@@jlord9638 Why should we be at the mercy of "good" rich people. For every good rich person, there are ten bad ones. Workers should have 100% control of their workplaces and the capital that they produce. Owners, C-teams, and boards of directors are overpaid and overvalued. Cap maximum lifetime wealth at $10 million and make the inheritance tax high enough that it takes all but $10 million from those who inherit the wealth. There is not reason for any billionaire to exist; there are only about 1600 of them world wide. Three of them in the US have more wealth than 50% of Americans combined. The only nuance that I allow with the oligarchs is that they should be given a choice between liquidating their wealth and facing the guillotine. I'm too soft on their crimes.
It's controlled opposition. It's why modern anarchists confuse globalisation with freedom these days. National freedom doesn't matter to a modern anarchist because they're just pawns of the globalist economy.
You are right Murphy, it is Charlie Chaplin. Thank you for adding this information :) The scene is from the movie "A King in New York" (1957). The young boy is actor Michael Chaplin (born 7 March 1946). Michael is the second child and eldest son from Charlie's fourth and final marriage to Oona O'Neill. Kind regards from Amsterdam :)
Charlie Chaplin was an absolute genius....and anarchy means no rulers, not no rules....it is based on the supposition that moral, ethical and critically thinking people govern themselves
@dildosdildo123 Well, you don't really get to do real democracy without anarchism, the institution of private property we have today under liberalism makes it so that if you have more money you have greater say in how things are done - some democracy that is! Chaplin's rhetoric in that speech is perfectly aligned with socialist and anarchist ideology, but if that isn't evidence enough for you, then maybe the fact that he said himself that he is an anarchist (google it) might be a clue
@dildosdildo123 I didn't say they were the same thing. If you're trying to say they are mutually exclusive I guess you would be right if words could only have one single extremely rigid meaning, but under more commonly used understandings of these words there's no reason an anarchist, rulerless, society couldn't be run democratically you confused pedant
That's because Chaplin actually was an anarchist politically. He always found government and capitalism to be utterly absurd things and being a self made man, always found himself sympathizing with the working class. "As for politics, I'm an anarchist. I hate Governments and Rules and Fetters. Can't Stand Caged Animals, people must be free"
@@Aura-bu9jb we know when someone speaks hate, they don't know anything about anarchy. Anarchy is a ideal that we all need to know so bad things such as corrupt authority doesn't get in the way.
@@ellisbkennedy652 as an anarchist, I agree, but people today don't know when to shut up when things aren't their business, at least not everyone is like that
It was making fun of red-scare and McCarthyism and it was made in Europe while Chaplin was on exile (for suspicions of communist sympathies) and didn't air in the US until 1972
You could, but it would be brought down. The idea is to make people think its all free speech and lie about how it was brought down. Not by a group suing the anarchist for some false pretense, but rather by the so called compromise of liberals to shut them up.
This video is a scene is from the movie "A King in New York" (1957). The two main actors in this scene are Charlie Chaplin and Michael Chaplin (born March 1946). Michael is the second child and eldest son from Charlie's fourth and final marriage to Oona O'Neill.
In a time of when many liked young girl and it was normal, people seems to forget pedophilia is only a recent Taboo, that doesn't old people weren't wrong, judjing from modern eyes is pretty arrogant
@@sampajam6256what the fuck did you just say? jesus christ that’s the most ignorant shit i’ve ever heard. this was literally 70 years sgo they knew damn well it was wrong back then
@@amberharmsen2497 Ayyyy, ADHD anarchism gang. Check out the book series Perspectives on Anarchist Theory, as well as the book African Anarchism if you haven't. Some of my favorite theory literature right there! :) Lately I've been reading issue #32 of that series and it's been incredibly insightful!
I started studying anarchism lately too)) You guys can listen to an audiobook here in youtube for free and great quality, it's called "the conquest of bread" by Kropotkin - It's a great anarchist book, highly recommend it.
