Means and Ends: The Anarchist Critique of Seizing State Power
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 7 сен 2024
- Why do anarchists reject the seizure of state power? Watch this video and find out.
script + sources - blackrosefed.or...
Black Rose Anarchist Federation's youtube channel -
/ @blackrose_rosanegra
Support me on patreon / anarchozoe
If you'd like to make a one time donation ko-fi.com/anar...
Follow me on social media:
/ anarchozoe
/ anarchopac
Buy my book Means and Ends: The Revolutionary Practice of Anarchism in Europe and the United States:
US shipping - www.akpress.or...
UK shipping - www.akuk.com/m...
audiobook - tantor.com/mea...
Check out my other videos:
anarchism and democracy • Anarchism and Democracy
anarchists are not naive about human nature • Anarchists Are Not Nai...
anarchism as a way of life • Anarchism as a way of ...
anarchist counter culture in Spain • Anarchist Counter Cult...
the best feminist you've never heard of: He-Yin Zhen • The Best Feminist You'...
Shoot. There’s a quote that I can’t quite recall. Something like “How can you expect a branch, twisted into a club, to flower and bear fruit?” I can’t seem to find it. Reminded me of this though.
That's a really nice sentiment even if we(I've just tried) can't find the source of the quote.
Never mind I found it. “One cannot in the nature of things expect a little tree that has been turned into a club to put forth leaves.” -Martin Buber
@@Iktomeone I actually like your paraphrased quote better
This is a beautiful quote.
Michael Albert has argued that the reason worker owned factories in Argentina experienced oppression and alienation is because they kept the capitalist division of labor and so people with the more interesting, rewarding, and precieved important positions were, over time, given a higher status than workers doing rote, boring work.
@FiggyG Definitely an issue with worker-owned cooperatives - I would argue that they can posit as a revolutionary dual power counter-institution if tied to a broader solidarity economy and a vision of a cooperative commonwealth predicated on non-hierarchy, federation, solidarity, and class struggle. At the very least, worker-owned cooperatives reflect an ability for workers to collectively own the means of production, operate in any internally horizontal manner, through consensus, and with completely equitious distribution of patronage to all worker-owners. We are always operating in a capitalist hegemony, but this is one method whereby we can gain control over our immediate daily circumstances as workers. Mission drift can and must be guarded against with bylaws and membership in an industrial union (like IWW) that reflect a continued commitment to anti-capitalist struggle.
@@luciennoxisou9502 depends on the organizational structure of the co-op. Employee owned is meaningless, is it employee organized/managed...
@@legalfictionnaturalfact3969 Socielist policy ? Where ? US is a colonial-settler capitalist State with a reactionary social welfare policy (if you could call it that). What we need is more libertarian socialist counter-power institutions that challenge the capitalist hierarchy and the State. Self-management (autogestion), autonomy and liberty of the working class depends upon the abolition of all forms of hierarchy and domination.
@@circleasylvan8802 Worker-owner cooperatives are self-managed enterprises, guided by directly democratic internal governance and equitable remuneration of patronage (profits in coop world). It’s really a model towards self-management (autogestion) whereby the workers own & manage the means of production.
@@legalfictionnaturalfact3969 workers suffer consequences if a business fails anyway - they lose their job. What additional risk are they taking on by collectively owning the business?? Remember the risk the business owner is taking is just that of having to become a worker if their business fails.
Hi Zoe, new fan here. In Medical Anthropology I study Syndemics. It is a model that describes a relationship between power differentials and negative public health outcomes. I find this a great scholarly example of modern Anarchist concepts related to reducing power differentials between people. There is something about the nature of power itself that produces suffering with stunning replicability.
It was very interesting to learn that being on the bottom end of a power differential (in many contexts - gender, sex, culture, race, sexuality, etc.) is a determining factor in negative public health outcomes. One easy example is social class is a statistically significant determining factor of metabolic diseases such as diabetes and obesity. This even gets into epigenetics and environmental signalling in the natal and pre-natal environment, so it has some really solid empirical medical evidence too. Epigenetic and hormonal signalling signals to the child basal metabolic rates based on the environment the child "expects" to be raised in. If the mother's diet signals an environment of nutritional scarcity, that basal metabolic rate is more likely to be over-efficient, and you will literally store more fat and sugar and lead to diabetes or obesity much easier.
Sorry for long text :)
Thank you so much for this comment, this is a concept I will familiarise myself with (I'll do my best, I just study politics and media).
Hey I'm a nursing student and syndemics sounds absolutely great!
Do you have any like introduction articles or books you would recommend?
Because I am learning about the 12 determinants of health and the more time passes, the more studies I read name; power imbalance, inequalities, and capitalism, as responsible of most health problems.
I would love to read on syndemics!!
