prevent people from willing to be part of any of such groups that wouldn't even exist, that's why most people call anarchists naive about human nature.
@@emanuelneagu14 I'm fine if anarchists only want to propose a framework in which anarchy can remain the dominant description for society, rather than fading almost completely in favour of some form of archy. However, I don't even see that in the current, pretty vague anarchist proposals that I've heard.
This is even assuming that people are perfectly educated about anarchy and why all possible ideas for breaking it would be bad ideas. Wouldn't there eventually start being strong enough real-world incentives to exploit a power vacuum by overthrowing it with a governing structure? For example, some subset of the population could hope for:
- personal accumulation of wealth
- cheaper protection of property
- more efficient trade
- more efficient production chains
- access to resources that happen to be owned by a part of society unwilling to share at a fair price
- the desire to make history
- desire-driven oppression of individuals, or protection against such oppression?
@@iwersonsch5131 same.
No, there wouldn't, they would know why it wouldn't be better, isn't that the point?!
kropotkin looks like the cuddliest grandpa ever.
The video I needed, thanks Zoe!
this is a very good video. it takes the concept "humans bad so humans shouldnt rule humans" and puts context behind it, as well as addressing that humans are also good. by the means of which we grow up, our beliefs will be molded one way or the other, and an anarchist society seeks to teach the value of cooperation rather than dominance
how do you teach that without having the power to keep people from trying to take dominance path within an anarchist society?
@@emanuelneagu14 depends on how far down the line you're thinking. I had in mind more of a parent raising a child situation. For people with a more established sense of self, I don't have an answer for that beyond "make it unpopular to do so" but in the age of internet those types of people can just cluster around in forums and spread their ideas that way. This is definitely a topic that needs further consideration.
@@dandelionsryans down the whole society, things get the most different they can be from a parent raising a child on the other side of things (far authoritarian right I suppose). Otherwise, nobody wants partial anarchism right? How'd that be even possible in the first place lmao. Well anyway, there should have been an answer to that in order for anarchism to be an option, not like this, being an unanswered question even now. If the answer is found in history, more specific teach all people how to fight like back in antiquity when there was some natural anarchy cause tribes were fighting and wouldn't unite into states, that again today to fight extremists?! No thanks, that's fucked up.
@@emanuelneagu14 you can't create an ideology without existing material conditions or else your "plans" are doomed to fail. if we had the answers for every problem we would have solved them by now. When we throw off the yoke of our oppressors, in whatever time that may be, only then can we answer questions like this because our material conditions will have changed from the present day and we will solve them accordingly
@@dandelionsryans giving various solutions for an imminent problem everywhere has nothing to do with current material conditions, choosing which solution is optimal at a specific time does. The problem is something relatively constant, in our nature, that wouldn't change in just a few years or tens of years. It's a threat that you either oppose either change from the inside. Change could only be through education, hardly, whilst as opposition, I haven't ever heard of any institution or such that's more competent to oppose such groups than states themselves through police or army and despite how incompetent they actually might act sometimes, anarchists don't propose anything in this sense and again the tribal-like system is a huge NO, a big jump back.
My conclusion is only education of anarchist theory could work in some already very civilized society where everyone would see how valuable anarchism is. Such a society is light years away from anything currently existing, hell even Marx's dictature of the proletariat idea sounds closer to what could today's people organize to do.
woot thanks for spreading more love
I generally refrain from calling people naive because of the slippery slope into the whole determining people as inferior thing.
that's not a slippery slope. that's jumping off a cliff.
how does one get from naive to inferior?
@@Andre-qo5ek Could you describe an example of when someone is being naive?
@@celestialbuffalo
sure.. lets see....
generally anything that is not thought out to the extend of people abusing it.
an everyday example:
not locking your bike, your car, your house and being surprised when your property is stolen.
*
not locking the property does not make a person inferior for their mistake. they just didn't think ahead.
big picture example:
proposing laisse fair capitalism and not expecting people to sell adulterated products.
proposing intellectual property rights and patents and expecting people to not hoard patents and crush competition.
@@Andre-qo5ek In the latter example I'd say that is often the aim of the economic system. As far as not locking things up I'd just say that was a mistake.
Why characterize someone as an innocent cherub to be looked after? I think that's the slippery slope.
"And the public want what the public get" - The Jam, Going Underground.
The Jam is boss
Outstanding, thank you, from the heart.