Steve Ryan force feeding someone an ideology will always be brainwashing. Let people make there own minds up about life, isn't that the principle of anarchy?
***** well, i'm not sure where you go to school, but where i go to school (London) i don't get told to love what the government does. I get told about trigonometry, molecular formulae, thermo-physics, philosophy, english literature, etc.
+Lilac Cloud Really? I've never once heard Chomsky agitate for abolishing government. In fact, most of the time hes agitating for greater government power "for the greater good"
Lilac Cloud Libertarian socialist is an oxymoron. How can you be for freedom on the one hand and then be in favour of the collective having control over your day to day life on the other?
Lilac Cloud The fact that you use the term "right" or "left" shows that you don't understand what true libertarianism is, as it transcends those archaic terms. Its means liberty from collective tyranny. It means individual liberty supersedes any notion of collective "greater good". If you choose to work for a boss, then its not authoritarianism, its voluntary. I can choose what company I work for. I cant, however choose whether or not to follow government laws. The underlying premise of true libertarianism is voluntary interaction.
Lilac Cloud You are the one that's ignorant and completely oblivious to libertarianism/voluntaryism. Libertarianism is a simple concept. A belief in the non-aggression principle and a belief in the voluntary interaction of free individuals. THATS what it is in EVERY country. When one person has power over another person without that persons expressed consent, then it is no longer true libertarianism. Go read some Spooner, Rothbard or even Some Larken Rose and educate yourself.
+TheIrishny fuck off dude, and fuck rothbard too. libertarianism as a term was invented at the end of the 19th century by the french anarchist communist Elisee Reclus as a substitute that anarchists could use in a time when the simple mentioning of that word brought up the full repression of the state. In the 1890's there were anarchist newspapers which were called the libertarian either in the US or in France. even rothbard admits that he had stolen that word from the "left". and you mofo's have tried to do the same thing with anarchism. nowhere in the world except the fascist US does anarchism mean ancap or libertarian anything other than an anti-authoritarian socialist (i.e. anarchists, anarchist-communists, libertarian socialists, anarcho-syndicalists, council communist, left-communists). you should fucking educate yourself with anything other than the writings of cripto-fascists which allow you to consider yourself a radical while also imagining a different world in which you could retain all your privilleges and have even more. nowhere on this planet where oppressed and exploited people are trying to organise will they adopt any of the ancap garbage. nobody fucking likes you. you are usully white, middle-class heterosexual men which are trying to play the radical type in a way which permits them to internalise and justify all their privilleges, while in the same time advocating for even more inequality and oppression.
Can I just put out a thought of mine, that disorder doesn't necessarily mean chaos. Order is control, and to assume that if there is no order that there will be chaos is just a bit of a stretch. As humans we are inclined to protect and survive, there is little reason to suggest that as soon as anarchy is introduced that the whole world will just collapse because of uncontrollable citizens. It would be interesting to have a debate on this, no hate please I am just trying to learn and put forward ideas 😊👍
Well, if there isn't order, who's supposed to keep the prisoners out of your life. I mean, the LA Riots surrounding Rodney king are a prime example. Instead of protesting, they went full anarchy, and did whatever they wanted. Well, that happened to be murdering Koreans for a murder they didn't commit, destroying stores of their own people's even, setting fires where ever they pleased... No one was exempt from what the rioters wanted to do to them. All of that happened because, there were no police. They thought nothing would happen, so there was no authority. No order. Look what happened without that order. Note that I completely respect your opinion, I'm just saying that it's a little naive to think that all humans would just come together to protect and survive. They only do that if their in the same group. Ancient man, when they first created war, they were strangers. It wasn't survival, it was greed. And humans are naturally greedy, even if they don't want the world.