Thanks for this comment, ill try to do some research on this
@@Surroundyourbases I sure hope they respond lol. I'm a nursing student as well and am very interested in the field of comunitary health. I'd love to see some material theyn recommend but it sounds as an enough interesting topic to really dig on my own
The only Internet stranger I want at my funeral. Keep up the good work.
my favorite part of reading ppl like malatesta is how they spot on predicted the USSR and PRC
Malatesta is a GREAT political thinker.
remember what Marx said in 1848 about how the economical emancipation must go hand in hand with the political emancipation of the proletariat predicting the failure of EVERY anarchist movement untill Spain '37 where FAI refused to built soviets - eventually chosing bourgeois reign over proletarian. trotzkiyist analysis of the russian degenerated workers state is the more scientific approuch than abstract definitions of the nature of state power and the nature of human devellopement to the self-determined socialist individual classless society needs. also, it was bakunin n friends who rejected workers education in the sense of building class consciousness as a necessary condition of revolution and socialism. sorry for this polemic kind of response, i just really try to understand anarchy as a marxist, but it seems every time i think now there must come a nice materialist argument, its just another philosophical explanaition that doesn't understand historical materialism. Also please stop calling china an "authotarian-socialist" revolution or likewise. mao did guerilla warfare leading farmers class with the promises of bourgeois-revolutionary accomplishments. chinese workers revolution was strangled to death by stalinist komIntern in the 20s. okay, mao did expropriate the bourgeoisie, but... whatever.
@@untillunrath9765 what the hell was any of this
@@untillunrath9765 You are full of shit.
Do you comment this on every single video? Or am I just watching the same video over and over and keep forgetting?
I always like to think of it with a Lord of the Rings metaphor.
"Understand, Frodo. I would seize the state from a desire to establish communism... But through me, it would wield a power too great and terrible to imagine."
The problem with the Marxist theory of class is that it is so narrow and excludes the possibility of a political class, and outright ignores the obvious reality that a worker with a shitload of power no longer has the same interests as an ordinary worker. Especially when the bureaucrat is literally a prior member of the capitalist and landowner class, as was often the case in the early USSR.
Also, Malatesta predicted the outcome of the USSR and other ML states so well. Ironically his "idealist" predictions were way more accurate than Marx's.
@Hugo From the Netherlands (Waba Koen) could you point what the concept of class is, then?
Also, in context, the discussion of a political class is a sort of "counter claim" to the idea that, absent class distinctions, the state would "wither away". Is it really that hard to conceive of a political class *in the sense that* it would be part of a distinction willing to keep the state (now in the anarchist definition) from withering away?
Economist/Engineer Paul Cockshott has a somewhat similar critique of the Soviet system of indirect elections (which is, ironically, a proudhonist system) and argues for direct democracy:
ruclips.net/video/LtlZys7QOO4/видео.html
If you don't care about Soviet economics, the discussion of direct democracy starts about 30 minutes in.
@Hugo From the Netherlands (Waba Koen) ROFLMAO! A political class is "definitionally impossible?" Go tell that to Joe Biden, tankie.
@Hugo From the Netherlands (Waba Koen) my guy look at joe biden and bernie they and the people who vote for then betray their own class interest or look at scabs in the workplace so even if there is not a political ruling class there still a political class or even more then just one because there going to be workers at odds with other workers interest
Great critique, I have really been struggling with the concept of a state that doesn't act according to its own interests and that would allow itself to be dissolved.
Well, why does the state act the way it does. is it because its a sepperate entity with its own will, or is it just the place where class conflict is driven to the extreme. Since a socialist states only function is to make everyone proletarian, and through that the very exisntence off class becomes obsolete, wouldnt the state lose its motivation to act as its own entity?
Shace Actually, both. State is not a singular entity. There are diverging class interests of different groups in it. The reason it can enforce those and not stay in a standstill is because government has a seperate will. Any organised people really has some independence, no matter how minimal it is. That's why mensheviks-bolshevik division have been able to occur.
@KazuTrash I think you're right that a generic, abstract "state" by definition doesn't have to have specific, inherent interests to begin with- but depending on how it's organized and who designs it, certain interests will be built into it systemically. That's why I'd say to be careful with your line of thinking, because some states, like the US Federal Government I'd say, do have built in systemic interests. Like existential.anarchist said, while any group of people can have some influence on the state, some people have miniscule influence and others have an insanely disproportionate amount of control over it. So a bourgeois state will almost always favor bourgeois interests, and a workers state would presumably favor workers interests.
any authoritarian communists, if they were self consistent, would also be a democratic socialist
Tbf the Soviet Union did eventually fall apart so I guess the MLs did have something there.
Thank you so much, love all your videos, and this one in particular was extremely enlightening...
Summary:
- If you set up a social structure it will change both the world and also yourself - including your relationships, perceptions, abilities, and desires.
- If you set up an oppressive social structure like the State, it will change you as a person into ruler or ruled. E.g. as a ruler, you'll start to view people as tools, or develop skills in manipulation, or desire to perpetuate your rule. Or as the ruled, you'll become obedient etc.
- But if you use a liberatory social structure like a union, you'll perceive your boss differently and form stronger relationships with fellow workers, and develop the ability to self-direct your life.
Bakunin had it right.
"for one does not make their circumstances, on the contrary, they are morphed by them."
These videos are a breath of fresh air for this platform. Thank you for taking the time to approach these topics in a way that doesn't compromise or understate the importance of your research.
Though I'm fairly sure that everyone here know what a joke ancaps are, we have in historical anarchist theory the basis for the arguement against their stupidity. Abandoning government and embracing capitalism, even if the goal is to equalize wealth and opportunity through competitive markets, would only reinforce predatory models and reproduce systems of resource consolidation. I have a hard time imagining how capitalism in some form could survive the abolition of the state but I do think there is some chance that if this happened it could lead to some sort of corporatocracy and a intensification of or current neo-feudal reality.
WEF wants state abolition and corporate rule lol
Peter Grow-pot-kin 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
"PETITE BOURGEOISIE REVISIONISM!¡!"
