Big thanks to Matyas 'TheTechnodruid' Murguly for drafting the script for me! The game I'm playing in this video is Surviving the Aftermath from Paradox. Check out my Patreon: / adamsomething
In addition, big thanks to Matyas 'TheTechnodruid' Murguly for drafting the script for this video, describing clearly and concisely how an AnCap society would accidentally discover [surprise ideology]!
to be fair in that hypothetical world there was no government thus no laws nor any state funded law enforcement agencies so who was to enforce an age of consent
Not really, most western communists irl, are either rich or middle class. And alot of Ancaps are business owners or snake oil salesmen. They cross over quite normally.
Soviet Government: People, the communist dream is on the horizon! Soviet people: Horizon - a fictional place in the distance where sky meets ground, which moves further away as you try to approach it.
Let's build Anarcho-capitalism! _builds a feudal dictatorship_ Let's build anarcho-capitalism but this time better! _builds a theocracy_ Ok let's try one more time. _builds communism_ OH GOD DAMNI-
@@SelfProclaimedEmperor unless the communist society was also stockpiling on weapons and experimented with mass production of arms, or the first two societies had collapsed by this time.
@@purplespectre apparently, communism always failed, "muh it wasn't coherent with le original Karl Manga" Stfu , theory is one thing, practice is another thing
@@dreemlite5950 have you ever met an anarchocapitalist? Have you ever listened to an anarchocapitalist speech (I could send you many if you spoke spanish)? That's the last thing you'll hear an anarchocapitalist would say. And believe me, if somebody ends up believing in such rare and unpopular ideas they MUST have thought at least a bit about it.
@@dreemlite5950 You say that as if AnComs don't effectively do the same. And you people have literally never talked to a real AnCap if you think AnCaps think they'll make a utopia. Most (serious) AnCaps hold the idea of utopia being impossible. Their entire ideology is basically predicated on the fact that nothing is perfect. That's why, in their minds, decentralization is so important and the free market, which tends to adapt quickly, is seen as better at governing than government, which tends to adapt slower. By far, AnCaps are the most misunderstood anarchists because everyone likes to make shit up about them. Like you, apparently. You've clearly never studied the ideology. You just want to point and sneer. And no, I'm not AnCap. I think it'd just lead to a shittier version of what we have now. Private Entities will get so large and powerful they effectively become a state and we're back to square one.
Yes. But how did he failed to notice that people who "manage contracts" can also conspire to fake them and have huuuuge incentive to do it? Because this is what happens every time someone tries this in real life.
I’m surprised they weren’t sanctioned, blockaded, and ultimately invaded by their stronger, older, more established neighbors who then spread propaganda to justify all their aggression.
@@stoutyyyy I’m not sure. If any kind of area is still using currency, that area would be more susceptible to the slow attrition of bribery from a stronger more wealthy society. Not everyone would need to be bribed. Just key figures and enough skilled workers need to defect.
that's the problem, a leftist commune like this can't exist in toleration of right-wing ideas like horting more for yourself, even religions that preach this must be banned.
Imagine having a dedicated set of "Defenestration windows," and when someone is sentenced to defenestration, you set one of them up on just, A Stand with some kind of grip to hold it still, and then _YEET!_
"I told you We’re an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week, But all the decision of that officer have to be ratified at a special biweekly meeting. By a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs, but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more major issues.” Karlstadt citizen
@@kyle857 but that's the thing, if there is no money, no one can have a significant enough advantage to others to get to the "top". Labor vouchers require you to work, which takes too much time and effort to get a significant enough advantage, while in a capitalist society you can make others work for you, which takes very little time and effort, especially if you had a head start, like being born a millionaire.
@@jurtra9090 even then, it still is better to have plenty of fail safes than what we have now, where such a minute proportion of the population is responsible for almost all the decisions that are made worldwide.
_”with punishments ranging from banishment to defenestration”_ While everyone wondered how the glaziers suddenly held the majority of service contracts 🤣
@@DaisyGeekyTransGirl Nah, what they should have done is reverse Prague Spring, unleash Red Terror against the Revisionists, Opportunists, Market Socialists, and overall counter--revolutionaries and enemies of the People, and turn Czechoslovakia into Western North Korea with Liberal Democratic Rights, but also Nukes.