Absolutely fantastic video, really cleared a lot up for me. Many thanks!
Thankyou really enjoyed and appreciated this 🙂hope you are feeling better soon 💚
Quality work, as always 🙂
I find myself bingeing this channel's content lately. Brilliant work.
I grew up liberal in conservative Indiana, became communist during my teens, then a bitter socialist progressive, and now I’m coming to anarcho -socialism or something idk even.
I used to think anarchism was a cop out ideology 😂
anarchism is over used
thx for the vid!
I'm a 32 year old adult, and I still vibe HARD with anarchism. I just recognize the inherit power-vacuum anarchy causes in a society. Slavery is legal because there are no laws, might-makes-right would become the norm, corporal punishment becomes arbitrary and random, for any slight perceived by the recipient (the victim being the only person truly capable of enacting justice) and the moment someone organizes, the whole system shows it's fragility. One small group of authoritarians can very easily turn an anarchic society into a brutalist authoritarian state.
Excellent video!
glad your back. i need more
can't watch till later but commenting for the algorithm
Liberals: anarchists are so naive...
Also liberals: surely the market will save us from climate change. Any day now...
People subscribe to a hierarchical social structure within the belief of safety under a leader, thus giving up free will in some way or another. - this happens willingly and is more so seen within cult like groups. One instance is how Andrew Tate has indoctrinated impressionable men, such as those who see themselves as low in a social hierarchy settling or with a loose grasp on reality. This creating a group think mentality of giving up identity to be what they believe to be socially valuable. mainly because of what he shows to be on a basic level (wealthy etc) And it easier to give up their identity to subscribe to his. people who do so, are then exploited to a degree as they have to be a metaphorical sacrificial lamb. - the identity of a independent personality to one that is more supposedly favored and valued in society. By giving up independence to conformity rather than understanding we all have different places within different aspects of society such as being a father, a worker, a partner, friend all involve a different social structure that fluctuates. -you can’t be top of each one without having a sense of autocratic egotistical superiority. Which might I add most social idols promote, making more people that delusional. you need to be self aware and critique specific institutions to maintain a sense of self and community. being able to question institutions and false idols is how we can all look at corrupted and exploitative systems that seek to maintain dominance over people rather than helping them live a life that’s best for them.
Love your channel!
Very interesting video, thank you!
1:09 wow I think this is the first time I've read a bit of theory where someone mentions pooping. Momentous occasion.
I hate my job
i like ur voice! also, i think you have quite a knack for conveying your ideas.
I love that you bring some words from my favorite anarchist thinkers, like malatesta and kropotkin, and reclus is amazing too. It's a shame that they are ignored by most people, even in the left. I'm always amazed by the clarity in their words and ideas, and admire their will to speak to the workers, the masses. I think you are doing a great job in trying to do the same! Also, i really am excited to read Mutual aid. A new edition just got printed last year here in Brazil, but i haven't got it yet. Your video just got me looking forward to it a bit more :)
Such a great video!
I recommend changing the thumbnail because I causally disregard anyone who appropriates sailor moon for a political message
No! Never in a million years!
*Sees Sailor Moon*
Okay I'm listening...
This one is great. Thank you.
You're good for solidarity.
✊🏴🚩✊
The human nature argument is easy to debunk since it is overlayed by beliefs that limit its very presence.
Just look at how kind little children can be! (Or at least that example used to hold for my generation at that time.)
I really enjoy your channel, Zoe.
Im not an Anarchist, but I love Raccoons. So im a Racconist! 😂
great thumbnail ✨
At 19:50, Bertrand Russell said something quite similar in his book "Proposed Roads to Freedom" where he compares anarchism and Marxism. The chapter on anarchism begins (insertion and italicization my own):
"In the popular mind, an Anarchist is a person who throws bombs and commits other outrages, either because he is more or less insane, or because he uses the pretense of extreme political opinions as a cloak for criminal proclivities. This view is, of course, in every way inadequate. Some Anarchists believe in throwing bombs; many do not. Men of almost every other shade of opinion believe in throwing bombs in suitable circumstances: for example, the men who threw the bomb at Sarajevo which started the present war were not Anarchists, but Nationalists (this was written during World War I). And those Anarchists who are in favor of bomb-throwing do not in this respect differ on any vital principle from the rest of the community, with the exception of that infinitesimal portion who adopt the Tolstoyan attitude of non-resistance. *_Anarchists, like Socialists, usually believe in the doctrine of the class war, and if they use bombs, it is as Governments use bombs, for purposes of war: but for every bomb manufactured by an Anarchist, many millions are manufactured by Governments, and for every man killed by Anarchist violence, many millions are killed by the violence of States. We may, therefore, dismiss from our minds the whole question of violence, which plays so large a part in the popular imagination, since it is neither essential nor peculiar to those who adopt the Anarchist position."_*
That thumbnail kicks ass
Anarchy is cool and epic plus rich in theory and practice.