Sorry, I can't help myself. Heard this too many times to count when talking about this subject. However, never in person. Always on the internet.
Amazing work, as always friend! Appreciate the contribution!
A✊E
great video. I have a little detail to ask about; it doesn't challenge or object to the rest of the video though. In your introduction to anarchist communism you, in my mind, described council communism. Many anarchists are totally OK with council communism and direct democracy - I am too, it's better than liberal democracy at any rate. However, "true anarchism" (yeah I know, I hate how that sounds too) rejects the concept of democracy on the basis of it being tyranny of the majority. I'm not very strong in the theory department (more of a praxis guy), so I can't remember who the author was, but there is a great excerpt from an anarchist which describes the failures of (even direct) democracy.
the main point - that I hope I can properly articulate - is that democracy as a concept is contradictory to anarchist principles. First off, it means that decisions can be made that affect groups/people negatively if they're in the minority. Say a factory needs a better road access, and they want to build that road in a way that somehow negatively affects a small number of residences because it's efficient for them. The residents might be simply outnumbered by the factory workers and will thus lose the vote. They will be oppressed by the majority. Which brings me to the second point. How do people decide who gets to vote on something and who doesn't? Is it based on location, interests/affectedness etc? What % of votes are necessary to pass something? And very importantly, who gets to decide those things? It becomes self-contradictory very fast when you think about it.
so the """true anarchist""" solution is to reject democracy in favour of free association and consent-based decision making. In that way, only the affected parties need to come to an agreement that suits each party to a certain degree. If an agreement can't be reached, then people start looking for a different solution that everyone affected does agree to. I'm not a theorist, but that's the crux of the concept. So my question (finally) is: do you agree; and if so, then what would you imagine large-scale organisation to be like? I have some vague ideas, but seeing as you (Zoe or anyone else with a firm grasp of anarchist theory) probably know better, I'd like to hear your ideas as well.
Anarchists historically used democracy to mean a government of the majority. I'm using the term in a different sense to refer to decision making procedures within assemblies in which everyone has a vote. I deliberately didn't specify if this would be done using majority voting or consensus because I know its an area of significant disagreement.
Historical anarchists used both what we call consensus and majority voting. It was common to use consensus in affinity groups and majority voting in mass organisations or when making decisions where a majority decision had to be taken eg when the next meeting will occur or who will edit the paper. Malatesta, for example, advocated majority voting if consensus was not reached. He wrote in between peasants that,
"By rights, no, because where truth and justice are concerned numbers don’t count, and often one person alone can be right against one hundred or a hundred thousand. In practice one would do what one could; everything is done to reach unanimity, and when this is impossible, one would vote and do what the majority wanted, or else put the decision in the hands of a third party who would act as arbitrator, respecting the inviolability of the principles of equality and justice which the society is based on."
Crucially Malatesta thought that majority decisions should not be imposed by violence and thought majority voting and voluntary association should occur together.
Or to give another example, the CNT made decisions using majority vote. Its constitution, which was printed in every membership card, says that since “Anarcho-syndicalism and anarchism recognise the validity of majority decisions” it followed that, although the CNT recognised “the sovereignty of the individual” and a militant’s right to have their own point of view and defend it, members of the CNT were “obliged to comply with majority decisions” and “accept and agree to carry out the collective mandate taken by majority decision” even when they are against a militant’s “own feelings” because “[w]ithout this there is no organisation”.
@@anarchozoe thanks for your response! I was half-expecting not to get one, not that fast anyway. This explains a lot though, I guess that in reality it's very difficult to use such an "ideal" system, and certain compromises have to be made. At least in the early stages. Again, thank you.
@@SMPKarma One point on this if I may, an anarchist society wouldn't guarantee that no wrong choices are made nor that injustice disappears. But would(should) guarantee that everyone has a voice to point out such injustices or wrong decisions in order to be reconsidered.
Another point is that in cases where a structure like the one Malatesta described in Zoe's respond, where the goal is always unanimity and consensus but majority voting could be used if no consensus could be reached, an addition could be that the minority could also proceed with their preferred course of action using the collective's resources (supposing they suffice) as long as it is not in direct contradiction of the majority's decision (i.e. community discusses education and there is no consensus between the majority that wants to adopt Ferrer's "Modern schools" and a minority that supports homeschooling. The majority takes the vote and proceeds with establishing their "Modern School", the minority in this case could possibly be allowed to carry on with their preference of homeschooling with resources provided by the community).
Seize the means of production, smash the state apparatuses
wow what an eye opener. "anarchists argued that the state like all social structures, is constituted by forms of human activity and so participating in the state producers and reproducers particular kinds of people and particular kinds of social relations. this occurs irrespective of the intentions or goals of people because what matters is the nature of the social structure they are participating in and the forms of activity this social structure is constituted by and reproduced through." systems and the incentives they present rule the behavior of the individuals.
I can't tell you how much use I've gotten out of this easy over the last few years. Not just when thinking about electoral politics - heck I'm not even an anarchist (at present) - but the core principles just keep coming up over and over and over as I'm learning history and trying to understand people's behavior, and why various political movements behave the way they do.
I'd recommend looking into other anarchist youtubers as well. Specifically andrewism and Anark, who has some of the best video essays on anarchism and the state on RUclips.