This reminds me of Prof Richard Wolff's story about advising a silicon valley start-up company that was all disaffected workers from fortune 500 tech companies that hated the top down hierarchical structures of the traditional corporations they all came from, called it stiffing, etc, and built their new company as a coop, but didn't call it that. "We loved it, we're more productive, more successful, more freedom", etc. Then after all that, Prof Wolff says "congratulations! You just discovered communism" They like "nuh ugh, we are eNtRaPaNueRIal iNnOvAtOrS!". Wolff responds "you can call it the pink unicorn system for all I can, you just described a Marxist cooperative enterprise."
That is dead wrong because they are all private individuals doing a investment in a free market. What's non Capitalist about that?. Capitalism is about economic freedom and the freedom of making that type of cooperative enterprise is part of that freedom
@@MohamedRamadan-qi4hl That was the most propaganda statement devoid of even Econ 101 level definitional understanding of the words you just typed. The dumbest statement typed today, well done.
@@MohamedRamadan-qi4hl 1. I actually did. 2. You didn't make any arguments, you made baseless assertions not grounded in history or fact. 3. Dishonest actors (pathetic debate-me-bros) spewing BS don't deserve respect and should be mocked instead.
I’m one of those people for who the saying “seeing it believing” is extremely true. So it’s been awesome for me to see more than just the headline that I would see with real world examples.
Halfway through this I was thinking "hey, isn't this really similar to an anarcho-communist thought experiment a few friends and I had a while back?" and then again near the end "this is communism." I feel so validated.
The most unrealistic part of this is only one "anarcho"-capitalist suggesting the age of consent thing, that'd be like their first point of order in video one like seconds in.
Although plausible, I think it's far more likely that the ancaps will just repeat attempt 1 or 2 over and over again without ever reaching your 3rd scenario.
Yes, but clearly this is the endgame where they've angrily rejected the repeated past spectacular failures. It might take 80 tries before arriving at communism, but you bet your ass that they'd also angrily reject the idea that it's communist at all cost too.
Well, ancap cant really occur anymore to begin with because it would require a clean slate which just isnt feasible in any way in modern society. There is no reasonable way to get from what we have right now, to even the STARTING point of an ancap society. So not only does it fail in multiple ways even if we COULD reasonably get to the starting point, but even attempting it again is pretty much impossible. Anarchist societies cant really exist without protection from other societies and some sort of revolution. An anarchist society is just never going to have the resources required to enforce their own sovereignty.
yeah in order for this scenario to "work" so many things would have to go right despite all the times when he points out that there's countless issues with managing things and scaling. And this requires everyone to be a good faith actor still I feel like it'd fall apart due to corruption and revert to another scenario.
@@BlazeMakesGames And at each step you'd get a different flavour of autocratic rule. Humans have after all completely failed at homogenized ideological adherence, and disputes will exist. It doesn't take much to steer this off the path, with room for someone to sweep in and exploit the situation. This is problematic for every ideology that requires homogenized ideological adherence, ancap most certainly included.
@@skeetsmcgrew3282 The joke is that these AnCap types often label anything that the government does to restrict their ability to do something as communism. Also, most "AnCaps", like many ideologies, don't really have central ideological leaders of thought that people follow, so to assign of people under their label isn't particularly accurate. I have heard them (random individuals online) make this argument though, and it would definitely be possible given what Anarcho-Capitalism functionally is.
You want an ANCAP society because you believe in its principles I want an ANCAP society because there is a possibility of it becoming communist We are not the same
Me: Mhm Me: Mhm. Me: Interesting. Me: Something about this feels familiar. Adam: COMMUNISM!! Me: Ah, there it is. Genuinely, laughed out loud. 😆 So good. Thank you!
It was about the time he said “And the public water works is owned by everyone as a shareholder “ that I went Hey if everyone equally owns it then isn’t this anarcho-communism instead? Though the final reveal was hilarious and a genuine lol happened
@@techpriesttaris1309 from what I can understand Marx argued for some form of Anarcho Communism. As the last act of the State was to set up a standing defense, then leave a skeleton of a State only to handle emergencies. Like invasion and natural disasters so massive it would need a State response. Anarcho Communism to me is just a bunch of hippies living on a plot of land with minimal structure. I could actually see something like this working if there was a robust enough administration and minimal corruption.
Me after the labour vouchers were introduced: this is sounding like mutualism. Me after specialising co-ops were introduced: this is sounding like syndecalism. Me after sharing public services was introduced: I think I know where this is going.