human nature in a confined and seemingly hopeless situation becomes distorted by poverty, inadequate housing, overcrowding, access to resources et al. Any mammal species given such social circumstance would distort just the same. Apes in zoos are not the same as apes in their natural environment. They are often better fed than many humans however. Capitalism needs this degradation of true human nature, which when arises will break the fetters.
Your channel sparks my radical spirit 🔥
I'm an anarchist by nature, and only recently started looking at the actual literature around the formal philosophy. I think I had it worked out pretty close in my head to what the ideology describes. The central point in this discussion sums up a lot of my general assessment of the state of affairs. That is that we know people can't be trusted, especially when it comes to power, so why create more and more powerful positions for them to operate from, ostensibly to protect us from our own nature. Who protects us from their nature?
It's imperfect but ideally that's the point of democracy, to have some level of accountability and punishment even for the "rulers." But again, it's very imperfect and can definitely be improved upon from where we currently are.
Going in the other direction and getting rid of any sort of structure seems like it would be counterproductive though, because now there isn't even imperfect accountability. People who want to hurt you can just hurt you, it's entirely on you to negotiate for any sort of help out of a bad situation since nobody is expected to assist you. There's also nothing stopping those people from joining together again into new mobs, so now you have all the bad aspects of the current structure but without any of the positives. It's just gangs going around mugging and conquering the weak, with nobody being strong enough to stop them unless they organize into their own gang... which just escalates until we're back we are today.
I think anarchism is philosophically very interesting but it just doesn't sound functional in the world today. Not only that I can't even picture a future world where developments could make it functional, unlike with things like communism were we can at least expect automated production to eventually deal with most of the issues regarding "who has to do all the labor?" Maybe with some sort of transhuman eugenics that fundamentally removes the desire and ability for humans to dominate one another? At that point we're basically just asking for literal magic to solve the problems though.
That's not an exclusively anarchist thought though, most systems that were designed with the idea of being "for the people" tried to take that into account and impose separations and balance of powers. Maybe not perfect ones, but still ones nonetheless. Most Democracies have that in their constitution. Even the USA was build technically on that thought, originally based on a small federal government that wouldn't totally control states. The issue is the amount of power you want, or have to give to have a safe and functional society, and on that point it becomes a very complicated issue. But basically everyone , not just anarchists, are aware that you shouldn't put all power in the hand of one guy.
@@TheSquareOnes That is what we have. Gangs fighting for supremacy. The violence is through the roof. Not much accountability. Lots of government. Law dispensed based on race. Endless war. Go against the warlords in whichever government. Go against the local mafioso or street drug gang. Big corporations are just as likely to kill you as a government if you seriously mess with their profits or live in a third world country. We have all the violence of anarchy on steroids, plus the oppression of the leviathan of modern technical governments. Government doesn't solve any of the problems, just amplifies them and gives us something to fight over. It doesn't change the basic power dynamic of weak and strong.
@@Jimi_Lee We really don't, this is like when people say that having a job is just like slavery.
I have encountered zero violence in my personal life which is lucky but also wouldn't be the case without the relatively safe society that an organized civilization has provided. Violence still exists, obviously, but the point is that it isn't a daily threat that everyone needs to consider in order to get or keep what they need.
@@TheSquareOnesOK 👍
algorithm comment. I hope this channel gets many more subscribers!
First of all, thank you SO MUCH for this wonderful, detailed yet condensed and easy to follow presentation 💗 You've gained a loyal listener in me. I would like to ask you, though, where did you find the Honi soit qui mal y pense political caricature? It would probably come in useful for this personal research project I have. Once again, big props to you and here's to binging more of your stuff!!!