One of the more amusing aspects of this debate is those people who still defend so-called State Socialist regimes like the USSR under Lenin and Stalin. Having read a very great deal about Stalin and how the regime actually worked, I am frankly appalled that some people still defend this regime. As for Lenin? Well it appears he and Trotsky laid, strongly and firmly, the foundations for Stalin's regime. The existence of Stalinist Denialists, like Denialism in general is rather funny.And it is absolutely fascinating how many people, not just Anarchists, well before the Russian Revolution predicted what would happen. Look at Rosa Luxemburg and her short book about the Russian Revolution, or her review of Lenin's book What is to be Done. The old saying you can't make an omelet without breaking eggs doesn't work here. Neither does Trotsky's polemic that in order to abolish Man's domination over his fellow man, that domination must be increased to very high levels. (Trotsky during his Labour Army phase.)The means do effect whether or not the goal can be achieved. And in this case constructing a society without coercion, Police and hierarchy by means of terror, hierarchy and Police / Army would seem to obviously not be an effective means to do it.
Can you give me any recommendations to learn about the USSR pretty pls?
One key thing is that with modern technology councils would no longer need ‘representatives’ to go and give (not make a decision just give) the councils decisions to the confederations
It is difficult to express how helpful this video/article is without reproducing that same hero worship. I run into a lot of people that will benefit from watching this. At Daggers Drawn was the only other work that came close to helping me understand and express this.
I: Yess! _This_ is why the USSR failed, not because of communism (which it didn´t even get to achieve). If only people would understand that...
This is why I've never understood the praxis of AnCom in particular "conditioned" how...
Thanks for the video
Thank you very much for your work!❤️🖤
This made me wonder, in an anarchist commune, are there limits on what the majority can decide? how can a minority defend itself? What if some people claim to agree with the majority, but then do not carry out what they agreed to? Are there enforcement mechanisms?
Forgive me if I’m wrong here but I believe what you’re describing would not be anarchist but rather democratic.
@@JohnDoe-mj6cc So how are collective decisions made in an anarchist commune if not by majority vote?
@@NikiTheWreck I’m not really an anarchist so I’m not super sure, from what I understand, decisions require the consent of each individual member. Their consent may be implied, but if challenged, their consent would always be the most important factor. @someone who actually knows about anarchy, please explain this to us
@@JohnDoe-mj6cc there's no rulebook, but principles, practices, etc - the precise functioning would depend on context, the people involved, the stakes, etc. Part of the idea of praxis is also figuring this kind of thing out, or at least getting a taste for it, in your own context.
That being said, in general you could expect to have different kinds of decisions being handled not all the same. You could have a sort of thing you agree anyone can veto, while some other sort of thing is deemed to be okay to be done given a simple majority. In general, you could expect much more room for building new proposals and trying to balance things. If a minority has a problem with a proposal, maybe you can work on a new proposal which at least alleviates that, for example.
It's important to note as well that for any large collection of people you'd probably have interlocking levels and areas of organization - not just a "single assembly". That can include both local organizations federating up to regional levels and etc, as well as specific-issue groups. So "being a minority" is a lot less binary than say on present democracies.
But again, any anarchist society can only be a living social organization in the world, and as such will have it's own, contextual, way of organizing. The book "anarchy works" can give some ideas. Rojava and the Zapatistas might be interesting pointers too.
It was a very interesting video with some great critique of the state and state socialism, however I would argue that the historical examples neglected the material conditions of their time. Like - according to the initial plans - the Hungarian Soviet Republic (Republic of Councils in Hungary) would have been very similar to the council system you described in the video, but fighting wars in at least 3 fronts and a civil war against the proto-fascist 'whites' made impossible the widespread democratization of the workplaces (and the land), so it quickly became a state where the power was concentrated in few peoples hands (or certainly not in the workers' councils' hands). It was seen as a necessary (evil) not because they wanted to have all the power of the state but because of the conditions that existed at the time. I would say similar things about the USSR and other socialist (or state capitalist and mixed-economy) states, since their social revolutions happened without the worldwide revolution of the proletariat, hence the state - as a well organized institution - was kept to protect workers and the revolution. I do not want to defend these states and their past choices, because I don't see many of them necessary, but then again - as I see it - the material conditions were not present to form a classless and (!) stateless society which would require a world revolution. (There is a great book from a communist writer, named Ervin Sinkó, who participated in the Hungarian revolution and lived in the USSR between 1935-1937. I would really recommend reading that to understand those conditions from a unique point of view. Link to the book: www.amazon.com/Novel-Abridged-Entries-Moscow-1935-1937/dp/1498546366 , it’s not cheap but there is a free sample at Google Books)
Mate Dehat If that is the case than Lenin and most Bolsheviks were completely wrong in launching the revolution in 1917. (I think it is now very obvious they were very wrong indeed!) At the time many other Revolutionaries, including the Mensheviks were stating the same thing. Many were predicting that given that the time wasn't ripe for a Communist revolution that the result would be a authoritarian regime under siege whose only choice in order to stay in power would be mass coercion. Also to blame the conditions at the time is only to lay further blame on the Bolsheviks for seizing state power. Why? Because since the time was not in the least auspicious for taking over the state by the working class than opposition, massive opposition, was absolutely inevitable in which case retaining state power would require massive coercion against the opposition.