As video plays through, I kept thinking to myself ; " This sounds more like communism rather than anarcho-capitalism". Which seems to be the point of the video, lol. Love your work Adam.
I was skeptical cuz you can turn literally anything into currency so I thought he was just gonna turn the contracts into the new currency, but I guess they learned lol
There is one issue with this scenario, namely that other groups aren't interfering with this third attempt. At a bare minimum, there would be economic sanctions and mutually exclusive blocs of association which would prohibit members of their group from trading with others. Billy Bob of Aynville would declare that anyone who trades with this group will have their assets seized as a part of their consumer loyalty contract. Romeaboo of Randham would declare that it is heresy to associate with them. Both towns would also make a pseudo-blockade through Taxin- setting up private tolls that would make anyone even considering passing through their territory give up. This is assuming they don't just solve this the good old fashioned American way. A joke which is based in historical precedent from comparatively less capitalist obsessive societies than this pure LARP-turned-real ideology.
That's what I was thinking, this society can only exist once all other opposing systems are destroyed. The example given in this video with the exception of "the underclasses from the other two attempts, join this society" exists largely in a void. Everyone would either have to have at least be trained on a semi regular basis to defend said society or a temporary state apparatus would need to be established until the other two systems are destroyed. The reason a state is the alternative is that it is likely the only means to effectively project power. The problem with just defending said society is that it will always have to defend itself. Unfortunately it may just be better to destroy the capitalists states with a short term state system. Conflict with capitalists is inevitable. Even if the people in this society saw them selves as ancaps the feudal monarchy and theocracy would not. They would see them as a threat.
Back in episode 1, Adam said the Ancap societies in these videos were given the theoretical best case scenario for Anarcho-Capitalism, so no outside interference from other groups, no overwhelmingly superior firepower or initial resource monopolies to strongarm the populace, and no existing governing entities (actual governments. corporations, churches, etc) to take care of things without the "free" market. In a real world scenario, none of these "Ancap" governments would crop up to begin with because a nation that's actually organized would just walk in and take over, so you may just have to suspend your disbelief.
Good point, but I'd argue that Karlstadt still has a good run. Wars and blockades are pretty hard to make, especially given the relatively small scale of the Aynville and Randham "states". Furthermore, decentralized and equalitarian settlements tended to be bigger and fairly resistant to foreign invasion in pre-empire times; per example, the Mapuche of Patagonia were able to fend of both Inca, Spanish and Chilean/Argentinian attemps to colonize them until the late 19th century, at which point missionary efforts and treaties giving reparations to specific chieftains broke the equalitarian fondation of Mapuche society and enabled Chile and Argentina to conquer them as dissassembled tribes rather than a solidary nation. Long story short, as long as power remains collective or that one of the hierarchical state doesn't figure out nukes, Karlstadt should be fine
This scenario assumes that Karlstadt has access to all the resources it needs to function within its territory. This may not apply to smaller countries, but it certainly applied to the Soviet Union.
i love how anarcho capitalism either ends up with a power such as corporations or religion becoming dictators, defeating the idea of anarchism, or on the other hand they become a communist state. its like no matter what, it will just lead to something that is the complete opposite of anarcho capitalism
@@cantthinkofaname5046 She's suggesting it's an oxymoron since, in Marxist doctrine, one can have a *socialist* state, but that which results after the state has "withered away" is a communist *society*.
@@howtoappearincompletely9739 damn, gonna have to refresh myself on that stuff. I always was after a “modified for modern audiences” model of communism
@Social Libertarian sounds more like anarcho communism tbh. There is no proper government, but the community owns the ressources and means of production.
It could. But this similation is no proof of that, and it is an impossible thing to simulate due to the amount of variables. Firstly it would require that people either democratically vote for it or fight for their freedom. In either case i think the best way to introduce stable ancap would be gradually allow for more private business and ownership of things, instead of immeadetly abolishing the whole goverment and all its functions. For example the goverment could allow for competition to the police. Or allow for people to unsubsribe as an citizen and not get the perks of being one.
@@royalhydra9790 its possible and really depends on i think how easily those forces get payment if they go corrupt or if people will support them if they go corrupt. On a global stage we do have those competing "police"forces, each country is competing, and some do wage war upon others. Many even do alliances against the bad actors. That is on a large scale though, maybe smaller scale is different.