The difference between freedom and anarchy is balance. One person cannot control everything by their own physical being. There must be order and Logistics and rule of law or else the direction of supposed direction will be only invested in itself. I do believe the wolves should rule not the sheep. But what would we become in order for that goal to be reached
Idk, Because of the modern era everyone has different mentalities because we are allowed to - it would be interesting to see how many people would use anarchy to create a peaceful world in comparison to those who we assume are inherently greedy - you guys should watch that movie “The platform” it has such a good representation of the greed that becomes us
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.
Now wrap your mind around the idea that this kind, as a character, is presented to make /fun/ of everything he says. 80 years, and low hanging satire becomes courageous declaration.
He still does sound ridiculous. He is just presenting problems that are evident in society and acting like he said something profound. He doesn't come up with any real, practical solution to the problem.
@@samuelforesta the practical solution, which is the only solution, is the complete and total destruction of political, economic, and social power. Anything short of that will delay, but not halt, the destruction of the planet, and will inevitably plunge us into the despotic monopolisation of power that we struggle against today.
@@samuelforesta The solution (according to the kid) is anarchism. Achieving it isn't easy, but it is possible if libertarian socialist ideologies spread enough. Some modern examples of anarchism: Rojava, the Zapatista Autonomous Municipalities, and Freetown Christiania.
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.
"When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny." Thomas Jefferson The boy is using fear to control others and limits their right to a discussion This makes the boy a Nazi commie who would murder people who thinks different than him
"nazi commie" that's a new one. do you talk about nazbols? doesn't fit that kid. anger is justified. being able to not show your anger requires your detachment from the issues at hand.
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....
This clip is both sad and funny. BECAUSE ITS TRUE. Thinking that you could do this in the 1950s. Today in face of much lesser enemies. You would not be able to turn the camera on. Before you got arrested on terrorist charges...
You couldnt do this in the 1950s, its just innocent enough and just framed with enough satire for most people during this time period to brush it off as some sort of joke. There are just as many misinformed then as there are today, its just changed form
@@velnz5475 Aye. But I think it relevant what was endorsed by media in the 1950s. Are now villified and heavily censored. Goodbye USA goodbye USSR. Or more likely hello to its cooperate friends in the WEF, WHO, Bill Gates foundation, Rockerfella foundation, Builderberg. (I know I sound like a tin foil hat.) PLEASE read up on this.
@@frederikhyrup2871 Should we judge it as a irrational consequence of powerful delusions for restricting our basic freedoms for any reasoning or lack thereof? Vilified scape goats or placeholder individuals are tactics unsavory to protect such freedoms as its irrelevant to a reality of humanitys' romance to accessible ignorance.
@@kipperedbeef2084 I disagree, capitalism cannot survive without a government, you couldn’t get the masses to follow ideas of private property and private owners of production, it was forced on to the world through colonialism, slavery and enclosure acts of the common lands, turning free land into private property forcing millions worldwide into cities were they had to sell themselves to a wage to survive. you need a state and standing army to protect these concepts. Cronyism is simply mature capitalism, It is the fate of every single capitalist nation today and that take on capitalism face the same fate. Capitalism brings the worst of human traits (greed,selfishness,exploitative etc) to the top where they are rewarded with riches which they use to corrupt governments and foreign policy. Workers can own there own workplaces democratically (aka socialism) you don’t need a private owner to control everything. Socialism and communism both work great and fine which is why it’s such a threat, there better systems and ways of organizing society. anytime a socialist movement builds or one takes place in another nation it’s immediately attacked, invaded, sanctioned, demonized and all there important infrastructure is destroyed to cripple and topple any attempt at workers organizing and taking control of there lives. The ones that do survive usually fall into paranoid rebel states and become authoritarian to protect there revolution from foreign sabotage and propaganda. Humanity has existed in a communist state for 90% of our entire existence the last 10% is filled with slave lords, feudal lords, and only a couple hundred years full of capitalist. Capitalism is the enemy of freedom and peace in the world today.. will never advance past war, hunger, homelessness etc till capitalism folds worldwide and common people take control of there societys. Socialist and communist worldwide have fought and are fighting to liberate people all over the planet while the west and the capitalist classes fought/ fight to suppress them and fund and support ruthless dictatorships and terror groups to help destroy any notion of a people state or people’s nation.