Was used as a thumbnail for this. Don't know the original source.
www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p005459p
thank you so much!! Best wishes to you 💗
compliments to the artist
Berusaha ngerti biarpun susah hehe
Nice video zoe, i was curious about the effect of power on people
Good video. And nice to see In the Time of Anarchy by Paul Signac.
LOVED this.
This seems like it's built upon a fundamental misunderstanding of how hierarchies come to exist, by treating them as something that needs to be legislated into existence rather than as naturally arising social dynamics which then inform our government structures. Obviously it's a complicated issue that goes a bit in both directions, like the specific disparity between "millionaire senator" and "dirt poor cashier" wouldn't exist without the concepts of capitalism, a senate and minimum wage retail jobs to create that particular abstract hierarchical imbalance, but the point is that taking away all concepts of government and economics wouldn't stop other hierarchies from being formed in human society.
Aside from showing that life probably wouldn't necessarily be utopian and completely equal in an anarchist society, this also points to the problem of how to maintain such a society. We originated in anarchy, it's the natural state of things. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your perspective) the natural state is also for people to organize into increasingly larger groups over time, leading to the current situation where entire continents can be ruled under just a couple flags. It's not clear how it would even be possible to prevent this from happening again since by definition there would be no systems in place to stop people from doing what they want, right? And if what they want is to organize into a small state which then allows them to snowball that social advantage against all the disorganized people around them to grow back to the size of nations, how would one stop that?
Finally, this wasn't really touched on in the video at all but I think the biggest issue with anarchism is how to even "transition into" it. Even if it would be perfectly stable and wonderful (which I don't think it would be for the reasons given in the last paragraph, but still), the problem seems to be that you'd need to convince the entire world to transition at the same time. If you don't do this then you end up in a situation where fully organized, developed and most importantly militarily ready states are bordering state-less regions with no clear way to defend themselves from invasion. There is a lot of historical evidence to suggest what would happen next and it doesn't favor the side without an army. Ironically it seems like the only way you could even attempt a fully anarchist period of human civilization again would be to conquer the entire world under one government and then dissolve that without fracturing it back into functional states... so basically impossible.
TLDR: Anarchism might be philosophically ideal but probably too fragile to ever be functional. It's the "have you tried just telling the villain to be nice?" of societal structures, great when you get to control all the contrast of the fiction you're applying it in but not nearly as effective when translated to reality.
the idea isn't that hierarchical structures can just be removed and anarchy will happen naturally, rather it's that anarchy must be actively created and sustained by people who wish to do so. Zoe's video "Anarchism as a way of life" details this:
ruclips.net/video/VP31dPtbHLc/видео.html&ab_channel=ZoeBaker
and her video "Means and Ends: The Anarchist Critique of Seizing State Power" is about "transition" to anarchy
ruclips.net/video/vsRyTWBj84E/видео.html&ab_channel=ZoeBaker
I get what you are saying,its more of a cultural revolution rather than anything,i Guess the only real solution Is to let capitalism die and be ready to when It does to actually take action and to built a socialist one (hoping that Marx was right and capitalism destroys itself)
You read as someone who hasn't read any anarchist literature in your life (we've devised strategies and solutions for everything you've listed), and yet believe yourself qualified to render judgment.
Do you bring this level of intellectual scrutiny to the rest of your life?
@@DreamersOfReality You read as someone that thinks "no u" is a compelling argument. If you have solutions then share them, don't vaguely gesture at the idea that they're out there.
I just love how well reasoned this is. Excellent work as always
I think it started with neolilthic revolution. The city states and god-kings began huge changes in the ways human societies are organized. We collectively get so many good and bad things from all these changes we call "progress". We need an organized effort to maximize the good and minimize the bad. All organization comes from the top down though, for personal gains of the powerful. That's the first thing we need to change.
You know, I want to say that I was drawn to anarchism because of so many ML living in a complete fantasy world in regards to the USSR. I live in an ex ML state, Romania, and am fully aware how things were. So I just couldn't side with that. That is why I was a rabid anti conmunist, because I saw it as a sure fire way to dictatorship ( which ML is in my opinion)If not for anarchism, I would still probably be one. Because I have not seen such dogmatic ahistorical stuff like in the USSR nostalgics, maybe save for some cults. And they call anarchists naive.