Okay, now this scenario is just hilariously unrealistic. Not that I disagree with the logic, just that I doubt any group of ancaps could stop being selfish long enough to get even halfway through this process before it all veers of onto one of the other dystopic paths.
That's the thing here, when you really want to stick to your ANCAP values you ultimately get mutualism. Those who scream at the top of their lungs that the free market is the way are just Social Darwinists trying to hide how inhumane they are.
@@Krell-ef7rf: Oh, absolutely. That's the thing I find unrealistic about this particular scenario, because it could only happen if the ancaps were truly 100% genuine in their beliefs, as opposed to the typical hypocrisy.
@@ffoska that is to say crypto is negative sum it does not create value and worthless other than something to gamble on value-wise a crypto Island even one that provides for everyone on it requires someone putting money in and losing it as well as someone doing work to produce things of value to exchange cryptocurrency for ie a infinite frontier to exploit and a underclass not gaining the benefits of their wealth
And we can improve that by giving people for the work they have done some receipt, so easily excange it with the things they need. Let's call that receipt money.
Stalinist dont really exist, most of them are Cringe 13 year olds who love the aesthetics, I personally believe in Lenin, but most of his belief are now outdated
@@davitdavid7165 Yes and No, Marxs beliefs were certainly different than what we witnessed in USSR, Communist revolution was supposed to happen in a developed capitalist State, which never happened (due to ww1 and ww2), Instead a Semi feudal society tried to experiment socialism, which worked but again it still had failures due to ww2 and US cold war, The Socialism we saw in USSR was similar to Lenins beliefs rather than Marx himself, But yeah saying that USSR was a total failure is wrong, they had their ups and downs, and I'm pretty sure they would have turned into a more Socialist state if they survived the Cold war
@@davitdavid7165 no im not a tankie, You cant expect a Newly born Nation to be Democratic after A civil war, revolution, world war, and a cold war, It was the first Socialist Nation (most important so far), USSR was a Police state sure, Im just emphasizing that their beliefs were def different from what Marx and Lenin stated. (Due to stalinists (tankies)), It was pretty good during Lenins reign, and Im pretty sure they would have adapted well and turned into a more Open society (unlike china) if there was no cold war.
@@Pierre-lj4sq I always wanted a neural factual perspective on USSR really. All i find is either extremely negative or extremely positive views on it. Atleast, with my limited knowledge, I feel like USSR was like a seed planted in a harsh weather, dark and over-watered. People expected or were promised fruits to apear next day, but ended up starved, disappointed and angry when it didn't.
There could be more risk of that happening than you think. :( That's why I am adamant that an awareness of ethno-nationalistic tendencies and how to dismantle them is an *essential* part of praxis. There are still socialists who are also a bit racist (or at least racially ignorant) who will institute legal agreements which place their race in a position of relative dominance. All under the guise that "this is the place where *these* people belong". You can't just "explain class struggle to poor whites" and expect everything to be a beautiful utopia. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-j4kI2h3iotA.html Also, everything he's describing with anarchist labor contracts seems like "this is just currency with extra steps". Especially when his answer to "but economies of scale tho" is just "we'll create a centralized administration of elites to procure resources and direct stock flows, and this group won't form a government to consolidate their power over the 'proles' because... uh... because... we'll threaten to throw them out a window?" I'm a big fan of Adam, but I think this is far from his best video. Just kind of a bland "meh".
@@falseprofit9801 whilst I agree that this video isn't the best, it was funny as a sort of "let's give them the best chance we can" type of video. I don't personally expect a random RU-vid video mocking Ancaps to resolve the myriad problems of "Why Anarcho Communism doesn't work"
@@falseprofit9801 exactly what I am thinking. This solves nothing. Currency with extra steps is worse than money and there are positions with power like prime real estate, warehouse administrator that will inevitably lead to elites.
Thank you sir for clearing up communism. People just point at USSR, North Korea, and China and call them communist countries, while they are state controlled autocratic capitalisms.
Socialism=democracy over the means of production, capitalism=dictatorship or oligarchy over the means of production or the possibility of this to happen. The UDSSR had collectives were the workers democraticly decided things and also the leaders were voted indirectly democraticly so yes it was socialist, not a 100% because that would be direct democracy over all means of production but still it was socialist.
