Even if capitalism were right and people are greedy, isn't that more of a reason not to trust a system (like capitalism) where the greediest gain the power to control the rest of us?
I think that most people who take the time to think deeply about our capitalistic society do not trust the system and clearly understand that a disaster awaits us in the future. However, I think that these people are usually the ones who have comfortable lives, as they clearly have time to spare. And for most of us comfort is of a greater value. As was well noted in this podcast: change happens when the pain becomes more unbearable than the fear of change.
Its more so that capitalism creates a system where the greedy must be productively greedy and help others through their greed. Capitalism doesn't oppress people or give people power over the rest as the capitalists must adhere to the demands of the customers. The only way to gain power over others is through attaining a monopoly on violence through the formation of a state.
Not necessarily. Anti capitalism comes from people's economic illiteracy. When people who are economically literate think about capitalism they embrace it but realize we are not living under capitalism but instead statism. I would recommend reading Murray Rothbard.
Does this mean we'll get a video on Albert Camus' Political views eventually? I find that it would be very interesting, and I feel his political views definitely mend well with his philosophy.
I think it's rather empty-headed to focus on a particular writer/philosopher's political views, instead of their work. There's already a video about Camus' works on this channel, which should suffice in terms of Camus' character. This is a philosophy channel, not a politics channel. Or rather, it should be.
@@kikrinman1450 politics very directly arises from philosophy, and most forms of philosophy naturally engage with politics its not empty headed to be curious about the relationship.
@@kikrinman1450 I know there are already videos about Camus' works and his personal life on this channel. As a fan of Camus, and seeing as Sisyphus 55 also seems to have quite the passion for his works, I thought it worthwhile to ask if a video regarding his political views, which, as I mentioned in my original comment, I find are very much intertwined with his philosophy regarding the Absurd. Regarding your point on what content you think should be on this channel, I don't think any of us here are qualified to determine what should and should not be on this channel. I don't think it's a stretch to say that politics are very much related to philosophy (and some might argue that they are one and the same, in some regards). While Sisyphus 55's content has for now stayed within the confines of Philosophy, he has discussed the politics of other philosophers and popular figures. While we can deduce the type of content Sisyphus 55 is likely to produce and create, we are not in a position to restrict the type of content he should make based on our own opinions, political or not. I, for one, would argue it's rather empty-headed to believe that a philosopher's political views are disconnected from their works, and from their philosophy at large.
@@kikrinman1450 philosophy is necessarily political. Any ethical stance necessitates some (though not necessarily comprehensive) political stance, and Camus’s conception of the absurd necessitates an ethical stance. “Empty-headed” is absurd- it’s completely reasonable to like a writer and read their work because of that. The fact that you made this argument is evidence that you haven’t read much philosophy at all
@@ellielikesmusic political philosophy is also one of the most heavily published areas of philosophy, so making distinct philosophy and “political beliefs” like the first guy did is such a cringe take
I feel like the bias towards sensationalizing people being bad is more evidence of our cooperative nature, as we more easily identify and sensationalize actions we don’t want to see to better discourage them.
Could be. But conservatives are right about people being too selfish and greedy for communism to work - right now. Society needs to become less dysfunctional, kinder, and more equality minded for communism to work.
@@vianabdullah2837 I remember when I had seen his time travel video and I had subscribed to him, few years later as a socialist I found out that I was subscribed to him and I started watching again.
Clearly the only solution to the mainstreaming of counter culture is to become a conceptual avant-garde accelerationist. You must constantly become something new, and when whatever you become becomes named, labeled, and categorized, you must abandon it and move on to the new unknown. "Written poetry is worth reading once, and then should be destroyed. Let the dead poets make way for others." -Antonin Artaud
Around the 30 minute mark that makes me think "hipsters" already saw this coming. The corporations capitalizing on the counter culture which inherently stomps out the possibility for a counter culture. "I listened to (blank) before it was cool" was them claiming the point of it was to be not cool.
The first years of the Russian revolution was less authoritarian towards art. There are several examples of vanguard experimentalism on cinema, with authors such as Eisenstein, Kulechov and vertov. Their movies and studies were revolutionary to cinema language. I think a more optimistic view of art under anarcho communism would be that of exploring the potential of art expressions.
Quoting a non-anarchist who was an ex-CPUSA member, and who endorsed Geno-cide Joe based on the false strategy of pressuring the dems into "more progressive changes."
