ehh, this seems more like a caricature of an anarchist than an actual good description of the ideology. Some of the points are explained ok, but it's a bit, eh.
What's the name of this film? Who is the actor portraying the kid? This is one of the best dialogues I've seen in a 1950s movie. (It's also based af. No gods-no masters! No state-no capitalism!)
One problem with Anarchism, its not a good long term awnser as any form of ideology doesn't last forever. It is but a means of trying to achive a goal of common interest or personal interest, I understand anarchists ideals, however sadly they wouldn't last in the long term.
Anarchy isn’t an ideology as it negates the polity form. If you think anarchy can’t last in the long term, it sounds like you don’t actually understand what it is
@@Queijogostoso Even without politics, problems will arise and people will want solutions, maybe the people will have them or maybe it will lead to just more violence
@@Queijogostoso Perhaps yes, however all I have to say about Anarchy is although I do personally like the sound of it, I haven't really seen it work in practice yet.
@@QueijogostosoAnarchists are contrarians who serve the elites. They’re thieves, murderers, vandalizers, and that’s exactly why they supported the NSDAP.
im sorry sir but you state that you are the founder off the taures im sorry but this is not true what you state at the centre point in magnetism is 0 flux what you atate as the so called god particle is hydrogen what you are trying to explain off the mecanism off magnetism is im sorry is incorrect space does not expand as it holds no properties i respect that you dont want that corporations get a hold off your work but you are incorrect on many points off your findings
Yeah after he funded and filmed "The Dictator". Oh so VERY WRONG he where on that account... Nothing like that could EVER happend today mkay...(Free Assange).
I would have phrased things differently and not interrupted the ruler so much. It is my belief that it is the duty of every single person, regardless of gender, age, orientation or creed, to strive for individual excellence so as to make the act of governing them not only unnecessary, but impossible. The idea that you need large government with all encompassing authority for society to function is one of the greatest lies in human history, disproven by every single family who not only survived, but thrived on the American frontier for 300 years. "You need someone to rule" okay, why? Why do we need someone making rules for our personal behavior and enterprise who is several hundred miles away, has never even so much as seen the operation, or has any expertise or background knowledge on the matter at hand? We decry insurance companies making medical decisions that overrule doctors, so why is it that we allow the suits of Washington to make similar decisions for us about carbon emissions, agriculture, capitalism, or, more recently, what women do with their bodies in regards of abortion? Does Nancy Pelosi have expertise in the matters she passes judgement on? I don't think so. We do not need "leaders", and I find no cold comfort in elections allowing me to pick my sovereign dictator.
So today. If you are against nazis, fasicm, autoritarianism, war, and censorship. You are some how a "Right Wing Extremist"?. As a lifelong socialist libertarian. I find that dictonomy BULLSHIT! Correct we had our time. And we BLEW it!
No really in my opinion. Once I used to LOVE the idea of ONE people ONE Combined nation. I scoffed at the notion of people without centralized rule. Then I read alot of books and turned 30. I am ALOT older now. But it is not a utopian notion. Most people are much smarter and resourcefull than you get them credit for.
@@n8orious699 Yeah took me 32 years of reading to reach the same conclusion as Chaplin. I bet you are young. And belive you are correct about everything. I envy you...
OH deary I find someone younger than me who agrees! An OLD person told me 5 years ago. "You and I have failed. But the young ones will get this straigt. Eventually. And when they do. Hell hath no fury". I hope he was right. I got "Algorithmally" fired from my job as a high school science(Chemistry/math) teacher. Because I did my job well. 2nd in the nation... 12 censor duties. same year. But I taught my students things they COULD do. But also why they should not. Socialist until the day I die.
@@SomberdemureSocialism: Socialization of the means of production, rejection of private property Libertarianism: The philosophy which puts individual liberty over everything else. Skepticism in an highly authoritarian state. You're the one in cognitive dissonance.