Ancap ideology has never been shy about its desire to abolish the state. And libertarianism is all about flattening classes through the creation of new institutions to serve the people directly. Ancaps, however, would not abolish money.
Wrong. He makes a bunch of false assumptions and proceeds to build a case that crumbles the moment you take away these fals assumptions. That's basically how all communism crumbles. For example in this video he says that monopolies would easily form. That's not true, because without a government to enforce intellectual property laws there would be a lot of copy-cats the moment someone does something so useful that everyone wants to buy it, creating fierce competition.
and just like comunism, it is impossible in reality. Maybe in a small comunity like in the video. but now try to rule a country in the same way you would run a comunity...
@@Duck-wc9de I think for a country to run peacefully it needs to have some degree of personal freedom to start businesses and participate in the economy freely. But again the monopolization of major industries seen in the modern USA is also a dangerous extreme. Which is why I never identify with any political party in this extreme climate.
@@shadowgodthegamer5738 Modern USA? Ever heard of the east india trading company? The US railways? This aint a new thing it started with the primitive accumulation and never stopped. Not a gotcha just saying
I am thinking about dropping out of school to focus on my career as a star on RU-vid. I already make a lot of money on RU-vid. School bores me so much. I need more opinions and since I don't have any friends, I gotta ask you, ma
@@AxxLAfriku don't, it will be paid in ass later on to finish it, just do both but don't prioritize RU-vid because your account can be deleted, but not your knowledge
@@niklavsmelnbardis403 AxxL has been around for like a decade. Hes a notorious troll who seemingly spends 24/7 online. This is probably one of his most coherent comments too. I dont think he has been in school for a loonnggg time.
The only disappointing thing is how quickly service contracts was skimmed In this society, "service contracts" are supposed to replace one of the most useful/malleable inventions humans have ever invented: Money. Love it or hate it, money is one of the main pillars of a modern society, but everyone is expected to completely abandon in favor of service contracts Service contracts have big shoes to fill. If they fail, people would revert to using currencies. Real people need to be incentivized beyond "I don't like wealth accumulation"
@@concept5631 Their political and economical system looked like a sort of " -Communist- Soviet? Socialist? Precolombine State" with a big ass network of resource and information transportation, and even storage of both. They didn't (formally) used money nor had private property.
@@sirnikkel6746 *When a pre-Columbian empire that couldn't use the wheel on a mass scale had a better understanding of communism then the first communist state*
@@sirnikkel6746 that sounds similar to the ancient egyptian burocracy. They would keep all grain stock and offer it to farmers in quantities set by public officials, who would keep track of where and when to farm, what goods were needed and how to distribute them. Of course this system however, was part of the egyptian hierarchy that kept the pharoh and nobility at the top, allowing them to accumulate wealth and power while keeping the people under their thumb, as a form of proto-totalitarian state.
@@thejudge1728 No, not the valuables themselvs. Like food, shelter, warmth, low age of consent... ahem. A representation is it if you don't consume it. If you consume it, it's just a trade good. Of course that again is murky territory (in old China tea was often used as currency - precisely beccause you could use it, mostly to trade with foreigners who didn't want your coins.)
@@thejudge1728 Kinda. You could have a society that operated solely on barter, but that leads to difficulties in trading when you try and exchange a luxury for a staple (like jewellery for bread). That's why we invented money, which you can use as an intermediate. You can also have a gift economy, but that doesn't scale.
@@PlatinumAltaria Maybe I'm wrong, but my understanding is that you aren't meant to be able to accumulate labour vouchers, and therefore can't accumulate coercive power and wealth inequality. So that's the difference between them and money.
I was an anarchist cap for a while until I realized it was actually communism I was going for. I just really didn't like the government. It's really crazy how they use the same rhetoric as communists, but swap out consumers. It's weird
That applies to most political ideologies. And religions, really. The most extreme versions are essentially all identical but the people involved are convinced they are polar opposites. Probably because extreme ideas are all founded on the same logical fallacies, and almost always forget to take into account that people are basically evil.
@@skeetsmcgrew3282 "take into account that people are basically evil." My man, I'm sorry but that is as false as saying that "people are basically good".
@@bucherregaldomi9084 You kinda have to pick one. If Situation A occurs and 51% of people would do the shitty and selfish thing, people are basically evil
@@skeetsmcgrew3282 You are lumping left and right as similar when really it's just lumping libertarian and libertarian as similar. Horseshoe theory is just two letters off from reality, horseshit.