The one 16 year old girl represents the fixed point of recursive application of Liebig's Law to Capitalism. Also, Contrapoints has already appeared on/in mainstream media lol
George Lucas said he would have rather made movies in the USSR because they had much more freedom to create instead of being confined to commercialization
I get what he means, but to be fair, he'd be surveilled all the time and as soon as he went slightly against ML ideology, even under Khrushchev or Breshnev, they'd try all their best to stop him. But yes, the idea that art must not only be profitable, but more profitable than other artworks and that the growth itself must also grow, is completely absurd and not recognized by the general population at all.
"Human nature" is a questionable concept that hasn't really been demonstrated to the best of my knowledge. And even if it could be demonstrated we'd still need to know how much it affects since we know for a fact certain genetic and environmental things have significant impacts on development, especially environmental. But assuming something like that did exist and that it was a cause of some undesirable behaviors anarchism is as much about preventing people from inflicting anything on others as much as it is about creating systems, institutions, and cultures that bring out the best. That's a very important part of the equation. We all know the horrors that humans have committed against each other from the smallest microaggression to the worst brutality and preventing as much of that from being possible is key, doesn't matter how bad someone's intentions may be if they're not in a position to actually cause much harm. If we aren't fit to rule ourselves we certainly aren't fit to rule over each other. Also, cats are absolutely not capitalists, they're illegalist egoist individualist insurrectionists. Get in tune.
I think cooperatism is mostly seen when reliance on the cooperation is necessary which means that a system built on it would be a victim of its own success.
Exactly, and it’s a very optimistic and utopian viewpoint. Yes, voluntary cooperation can emerge, but it’s much more of a rarity than voluntary competition. It can work in very small scales, but with the context of a nation it’s delusional to assert that everyone in a nation with voluntary fall into line of a certain, very specific way of life. Once a single individual resists the prescribed way of life, the “anarcho” part will immediately fail if they intend to preserve the commune’s way of life.
If pets were able to understand the climate situation, there would be nothing different about them from us. We are sapient animals, and they would be too. The wouldnt have a unique perspective. It would depend on the culture and education they had, just like humans.
I'm not an ancom either but I like to listen to other people's pov because that is the only way to truly have a better understanding of the world and all its ideas, to inform my own opinions.
i don’t want to get into any discourse but i think any method of achieving communism that doesn’t fit material conditions and social relations is unfit and in many cases reactionary, whether it’s ancom or ML
Capitalism isn't the same thing as "freely trading with each other". Capitalism is a hierarchical system. Domination through private property rights. Trading freely is consensual and ideally mutually beneficial. We're not against that. You need a State in order to enforce capitalism.
@@quateleIdeally, you'd work in a cooperative, where the workers collectively own the products/services they produce. Also, alternative economic arrangements will emerge, like the gift economy, people sharing freely with their community, etc. Not everything will be produced simply to make profit, many things will be de-commodified. Our motivation would be to provide for the needs of the community. Mutual aid.
I fulheartedly agree with his politics but his need to be seen as an outsider, punk, hipster - whatever u want to call it, is a little sad. His ideologies and, more aptly, his interests are finally spreading but he's upset by the youth expressing it a little differently?
i really dont think his politics need to “be seen as an outsider type” thing. i think you’re just applying your internalised biases about these politics onto people who are aligned with them.
@@sage1312 I am an anarchocommunist. I don't see myself as an outsider. I made it clear that my point wasn't based in politics. It's more specifically about alternative culture, and the interesting pov where you could be upset by your favorite music genres, or style catching on. Despite this observation not being based in politics, I wonder if in fact it extends to that realm, as well.
Beyond brass tacks, dude's got nothing new to offer. I do like his reviews. At least, he doesn't misread anarchism and Marxism like NonCompete does regularly. However, I've got no knowledge if he's into left unity, purely for grouping's sake, like NonCompete.
It is really baffling seeing people fight each other before destroying capitalism, so I can understand your need to know his stance on that last bit there. I always found these people too proud to work with others.
Fish have it rough, man. I feel like if a fish had the choice, it would take society and let the world burn. A fish would DEFINITELY nuke us from space, and it would have no problem doing it.
you really didn’t seem like you knew much about leftist values based on what you have said in your vids. i think you once said something naive like “communism failed” i’m glad you did this collab!
When asked about his anarcho communist political position, @Radical Reviewer is incredibly broad and contradictory and also proceeds to cite a very personal and specific example. If you cannot explain your political position in a very clear and direct way, you don’t really fit in the category you positioned yourself in.
Politics aren't necessarily straightforward, and many of our beliefs stem from our personal experiences. I fail to understand why he cannot label himself as an anarcho-communist based on that metric.