One must also remember that given that the Bolsheviks believed, stupidly, that they were they Vanguard of the Working Class representing it's "real" interests, a mindset that was very, very conducive to justifying coercion, at all times. And of course anytime the Working Class goes against the party that can be dismissed has not representing the "real" will of the working class. And of course all this coercion could be justified has defence of the Working Class and defence of the Revolution. It is of course not in the least a coincidence that this stance just happened to justify the power and privileges of the Bolshevik party and their "right" to rule. The Bolsheviks justification of their right to rule was very similar to divine right of Kings nonsense.
And of course Lenin's justification and later Stalin's justification of the Bolshevik right to rule was based on the inane notion that Bolshevik part members were pure, virtuous men who would not be corrupted by power and would act selflessly etc. Their position of power would have no effect on their attitudes. Lenin later admitted that Bolshevik bureaucrats were becoming corrupt etc. His solution was having workers appointed by a government agency oversee them The simple minded idiocy of that is obvious. Lenin never seemed to understand that the social origin of individuals was no iron clad defence against a change of attitude etc., once some one's social position changed.
The bottom line is that the Bolshevik decision to hold onto power once it became clear that the time was NOT ripe for a Revolution of the type they were waiting for shows just how quickly the goal of retaining power took over complete with false conscience justifications.
@FiggyG Typical Tankie nonsense. You do realize that once the Bolsheviks started to lose Worker support they resorted to all sorts of tricks and various kinds of coercion in order to stay in power. That they defined has the enemy anyone who didn't support them completely. Faced between losing power to other Socialists, to a large extent because of their incompetence, War Communism anyone, they resorted to coercion as a substitute. The results were utterly predictable.
And do I have to really list the number of Leftists who the Bolsheviks arrested and murdered during their first years in power. Where they "the enemy" or were they simply the enemies of the Bolshevik monopoly of power.
By 1920 a new ruling class was being established in Russia with power and privilege for a new elite that of course was eager to guard it's new privileges, and of course a monopoly on power.
If the elections for the Constituent Assembly are anything to go on the Bolsheviks never had majority support. But that didn't stop them did it?
The bottom line is those who said the time wasn't right were right!! Both Lenin and Marx seriously and radically underestimated the power of Capitalism to transform lives / society. Their optimism was misplaced. The bottom line is that those who warned against the Vanguardism of the Bolshevik party on the grounds it had very strong Authoritarian tendencies were right. Again and again in the 20th century Leninist Vanguard parties took power and again and again they became Authoritarian states.
And did it produce a better life for ordinary people? Well yes, at least some of the time, but then so did Capitalism. But like Capitalism the exploitation of Workers was considerable. (Look up Turnover Taxes in Stalin's Russia.) The Societies created were almost entirely State Capitalist states dedicated to modernization and the consolidation of Elite Party rule. And so a Minority ground a majority under it's heel.
And in the propaganda of the new regimes. it's enemies were demonized has Reactionaries, Enemies of the people etc., and etc. Excellent examples of othering. And of course the masses suffered.
This experiment has been tried multiple times it has with boring regularity created a new class society, complete with terror Secret Police and Authoritarian rule. It's time to think of a new way of doing it.
By the way the majority of the victims of terror from these states have been "Ordinary people", Although I am amused by your othering of certain Social categories.
But like so many Tankies it appears you want the whip hand.
@FiggyG So I'm a "cancer", a disease and not a human being? Or are you just using a metaphor? But regardless you are othering another human being. Hitler was fond of doing that also. So was Stalin and his propagandists. So if I'm the other what should be done with people like me? Should I be shot, tortured etc., by the infallible party, supreme leader?
I am amused that you accept the utterly stupid conspiracy nonsense concocted during Bukharin's trial. I suppose the interrogators did not threaten the life of Bukharin's wife and son? (Snark) You might want to read her memoir.
And thank you for showing once again that you are indeed a Tankie. As for me being "evil", and "dumb". Very funny for someone who "handwaves" away the stupid, idiotic brutality of so-called "Socialist" states.
As for Napoleon and Pinochet I despise both of them, along with Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Franco, etc., etc.,
@@makinapacal Strong in-group bias is directly in the center of the ML/Fascist Venn diagram. Along with way too much other shit. Ideology is one hell of a drug.
@Jean Sanchez Since the revolution the Bolsheviks wanted didn't happen and instead the predicted outcome of either a Capitalist restoration or an Authoritarian bureaucratic regime if the Revolutionary take over succeeded were the ones in play. Why? Well because the time wasn't ripe for a revolution of the type they, the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks wanted. It was the Mensheviks who were right.
What happened was indeed a revolution but not a Socialist one, instead it was a revolution in which a Bureaucratic New Class seized power, both political and economic, from the Tsarist Bureaucracy and the Russian Capitalists. This was not the revolution that both Mensheviks and Bolsheviks wanted. The time was simply not ripe for such a revolution and about that the Mensheviks were right, the Bolsheviks totally and utterly wrong. But the time was indeed ripe for, if the "New Class", could hold onto power for a Bureaucratic Elite to seize and hold onto power has a new ruling class which is what happened and was predicted by the Mensheviks.
In the late 19th and early 20th century so many Socialists were convinced that the last days of Capitalism were at hand. In retrospect they spectacularly underestimated the power of Capitalism to transform the world. In 1918 the world wide effects of Capitalism were minor compared to what was to come. Capitalism was not on the ropes in 1917 and bluntly not on the ropes today although the climate situation may change that in c. 10-30 years.