"then this group of ancaps, by the power of applying an actually coherent set of ideological principles, became market anarchists with a light 'econ 101' aesthetic, and it actually went much better than anything they'd ever done before"
if you are talking about this commune, i think they don't have markets, as that would imply trade and some sort of money, while these have some kind of distribution system, isn't that so?
the punishment of defenestration is so funny to me. I must imagine that it was meant as a form of banishment from the town, but I imagine a window frame in the town square with a large pile of replacement window panes next to it that contract forgers get thrown through.
God, I love this series. While I’m hoping it isn’t the end, this is a really solid point to end off on, because it flies in the face of what many capitalists want. At the same time, I agree with calling the Soviet Union not actually communist, which is something that few people have agreed with me on.
There never was a country on earth that achievemed communism. (I would argue no country even got half done with Socialism.) Everyone who says otherwise is just Red Scared to use a term with a meaning different from it's real meaning.
To be fair... The soviet union was failed communism, and frankly... There is no true capitalist country in the world either. It is almost like... The middle ground is better than the extremes ;)
"At the same time, I agree with calling the Soviet Union not actually communist, which is something that few people have agreed with me on." At some point, Stalin declared that the USSR had achieved socialism, due to the vanguard party (i.e. the communist party, which he was the head of) claiming ownership over all means of production in representation of the whole working class. This statement was then, and is still being disputed by a large portion of the international left. But they never claimed to have achieved communism, neither did the communist parties of other countries like China or Vietnam.
@@eazy8579 to be fair, I've always had a problem with this definition because it feels like "state" is being rather arbitrarily defined. I assume it's referring to nation-state, just because of the context of the society that marx was writing in, in which case it's in agreeable statement, but a lot of people just interpret it as "government/organizing bodies in general", which I don't really agree with (nor do I really think it's possible to avoid anything resembling government).
I was suspicious when they replaced currency with service contracts, but as soon as they made roads and basic services public I knew where this was going cool vid!
A real life ancap commune would be very similar to this, except they would use dogecoin or silver coins for trade. And yes it would be very successful and not really have classes or a state...but ancaps would never abandon money. I've been to ancap festivals and it was exactly this, VERY idealistic and fun. Tripping on shrooms and laughing around a campfire while free range kids were running around the forest like pack animals having the time of their lives.
@@arkology_city honest question, is it really anarcho-capitalism if certain sectors of the economy are publicly owned? that kind of breaks down the whole free contract between individuals thing, as i understand it
@@ConnieFWill You know the definition of a corporation is owned by the public, right? Almost every company is owned by more than one person. it is common for a company to have 5, 10, 20, 100 owners.
@@arkology_city sure, but being publicly traded is not the same thing as being publicly owned. being publicly traded just means that anyone can own shares in the company equal to how much money they invest. but publicly owned services are owned by literally "the public," without an expectation of investment for legal owernship c'mon, you know this
@@ConnieFWill "but publicly owned services are owned by literally "the public," without an expectation of investment for legal owernship" As long as that institution cannot tax or write law, then it still falls under ancap ideology/morality.
Shout-out for these guys for actually trying and experimenting their ideas, I'm not seeing them as idiots, they're scientists doing social science and there's a lot I have learned from these controlled experiments
You should've done this justice. I too like this concept, but there are open questions about efficiency of large scale production under democratic rule of workers. You also should've made sure to describe information about all the transactions open and to forbid any transactions outside the system. TL;DR: this system isn't protected from corruption and at large scale you can't expect community to notice it. When there's corruption, there's unfair wealth and power accumulation. After all, the capital that Soviet party members had wasn't money. It was political power to make their wishes granted at the expense if others
One thing you need to watch out for here is binding everything to work contracts. This can be detrimental to people who have a reduced ability to work such as old or sick people or people born with physical or learning disabilities. There need to be social programs in place for this.
Ancaps don't care about things like caring for others and empathy. This video is about showing that rationally you end up at communism. Other videos can be about showing that morally you end up at communism, but that would be a different video.
The problem is that you can’t ethically force someone to help another person even if they have a moral obligation to. If people who can’t work can’t persuade others to give them what they need to live by offering their labour, then they need to rely on altruism but not on forcibly taking the labour of people who do work, because then you are implementing supposedly egalitarian slavery.