@@phr3ui559 It's easy to say that as a sort of 'gotcha', but I notiice that most people who make that claim don't actually back up their claims with arguments, which doesn't really add to the discourse. If you're willing to explain your thoughts on this, I'd be happy to hear you out. Otherwise fuck off dude, lol
Only if you have zero understanding of the tenets of communism and anarchism, they are perfectly compatible if not being utilized through a state structure as both have a similar end goal of a stateless, classless, moneyless society. Kropotkin and Malatesta could answer pretty much any question you have as to how it's "oxymoronic".
"Idealistic" tHAt beautifull idealism when your ideal world means no invention, no failor, no ability to strive for anything as an individual. Sounds paradistic. (Sacasm)
The singular thing that can be good on Marxism the thoght of providing peoples basic needs and ability for workers to have independence. Like if your about how to for workers independence I would understand that, but you'r not supporting anyone by trapping them. And that's what your doing. What is why I can't stand you.
Why would people stop innovating? More people working on a project makes progress faster than smaller groups working on the same thing detached while sabotaging each other and trying to race. Scientists have made a program like a game where people can do some stuff with chemistry or biology I think, I think proteins and you could try solving actual problems, and they've found that they got much more data much faster by distributing this program to average joes globally than in a small think thank of experts.
@@antonioklaic4839 hi, I have growen over my bitterness on current leftists by now and like the ideals much better. You are right, people wouldn't stop innovating and individuals would probably be actually archiving greater things, if it would actually fuction,then in capitalism
@@catsaresocute650 no problem, I was just giving out my thoughts. I am glad you have changed to be less bitter. Even I feel ancom ideology may be too idealistic bit I like it's ideals of personal freedoms and direct democracy in a way.
The guy and his co-worker worked together to decide who do the chores. But the only reason they did chores at all was because they were getting paid...... Sounds more like an argument for capitalism.
@@traian2932 Well, when marx revised his own writings and called for decentralized revolution and lenin said fuck that, you kinda do sound like you're projecting.
The reason this distribution of labor argument makes no sense is simply because some jobs are less desirable and more necessary then others. Few people want to be a clerk, or clean toilets, or pick up trash, and lots of people want to be artists or work in high status jobs that involve self expression. However for society to function we need far more of the former then the latter. Thus only a few artists “make it” while most live in squalor, and plumbers make bank while working an unappealing job. The market is very good at signaling what jobs are needed and then compensating workers for doing high demand and low labor supply jobs, which then increase labor supply.
The less desirable jobs will be given to people by randomness or a rotation system and the people doing the undesirable jobs on purpose or because they've been chosen 'by whatever form of selection the community decides' will be rewarded with more things from the community they will have more access to more luxury items so people would be compensated for their work, the less you work the less you receive "note that food, water, shelter, ect isnt earned its given" and for essential jobs it will be seen as you working harder, this is the basis behind "each according to their ability to each according to their needs"
@@Voidppppp i don't think a system based on computers is a good long term solution. There needs to be a state that is composed of the virtuously superior.
well since a government is just a group of people (but organised in a very closed, vertical, and unequal way) that owns stuff, in an anarchist society theres also a group of people (who own their stuff and are organised in a radically open and egalitarian way) that owns stuff and distributes it according to who made and needs what. I get that it sounds really odd, but fundamentally youll always have people who own stuff and distribute stuff, so either way is as weird
@@David22092001 thanks for replying, I'm still confused though. Yeah it does sound very odd to me haha. What specifically would differentiate this organisation of stuff owners from a government the redistributes everyone's 'stuff'?
@@locky7347 me and the gang work in a building where we produce really cool sticks, we chose to do with together because we want to and who doesnt like a good stick? Since we do the work obviously we own what we do (instead of some boss or government). The focus isnt inherenetly make as many for as cheap, but is decided by us. My friends drive trucks and does deliveries (as they see fit based on what we coordinate, they have full choice without coercion and have a say in how matters are done). So my friend gets these sticks to who wants them (i imagine a form of internet that does calculates this efficiently but ofcourse every step is done based on what the community wants and nothing is done against people since the people have horizontal power so everything done is done for the good of the people, since there is no one else who can decide stuff above them). Etc etc Basically, you still have people workin, and people driving, and people wanting. The difference is that its done by the people who own what they make and who geneuinly chose what they want, and all done in free agreement with the people involved since everyone shares power. This isnt like a state because it is horizontal, any representatives are genuienly chosen freely and dont have own power above anyone else (no social contract bs), and it is an organisation that is done by and for the community directly instead of a far away system seeking power. The people hold power and so, since they can, they use that free power to make the world as good as possible
@@David22092001 I don't even know where to start. You sound like a smart guy, surly you see the problems with this theory... would the people in charge of redistributing your money not have large amounts of power? Let's just start off there How exactly is it possible to have authoritarian control over everyone's resources without some sort of hierarchy?