And of course the Russian Revolution, Leninism, Stalinism have served the useful purpose of shitting on the Socialist idea and thus aiding Capitalism.
As for the "right" time? I have no idea. I only know that in retrospect 1917 was most certainly not the right time for a Socialist Revolution but it was the right time for a Bureaucratic elite to seize state power in Russia.
@anarchopac I really enjoy your videos and content. I wanted to asked you though, in your discussion with RevLeft and how you have market yourself in general, you say your are trying to synthesize anarchism and Marxism (similar to Daniel Guerin), though you seem to side more so with anarchism. What are the aspects of both anarchism and Marxism that you see as being necessary to bring together. There are some who see Marxism and a failed project and the aspects of Marxism which are more libertarian, anarchists have already been arguing for (I'm thinking of the anarchist Iain McKay and Solarpunk Anarchism who think anarchism is superior to Marxism and doesn't really need a synthesis, or it wouldn't really be a synthesis anyways if the beter parts of Marxism are already parts of anarchism) Do you agree with these assertions? And what do you see as the weaknesses of either paradigm?
Watch this video series by red plateaus. It explains some of Marx's ideas which I think can be combined really well with anarchism.
ruclips.net/video/PfNM2k9PwVo/видео.html
Very interesting and well put. Though I am not an anarchist, I agree with nearly the entire analysis.
Curious what are you and why that rather than anarchism
@@margethebarge If I had to define, I'd say I'm a social democrat. I believe that government can be and often is a source for good rather then ill. I don't think it is possible to have a well organized society without government.
@@NikiTheWreck I was believing the same, but after reading more and more about history of more 'silent' groups (you know, people that 'your' or 'mine' government exterminated, marginalized, or oppressed) I started to become more and more curious about what else I didn't know about our world.
@@uyaratful I am aware of the history you refer to, just think it could and often is much better and I don't see a workable alternative
@@NikiTheWreck you know you can have an anarchist government right
I'm now an liberitarian socialist thanks to this video.
Lol
"The Anarchist critique of seizing state power is often caricatured as being based..." there you go, stop the video, no more needs to be said. Tankies rekt.
this is such a good video literally 10/10 you are the only anarchist youtuber i like
interesting video, I will definitely integrate some of these thoughts (after more consideration) into my world view
Very useful video.
I'm not sure, but a middle path might be possible? There's some really interesting stuff in Cuba like co-ops and networks of community run urban farms, that fulfill the criteria here for building the kinds of structures and relations required for a libertarian communist society.
There may be a possibility for state power to be seized by groups that allow for the cultivation of such structures.
I think michael lebowitz's ideas are a really interesting middle path. I disagree with it but think you'd really like it based on your comment.
Check out - The Socialist Imperative: From Gotha to Now
@@anarchozoe Thanks for the tip!
Excellent video!!! I feel this helped me learn more about how to achieve anarchy.
One thing I struggle to understand when discussing this with Marxists is, if we bypass the dictatorship of the workers, how do we stop the capitalist class from reorganising and crushing the revolution without the state power that Marxists like. I am really struggling to find a response to this problem, I really do not agree with the dictatorship of the workers but I can never seem to find an anarchist response.
why would we not be able to do that thru non hiearchical organizing? "The same position was consistently advocated by Kropotkin over several decades. In 1877, he endorsed "the expropriation and suppression of the bourgeoisie."
I can’t speak for anarchist thought in general, but in my view I don’t see why we would need the state at all for this. Organising isn’t a state, resisting isn’t a state, movements aren’t a state. I can see why it’d be difficult to organise effectively in an anarchist way, compared to in a statist way, only because people are so used to the state and believe it’s the only option.
On a surface level it makes sense to have a big centralised system but, from what I see the issue is very similar to that of capitalism.
It’s like when stock holders, CEOs and other capitalists claim the economy and factories couldn’t possibly operate without their expert organisation and leadership. Usually, companies preform well despite its leaders, not because of them. Movements and revolutions on the ground work so well, in my opinion, because it’s always controlled and operated by the people on the ground. Decisions come from the bottom up! When decision come from the top and trickle down to the people, it tends to be flawed.
Benevolent Humanist A.I. Overlord please? ;)
Your pet algorithm needs feeding anarchopac. Your thoughts are always interesting. Thanks.
Brilliant, thank you.
7:25 What is the state?
9:30 How the state corrupts
Has Zoe done a video specifically on violence in the context of the unity of means and ends?
Nice video
This is dope.
Im afraid that this wouldnt be possible in north Carolina, the people are too indoctrined to not only capitalism, but hierarchy itself......it would have to be destroyed from the top down
what do you think about cuba?
If you implement liquid democracy, with the people having the ability to over-rule or recall representatives at any point - would not this critique of a government largely fade?
(especially if power was decentralized to local councils, and the actual production/distribution was a separate issue entirely and left to the self-management of the workers and/or consumers)
And would not the critique of representatives becoming an elite with their own class interests be just as true for representatives sitting on federal councils?
The key is that, in an anarchist system of federated councils, each delegate is just that: a delegate, a messenger. Unlike an elected statesman or appointed bureaucrat, they do not have the ability to act independently. They do not have the ability to make decisions on their own (being beholden to the councils beneath them), and posses no subordinates to carry out any agenda they might have. Moreover, these delegates are delegates only temporarily; the duty would be rotated, similar to taking turns doing the dishes.