They do … it’s just no one listens cause you were conditioned by the gov to see anything that challenges the status quo as “communism” and “entitlement”
Okay, so I have been trying to think about how I could write my take on this short clip because I think it is a fascinating combination of satire and serious political critique, and I think I have settled on something that I like. I find this clip to be an interesting microcosm of political debate, especially in today's political landscape. So, we have an older individual of royalty, a brilliant child, and an audience of other children. The older individual represents a mild form of conservatism, emphasizing order and hierarchy, preserving the status quo and keeping to what currently is in place. He, in my opinion, represents a kind of political average joe. The child genius, on the other hand, represents a revolutionary anarchism (note that I use the definition "involving or causing a complete or dramatic change" for revolutionary. We often associate revolutions and revolutionary with violence and conflict, but in this case the idea presented is radically different from how we currently live, and I wanted to clarify that), emphasizing a radical new freedom from all imposed hierarchies. He is, of course, the powerful revolutionary speaker, the mover/changer who walks in the path of people like Lenin and Che Guevara. Now, I feel as though the other children in this scene are overlooked. In this case, they are the audience to this debate. Critically, they are not judges, fully impartial and as unbiased as they humanly can be; they are an audience, swayed by emotion and powerful words. Here, we see a dichotomy between the ideas of old and the ideas of tomorrow; the stability of the status quo and the unstable potential of the radical possibilities. Now what I think is really interesting is who is right and who is wrong isn't of particular importance here. What is important is the reaction of those around you, those who hear the debate take place. What you say could be totally wrong, but as long as you argue in a competitive, argumentative posture, the details become fuzzy and what is left behind in your mind are the main ideas. Because the child, in this case, is the one with the argumentative debate posture, he sways the audience in his favor. This audience favor, in this case, plays out with Charlie Chaplin's signature slapstick. The children mess with Charlie Chaplin's character, make a fool of him. They aren't particularly listening to either one; they are being caught up by the emotion and fervor of the revolutionary's words. Also note that, as the scene progresses, the child genius isn't really talking TO Chaplin's character, he is more talking past him. In my opinion, a lot of what the child says is quite cogent; we ARE forced to have our movements governed by some fancy book given to us by a domineering authority, we DO have our freedoms stripped in the name of some vague sense of order and security, and it IS truly a crime that an energy source as powerful and brilliant as the splitting atom is being squandered to make bombs. I call this a microcosm of debate because, despite how cogent I personally find these points to be, they aren't really being discussed with Charlie Chaplin's character - they are being thrown at an invented person who opposes everything the revolutionary stands for. We see quite clearly at the end that Charlie Chaplin DOES oppose the creation and usage of the atomic bomb, that he was ousted from power because of this position, but the revolutionary keeps on going. He doesn't even give his interlocutor the courtesy of saying people LIKE you want to use the atomic bomb to cause destruction, he directly addresses Charlie Chaplin's character when he makes those statements. End of the day, I think this scene makes for a really good satire and criticism of political debate and the positions that are being represented, all presented in the form of slapstick comedy. On the one hand, we see a child who is at least articulate and most likely quite intelligent representing young, invigorated opposition to long-standing ideas and systems. In my opinion, the criticisms he makes are justified, but there is a glaring issue in the fact that a productive discussion is not being had, and it was never his goal in the first place. There is no true exchange of ideas, there is no discussion; there are only confident, quippy soundbytes. Whether you agree or disagree with what either of them are saying, this kind of aggressive posture should be avoided at all costs when it comes to debates as important as how societies should be ran and how they should work. On the other, we see an older individual representing the old ways with a little deviance. He likes the ideas of order and governance through authority, but he has some disagreements with how some things are being run. He does suffer from the same issue of trying to win instead of trying to properly exchange ideas, but I think some aggression is at least understandable when you're not being talked with, instead being talked at. I may personally think he's wrong, but that also does not mean he should be shouted over.
You know that Chaplin made this in reaction to having been blackballed, blacklisted, and prevented from re-entry into the U.S. by the fascist anti-communists (who, ironically, mimicked the worst traits of Soviet Communists in their quest to find and persecute political dissent) of HUAC. Perhaps the satire is heavy-handed and the gags too broad, but it's very enjoyably performed by Chaplin and his son Michael (playing Rupert). No surprise that this didn't see exhibition in the U.S. until after 1972....
@@JohnDoe-xs5gvi don't even fully disagree with his broad message but his argumentation is just yelling and putting up a bunch of strawmen while whining about "but muh animal don't need passports !1!!" And switching subjects when the other person want to respond. To respond to your question i'm not mad, just feeling second hand embrassement for whoever thought his argument is clever. Because it is not, it's literally just screeching and honestly feel like a 60 years in advance jab at current days leftist kids.
@@Panzermeiller You literally said yourself you don't disagree with him. then go on to get mad over his argument. An argument is an argument no matter how it is delivered. Regardless Chaplin was forced to write this in that way.
@@JohnDoe-xs5gv I didn't say i didn't disagree, i said i didn't FULLY disagree, as in, i get where he's coming from and some of what he say have some sense. However the way an argument is delivered is pretty vital, just throwing those fancy emotionally charged sentence at random and behaving like a rooster isn't a good way of argumenting and i can guarantee you it will make anybody against you roll their eyes and everybody with you cringe in despair. Ideas should be argumented and it should be based on something else than speculations. They way i see it the kid is having the same level of argumentation than boomers when they tell you about how "in the USSR you have no food and communism killed 1000000 gazillion peoples" which was probably the point of the scene, to have a reversed role situation. Because no matter how you turn it his valid points are just parroted statements thrown out of the blue.
@@Panzermeiller It is irrelevant how the argument is delivered. If I said the sky is blue in a calm tone, them screeched and stomped my feet like a toddler while saying the sky is blue, both arguments are the exact same. Whether or not you are convincing is irrelevant. Everything the kid says is correct.