Don't listen to them ,i am from Albania ,so i know what you are talking,you can be a marxist without being a leninist,its obvious that Marx analyzed capitalistic societies such as France,germany and England,you can't transport that type of idea in pre capitalistic countries but they did anyway,socialism Is the next step After capitalism ,tankies are Just annoying apologists and they are probably the best weapon of the continuation of capitalism as they drive away milions of people interested in a different society
Ok, we need to draw a line between Corporatism and Capitalism. Most of the time when people talk about "Capitalism" they mean Corporatism or, more often, Fascism. Capitalism is where involved parties agree to a mutually agreeable exchange of goods and/or services. A person wants a house built in a Capitalist economy? You agree to a purchase of land and hire a company to build it at an agreed upon cost based off of labor and materials. In Corporatism large companies lobby the government for increased regulation in order to cut out smaller competitors who can't afford the increased cost. In Fascism the government dictates what the companies can or can't build, where and for whom, often via regulation. In other words, the US and Europe are NOT Capitalist economies; they are at best Corporatists and more often borderline on full blown Fascism. It's called a "Third-Way" economy, somewhere between Capitalism and Socialism, and is the hallmark of Fascist governments.
I disagree thay human nature is anything but kind amd caring. I believe that greed and hatred is learned. Im not naive for that
Yes yes, quite good. Thank you!
@17:10 we understand here where Kropotkin goes wrong. Like Marx, he was reacting to conditions he saw in the world. The truth is, if you observe the world, the best of people deny themselves the habit of commanding. If you indulge in a _habit_ of commanding you are by definition not among the best of "men." Maybe Kropotkin was corrupted in translation. Or he was just imprecise in his writing and a touch too polemical.
Maybe I misunderstand or I'm missing some key information, but anarchism for me, while theoretically interesting, has some criticial flaws. Nature is brutal and even if we observe monkeys, we already know that they're waging wars just like humans and they can kill just for fun. People need order and order doesn't come from chaos, some form of organization is still required, someone has to enforce order and anarchism doesn't really get rid of violence, but rather ignores problem. Humanity progressed in various ways and while group of monkeys is not a danger for humanity, it's completely different story, when it comes to modern humans. Most people can buy guns. Military of many countries owns weapons capable of ending civilization. I'm not big fan of direction that communism took, but I can't deny that some centralization has to exist, unless someone supports some social darwinism and doesn't care about weaker individuals.
Perhaps we need a contextual planning system to manage human coexistence. There are matters that pertain to individual life where individual makes decisions, matters that pertain to family enjoyments- wherein the family members need to collectively decide and matters that pertain to entire society, wherein a wisdom processing mechanism should be in place. ( Such a societal decision making mechanism should have decentralised and centralized elements depending upon a contextual scheme based upon the topic. I refer to it as contextual planning. These are some broad ideas.
Perhaps we need a contextual planning system to manage human coexistence. There are matters that pertain to individual life where individual makes decisions, matters that pertain to family enjoyments- wherein the family members need to collectively decide and matters that pertain to entire society, wherein a wisdom processing mechanism should be in place. ( Such a societal decision making mechanism should have decentralised and centralized elements depending upon a contextual scheme based upon the topic. I refer to it as contextual planning. These are some broad ideas.
Perhaps we need a contextual planning system to manage human coexistence. There are matters that pertain to individual life where individual makes decisions, matters that pertain to family enjoyments- wherein the family members need to collectively decide and matters that pertain to entire society, wherein a wisdom processing mechanism should be in place. ( Such a societal decision making mechanism should have decentralised and centralized elements depending upon a contextual scheme based upon the topic. I refer to it as contextual planning. These are some broad ideas.
Perhaps we need a contextual planning system to manage human coexistence. There are matters that pertain to individual life where individual makes decisions, matters that pertain to family enjoyments- wherein the family members need to collectively decide and matters that pertain to entire society, wherein a wisdom processing mechanism should be in place. ( Such a societal decision making mechanism should have decentralised and centralized elements depending upon a contextual scheme based upon the topic. I refer to it as contextual planning. These are some broad ideas.
Jared diamond thought that we tolerate murderous and corrupt government because flatter structures lead to more overall murder and violence. He was referencing Papuan society, but the same could be said for traditional Corsican society which operated the vendetta system instead of a top-down legal system: very costly of life! I still yearn for a system based on mutual respect rather than heirarchy.
This is my desire for me to comment so that it helps the video with the algorithm so that it gets more views.
A comment for our algorithmic lords. May they bless this video with views. Though more than likely it will get suppressed to high heaven.