@@SPACEMONKEY288 Interesting that you say humanity has existed in a communist state for the vast majority of our existence because its also true that humanity has lived at subsidence-levels for that same amount of time or worse. Its only with the more recent development of private property ownership that we have gone beyond that. Also your claims of "you couldn't get the masses to follow private property" is wrong. When Americans pushed out west, there was no law enforcement to protect property, but through voluntary means like contracts, people did largely respect property rights with no government presence.
Wow, this has my mind blown!! What show or movie is this from?? This kid, wow! Amazing... Editing this in: I found out from another commenter that this is a scene from a film by Charlie Chaplin, titled "A King in New York."
Government does not equal violence. It equals power. And power does not equal violence either. Power is simply the ability to do things. Even supposedly "anarchist" societies would still have power and government.
@@samuelforesta Hierarchies maintain themselves through violence, coercion, and intimidation. What happens when you ignore an order from your boss? You are punished. What happens if you ignore an order from a cop? You are punished.
if the truth is the truth and it is indivisible then TRUTH = 0. the truth does not exist and to make ourselves feel better about that fact we create our own "personal truths" to believe in and tell others. but they are never truly the truth
The modern definition of Anarchy is an intentionally bastardized interpretation of the original, etymological word. "An-Archon" or "An-Archos"...simply put, it means Without Ruler or Without Rulers. The more people study the principles of liberty and what generates, propagates, puts into action and maintains liberty, freedom and natural law, the more will realize that government is anathema to liberty, freedom and natural law. Modern government is primarily interested in theft of property through compulsion. Regardless of whether or not you know where the money you hand-over through tax goes and whether or not you use the infrastructure or social services they provide, if you are not given a choice to voluntary contribute that money, you are being robbed. The government doesn't trust communities to take care of themselves and their own. But the greatest theft of government is that of the self-monarchy that is the free, human individual. That is equivalent to slavery by proxy.
Steve Ryan 1. Thats another part of anarchism too. 2. A carrot would fall under personal property like a car, house even some land etc, private property is referred to the means of production or the tools and location (like a factory etc) that is under management of private individual(s) ie a boss or a board of directors. Property is theft refers to this type. 3. That is the most simplistic argument that I have ever heard
Good video When people are talking shit about Ferguson protesters ( not looters) I hit them with this And that kid grew up to be a good black bloc anarchist
Ferguson protesters didn't give a single fuck about the truth, they were all just race-baiting liberals that overreacted before the facts of the case came out. Brown was a thug and the aggressor. He deserved what he got. Anarchist checking in.
Black bloc anarchists are a detriment to anarchy. If you have to commit violence and destruction of property to further your goals then you’re just a fascist. Peaceful tactics are the only way forward because you’re just justifying the state in the eyes of the people you seek to liberate.
Reminds me of my anarchist friends who yell at me and don't let me get a word in. One benefits from SNAP and Medicaid, the other complains that he doesn't qualify for Medicaid. I agree with much of what they say, and I look forward to the collapse of the American empire, but in the meantime, I still vote pro clean energy, pro LGBTQ, pro immigrant, etc.
Why are you mad at anarchists for benefiting off the government? Would you be mad at a prisoner for eating food given to them? There’s no hypocrisy in gaming the system that we are all forced into, a system that steals at every level and transaction possible. They even steal from the dead.
@@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.
Terrible script and direction. Seems that Chaplin could have been involved in a better project. The kid kept waving his finger over and over while ranting, when the director had so much leeway in doing it right.
+Hunter Gman You mean how they silence you and prevent people from speaking or placing limits upon speech. He just played the same hand played against him beating them at their own game.