_Spread the bread, algorhithm!_
does anarchopac adhere to libertarian communism-platformism-especifismo
Yes
Well done
great video
Amazing video !! Wow !!
10:38
11:55
12:18
13:13
Have you addressed the argument of how anarchist forces are going to fare against imperialist forces when it comes to defending the revolution?
decentralized autonomous affinity group cells are a surer way to bleed an invading empire (particularly one with a stronger military) than in direct battles between armies.
+1
debate finnish bolshevik
8:49
9:42
Would watching and reading LoLicon be morally "okaay" (rabbit ears) under Anarchist Communism if majority of the consensus derived by the workers are pro?
I personally am okay with it. Although this kind of porn probably should not circulate in public openly. It gives a wrong message.
Isn't that pedophile shit? Or do you mean people with rabbit ears? If it means pedophiles, then no civilised people especially anarchists would allow such a thing.
Malatesta is the goat, besides you ofc zoe!
16:48
14:49
16:12
Boop
While I appreciate the effort, detail and sourcing done in these videos, I wish you would not present your particular strand of anarchism (ancom, it seems to be) as representative of anarchism as a whole. What about benjamin tucker, proudhon, josiah warren, voltairine de cleyre, william green? It would be useful to mention that other conceptualizations of anarchism exist, so that if flaws and inconsistencies are found in your own (and i believe there are some), that does not mean anarchism as a whole is incoherent.
This is an anarcho-communist channel my friend.
@@OjoRojo40 Okay? That changes nothing when this concern would be eliminated by qualify "anarchism is ..." with "to me, anarchism is ..."
@@xyzasdf Dude, he doesn't have to do that unless you are new to the channel. In that case, it's your duty to inform yourself in advance. We now he's saying anarco-communism weh he talks and not mutualism or whatever color of the rainbow you like.
@@xyzasdf I kinda agree with your point, however anyone who's gonna dismiss an entire family of ideologies just because of some slight inconsistencies in one person's politics was not arguing in good faith
@@xyzasdf I kinda agree with your point, however anyone who's gonna dismiss an entire family of ideologies just because of some slight inconsistencies in one person's politics was not arguing in good faith
2:25 WTF???
5:57 WTF2???
8:09 WTHEMP????
9:09 Okey, I expected to have a political discourse, but I get memes.
To paraphrase Emma Goldman, If I can't have dank memes then its not my revolution
0:43 I think anarchist make a good critic of the state but you literally did not address this point? What do you think would have happened to the USSR, Cuba, Korea China Vietnam if they had not seized state power? How would they keep the revolution going? Don’t you think thinking they could have automatically set up communes everywhere is a bit idealist? Not to mention the sabotage from the imperialist invasion and internal sabotage ? If you have another video addressing this point directly I would love to watch it but you kind of ignored it here. My problem with anarchists is you have no concrete example of your ideology in practice that was successful. Marxist do
that's not quite the truth. there are plentiful non-ideologial and ideological examples of anarchism that have manifested in the past few centuries, such as the southeast asian massif, spanish rebels, ukrainian and russian peasants, mexican revolutionaries, kurdish separatists in rojava, the list goes on to be honest. some of these are even still around to this day. in terms of stability, i could name the mexican revolutionaries as a non-ideological manifestation of anarchist principles and resistance, which holds pretty well to this day.
Spain tho
What happened in Spain demonstrates anarchist theory. Key members of the CNT choose to abandon anarchist theory and instead of abolishing the state in favour of workers councils choose to join an existing state, due to not wanting to fight against both fascists and republicans at the same time, and were then transformed through their participation in the state irrespective of their goals or intentions and the existing state became a key source for counter-revolution eg Barcelona May Days.
As they say, all this sounds correct in theory but can't work in practice. This view is usually held by people that have never worked in government and have no idea of the routine tasks government does on a daily basis which enables all of us to function in a complex society.
Take a small city as an example. How will the trash be picked up, the sewers maintained, the roads and sidewalks built and maintained? How will building safety be regulated, snow cleared and public safety secured? The answer that is usually given is some nonspecific, nonsense and the usual we we won't need the police or food inspectors, etc., because all will be wonderful. The bottom line is that you need government in a complex society. You need public service experts and employees, such as engineers, mechanics, lawyers, accountants, etc., to make even a small city function in a modestly, competent manner. All other arguments to the contrary are based on ignorance and wishful, even naive, thinking.
It does work in practice. look to Rojava or the Zapatistas as examples of non state revolutions that work. and yes they do get trash picked up and sewers maintained in Rojava. You do not need a state to force people to work in order to have basic things in a society.
You comment is naive and you idea about what a state does and how it works is childish at best. As the other comment points out, you can find many examples of non state societies solving all these problems without using the state.
Also some of your questions are so easy and obvious I fail how you can think they are good arguments, How will building safety be regulated? By the workers who work in the building since they would not want to die maybe? And since they own the means of productions and a Capitalists bussiness is not in control you don't need the state to force safety regulations. Only reason you need to do this today is because Capitalists put profits over people and want to cut the costs even if it means more deaths due to unsafe conditions.
You think if the place if filled with garbage everywhere people won't clean it or if a road is damaged they won't repair it? Why do you think people will not do anything to fix things that directly cause inconvenience in their lives.
I would even say that a centralised state would be worse at fixing these issues since the people directly involved would have no say and would have to wait until the state realises there is a problem there and sents someone to fix it.