@@venusianblivet9518 Mita, Inca equivalent to "work tax": *now this looks like a job for me* (Unintended consequence: If you mix the mita with the warehouse and town hall administrators, you get a state)
@@venusianblivet9518 no ethical way? Source? If society brought you to the point in life where you can help someone, you are ethically obligated to do so. Your very existence in a society with an infrastructure built prior to your arrival completely mitigates any sincere way to propose the half assed ethical dilemma you think you’re having.
I literally let out a sigh of relief at the end. "He's gonna add a dictator, fuck, he's gonna out himself as a tankie-" "The USSR was a state-capitalist oligarchy, not communism." "OH THANK GOODNESS."
As soon as the townspeople went "instead of money, let's use labor vouchers/contracts to barter for goods and services" I IMMEDIATELY knew where this was going lol
This would more be between anarcho-collectivism and a weird form of market anarchism than anarcho-communism, because communism is an economy where people voluntarily contribute their labour to society and resources are allocated according to need.
I don’t think this can work at all. You have a market economy but the currency is labour and goods so basically we a back to bartering. Who builds the collective infrastructure ?what do they get in return ?what happens if you don’t contribute? If you have people working in exchange for food what happens if they can’t any more just starve I guess.
In my experience people who call themselves Anarcho capitalists are obsessed with dominating everyone and everything around them. That's why they will never give up currency, it's a great medium for dominating other people and giving yourself an outsized degree if control.
Im for ancap because i see it as the most ethical system. I think you guys who want to abolish currency have absolutely no idea what you are talking about and what you are believing/promoting. You would need coercion to get rid of currency firstly which i view as wrong. And secondly currency is literally a tool/technology, and it works well. In ancap there wouldnt be monopoly on currency so every1 can choose what currency they want to use or even create their own, or not use any at all. Lefty policies require domination and coercion, meanwhile ancap at an idea lvl is about abolishing all involuntary coercion. Huge difference.
@Social Libertarian That sounds like the system is inherently weak to greed. This means it promotes greed because the greedy do better in such a system.
"Surviving the Aftermath" eh? Looks like it's good good review, and I'm undergoing colony sim withdrawal so that looks just like what I want right now. Great video too.
Tried Aftermath, it's not very good. Inside an hour you know where it's going and it is very shallow. It felt like Starcraft build order with none of the action. If you want batshit insanity, options and playability, I definitely recommend Rimworld. Dwarf fortress is so unwieldy it's not fun and tiring. Timberborn is good if you want something more chill with significant difficulty.
@@oohhboy-funhouse I have hundred of hours in Rimworld and I still prefer Dwarf Fortress by a wide margin. Both games are good but DF just has infinitely more depth, which is where I derive my fun from. Most other games just try to imitate DF. Timberborn is alright but I blitzed through its content when it came into Early Access so I'm looking for other games I haven't tried yet.
I know that you said this is the final part, but I still hope we can see the logical way an An-Cap society can deal with Foreign Policy. And in the case of this society, how external forces can cause Karlsberg to end up abandoning the Communist system for a socialist (at best.) or State Capitalist (at worst.) system
Probably because it is nonsense. The idea behind it is that the community came up with the list of things that need to be done for the community to go on and those things would have prices assigned (somehow) paid in goods and services needed by the people. Basically it divides the output of the community between the laborers based on how much work they have done. The problem lies in this division. How it is decided. Carpentry is a hard work and needs to be compensated more justly says carpenter. Bricklaying takes a lot of experience to do it well and fast says bricklayer. And so on. In the end they have to decide the value of each labor provided and it cannot be equal. That is because everyone's skill is not equal. You may have an experienced worker that finishes his tasks much faster and may be able to take on more. Does that mean that his kind of labor is worth less or more? In the end you may have young inexperienced people who are incapable of sustaining themselves because their pay rate is decided by that of a faster and more skilled worker. Should we let them starve? Alternatively you can pay based on hours worked. This was however the downfall of soviet communism. Everyone was paid the same regardless of how hard they worked. This incentivizes laziness and corruption. I will do this work off the books for you and you will do other work off the books for me. No matter how you centrally decide the prices - you will create problems. Humans are incapable of grasping the demand and supply of a non-trivially sized population in a way that is fair and responsive to the ongoing situation. Adam tries to solve this by introducing his magical automated computer system into equation - this however shows his ignorance of such systems. They don't work and never have. We know this because we have tried to make them many times. These economic models are always flawed and don't reflect the reality accurately enough to manage the economy. There are too many variables that you cannot actively monitor. This is not even taking into account that no matter how he tries to frame it - the administrators and programmers/maintainers of these systems are the people that are truly in power here. They have the power to fudge the numbers. If everyone gets a fraction less resources - too small to notice yourself - they can get significantly more wealth for themselves. The system can "glitch" and bug out. Sometimes for real and sometimes because someone chose to make it happen. The only arbiters of what was true are the only people that can tamper with it. There is a reason why pretty much every communist system quickly descended into a dictatorial hellhole. Without getting rid of the need for administrators, you cannot form a working communist system. He who controls the flow of resources controls the system.