@@locky7347 Im not sure what you mean, ther is no authoritarianism. A person works a field or extract resources with and for the community, and because they want to, not out of any force. No person controls everyones resources, people go into mutual agreements about resources. It would happen naturally as people have their own personal power to choose and not be coerced into choices. And people will work in what domein they want in their community, and the people who work per factory will be united horizontally and they will choose together how to get resources from farmers, and farmers and factory workers then choose how to best work together for themselves and thus for the community and so on. People want to work, and if people know there is no king or capitalist who wants to squeeze them and coerce them, they know they have the freedom to do what they want. And if this is the case people will naturally want to do good (obviously mistakes will exist) because if you have the freedom of working on what you want and you own what you make, then you can focus on making the world better. What important to grasp in my opinion, is that fundamentally in any of these systems, people still just work. Sure theres a difference in hours and type because in anarchist freedom you have the power to do that, but fundamentally you still have the world working and doing jobs. So therefor things still get made, and people still go to work, and people still get items. What really changes is who decides what. Instead of an unknown boss taking away your surplus to buy a yaught, in a free society people only have to work for 10th of the time to produce as much as we make today, since that surplus is directed used by individuals and the community. Kropotkins conquest of bread (a fundamental anarchist book), calculated that at the time (1890s?) the inhabitants of paris would only have to farm for a few weeks of the year of low intensive labour to feed the entire city if orgnaised in an anarchist way.
He’s talking to a guy who’s a dish washer at a grocery store who plays video games. Of course he’s a anarcho communist. He’s one paycheck away from being another dude destroying the parks next my house.
yeah a disgustingly high amount of people work more than ever before yet are on the brink of starvation, how shocking that they then rebel against the system that did this to them
@@panaccoman lol there are literaly millions living on the streets, working 3 jobs just to get by, losing jobs, needing food stamps etc etc imagine being such a bootlicker that you think its a good thing that the system forces you and me to work as it does
When I discovered that this was an interview with an anachronism-socialist I became skeptical. While not a capitalist personally, I favor capitalism as more attuned to reality. . The cutesy drawings and dog don’t change my mind.
Anarcho-communism is a very optimistic and utopian viewpoint. Yes, voluntary cooperation can emerge, but it’s much more of a rarity than voluntary competition because it relies upon very specific things to occur. It can work in very small scales, but with the context of a nation it’s delusional to assert that everyone in a nation with voluntary fall into line of a certain, very specific way of life. Once a single individual resists the prescribed way of life, the “anarcho” part will immediately fail if they intend to preserve the commune’s (or any defined group’s) way of life. If they decide to keep the “anarcho” part, then the “communism” part must give way to a “free market capitalism”. Economically speaking, it’s incredibly inefficient because it assumes value. An amateur fingerpainter by many people, will seem to many people, less of a value to society than say, an electrician. An anarcho-communism can exist within an anarcho-capitalist society, but not vice versa.
But he has worked together with people in minecraft before sooo clearly it works. Anarcho communism is an oxymoron.. there isn't even an argument for it imo
I'm just learning about the ideology now but in the first place I think it's important to realise that anarcho-communism is not a mash-up of anarchy and communism but rather a strand of anarchy more akin to anarcho-syndicalism, with the main difference being the make-up of communes and the points at which oppression is thought to occur in society. Anarchy is not a system without mechanisms of control. On the contrary, it is made up of institutions and social customs specifically designed to prevent the emergence of hierarchy, such as randomised electoral processes, fast turnover in political positions to prevent ossification, and so on. Within a given commune each individual is contributing in the way that they can, and benefitting from the contributions of all others in the collective. As such, there is no direct exchange between individuals but rather delayed exchange, where each person is remunerated by the fact of living in a free society and by the products of all others without there having to be a tit-for-tat dynamic. This principle of delayed exchange can extend beyond the single commune because each can give what they can and in return the system of non-statism which benefits all continues.
Fascism is a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and strong regimentation of society and the economy that rose to prominence in early 20th-century Europe.
@@harrison5280 Yeah, you are probably right 😅 But it was too tempting to attemp to make him/her contradict himself/herself if s/he said s/he supported Rojava.
@@azhadial7396 😂😂 yes, we know it works because a small syrian population implemented it in the middle of a war torn country so of course it can happen on global scale and all the other times it utterly failed will be completely discounted and ignored 😂😂