16:05 you should read more about the democracy in the USSR under Stalin to appreciate that this is false. The state did not became a dictatorship and their leaders didn't become tyrants who wanted to preserve their power. The state only became bureaucratic when Khruschev came to power. They were not interested in socialism anymore and started aplying policies to slowly introduce capitalism.
Instead of saying "oh state inevitably creates bureaucracy and thus a new class" the constructive critique would be "in which way can we avoid the forming of a new bureaucracy and still have a state to defend the revolution?" You inevitably need a state in order to prevent the burgeoisie coming back into power, but you can do that whilst applying more democracy in the workplace, more elections, etc.
Rejecting the idea of a state altogether because moral reasons like "hierarchy is wrong" is a serious step back in the possibility of a revolution in the 21th century. I would really like to see how you would construct communism through a revolution nowadays in for example France, or Spain, or any country inside the EU.
Even in the "Spanish revolution" they created prisons, and an army with the monopoly of violence i.e. a state, because they understood they needed that in order to succeed in the revolution.
This really reads like you didn't understand the video very well. I mean he addressed all of this except for the Stalin part which I personally can't attest to whether it's true or not. I need to read some history of USSR
The USSR was bureaucratic way before Khrushchev. Stop scapegoating. Even Lenin became concerned with the bureaucracy before he died.
You don't need a state, all your states suppressed the workers and are capitalist or were overthrown by other bourgeois movements.
You don't trust the masses to run things, so you advocate for a privileged group of people to make the decisions for people. At no point was the USSR in the process of the state withering away, instead it grew stronger and carried out purges and deported ethnic minorities. The state was the new ruling class.
The people can rule themselves, you just don't trust the people. Hence the defence of the state. And it's anti materialist to say that one man just all the sudden made everything bureaucratic, that's a mechanical argument that you're making.
Though CNT had made many bad decisions, it never was on the same scale as the USSR. And the USSR had their goons sabotage Catalonia. The people there began to lose moral and were less affective after the republic took over.
The bourgeoise came back into power with ML states, so you can't tell me that the state is good at preventing that.
@@nickallbritton3796 This person doesn't understand the video. They're probably a finbol fan.
By the way, Zoe is a she.
@@SorceressWitch yea I was new to her channel then.
Anarchism is irrelevant in the age of imperialism.. It will become more relevant in a later stage of socialism under w matured phase of the DoTP
This video is kinda creepy. So like, you actually see your boss as a “class enemy” and want them to be afraid of you?
Why not see them and treat them as a human being? Yeah, their interests are flawed since their job is set up to alienate and control workers but don’t you realize they have that job so they can live?
well, while I can see how the academic language of theory can muddle the conversation, I really doubt Zoe or for that matter the overwhelming majority of leftists are screaming at their boss like they were a boxing dummy. We see bosses as people yes, but they're openly exploiting their employees for their own profit, and we take that in with their other personality quirks to see how much we value them as people, just like everyone else. Unless you're talking about like jeff bezos, we just see bosses as flawed people.
"So like, you actually see your boss as a “class enemy” and want them to be afraid of you?"
Yes. And the problem is...? Lmao, we're talking about taking drastic action to overcome and to resist the actions of class oppressors. Who cares if they didn't choose for the system of that oppression to exist in the first place?
You understand that "treat[ing] them as a human being" and handling your boss with kiddy gloves isn't what got you an 8-hour day, right? Making them "afraid of you" via armed revolution, or a mass general strike, or at the bare minimum forms of organised labour are effective and fully justified means of resisting the institutions of capitalist class society, even if the particular people you're targeting are just cogs in a bigger machine.
Like, why are you getting this upset over people's tone of voice, lmao?
Capitalism is like an abusive relationship. We are the abused. The capitalist is the abuser. It is both bad to be the abused, and to be the abuser.
average American neo liberal take:
Good stuff. Are you really a trans? If not I'm unsubbing :)
I like living in a capitalistic society. I love my job. I felt depressed under communism. My life is better now. What is bad about the status quo?
Complete environmental destruction and the threat of global nuclear war, to name two.
Never knew Pallet Town was ever under communism
@@Kevin-jv7mz what non existent communist society in particular?
@@Kevin-jv7mz thomas sankara lasted 4 years and the economy of burkina faso could not be described as communist, not even socialist, it was a primitive subsistence economy. Cuba is not even socialist anymore, it is a mixed economy like China and even if it has great healthcare its economy is shit, doctors are not everything.
Do you even understand the definitions and differences between socialism, communism, mixed economy and capitalism?
None of those two countries are or ever were communists in any case
@@Kevin-jv7mz socialism is the control by the state of the means of production and in general of the economy(this is resource, production and consumption allocation), capitalism can be defined as an economic system on which resources are not allocated by the state but by market mechanisms. Obviously both these models are too pure to exist in reality so all societies have elements of both, this is what we call a mixed economy, even though this term is usually used to refer to advanced european welfare states, china is also a mixed economy(and all so called socialist countries, with perhaps the exception of the pdrk) but we use the term state capitalism to refer to these economies.
Communism is an ideal arrangement of society in which there is no state(so it cant be socialism) and in which there is no private property(so it cant be capitalism).
Of course this is a superficial summary of these concepts, for example it is useful to develop the concept of crony capitalism which is a mixed economy in which the markets are perverted by the collusion between private and public interests, this is:coorporations and politicians.