@@bluewhaleking6227 If there was a solution, we would probably be living in a perfect system by now. I believe that the fundamental problem lies in the human nature. We value ourselves and our close ones higher than the strangers. We simply don't have much empathy for strangers. As such when faced with a way to enrich yourself, or perhaps to help a close one in need, at the cost of some faceless stranger, we tend to choose our interests. No matter what kind of laws and systems we introduce, the people will find a way to use and abuse it to their advantage. The solution, if it exists, does not lie in the system, but in the people. If you could make sure that the right decisions are made then how you run a society does not matter. Even an absolute monarchy would be a utopia if the monarch was doing his absolute best to make the people and the country prosper while the people he delegates the power to were incorruptible.
The mistake on this video is assuming that Ancaps see money and inequality as a problem. Ancaps believe what they believe not because they feel compassion for anybody but just because they believe it will give them a chance of becoming rich.
Ancaps like and will continue to use money. Other than that this video is unironically accurate, and I'm speaking as a proud ancap. A truly free market and deregulation REDUCES classism, not strengthens it. This is the biggest and most fatal flaw of all leftist thinking. And something we on the right have all been trying to tell you for the last 10 years - I am glad you all are starting to get it.....better late than never I guess.
Will we be dismantling ancoms in the same way going forward? I find the whole "and what if I can't contribute?" question tends to yield interesting answers.
The fundamental point of these videos are that an-cap is a contradictory idea because capitalism inherently creates imbalance and hierarchy which is...not anarchist. And removing the tenets of capitalism that make it an exploitative hell-system just turns it in to...not capitalist. You can't have both anarchy and capitalism, period. But I would like to see some finer points addressed like how such a society would address disabled individuals or those with skills not in current need vs supply. Of course, such a system would give these individuals the time to retool in to something more useful (unlike in a capitalist system) but it would still be nice to go over.
5:15 Calling it now, big reveal is going to be "This isn't Anarcho-Capitalism anymore, you just finally realized Socialism/Communism/ect." 9:33 CALLED IT!!!!
Keep the currency and you've got Participatory Economics and a greater ability to trade between settlements/states. You could even open a tourist trade to show the denizens of Aynville and Randham around the wonders of your glorious anarcho-communist sorry I mean CAPITALIST definitely capitalist utopia
@Dr. Osterman anarcho-syndicalism is the tactic of using anarchist specific trade unions to achieve anarchy, I’d say this system is a part of the more general ideology of organizationist anarchism, but not syndicalism.
The end result was basically the form of communism that people want, not the form of communism they get. Where everything is owned by everyone. Which falls apart as soon as the territory and population grows enough That you need representatives.
When I first heard of the term anarcho capitalism I said "WTF is that?" And now all these years later I still say the same thing 😅 These are some of weirdest ideas
As soon as "COMMUNISM" showed up on my screen I was in shock and awe for multiple reasons. 1. Damn communism doesn't sound _that_ bad. 2. How did I not realize
thats because most people associate communism with soviet style opressive states, even though the ussr wasnt communist and pratically deviated from pretty much every thing marx said. just think and you will see the contradictory nature of the ussr, they denounce inequality even though they have a dictator. Communism is technically the best political system however most people just assume what communism is and dont bother to research or read Marx.
@@dutchdykefinger fyi it actually has existed (briefly, before being crushed by Francisco Franco and the USSR) during the Spanish Civil War in 1936 led by the CNT, and was working really well before being destroyed by external forces. :)
