There's a difference between aggression and self-defence. I'd like to see anyone who is being assaulted and terrorized by the state argue against organized self-defence.
Good, concise video. One thing, though: I wish you had addressed how the definition of "violence" being used in critique of Anarchism, and revolutionary politics in general, is incomplete and misleading. I I think it's deeply important that people are made to understand that and how violence includes anything that restricts another's agency (the choices available to them), not simply the direct application of physical force to cause personal injury or death. It both recontextualizes the state's behavior as inherently violent, and suggests that violence is morally neutral in-and-of-itself. Letting that definition pass means we're arguing from the Liberal point of view, which undermines us; they need to be arguing on our terms whenever possible.
@@deismaccountant You should look into the philosophy of violence. There are some articles available, and I think Philosophy Tube did a video on it some time ago.
@@anthonynorman7545 While that's a rather bad faith interpretation, you could probably make that argument if you wanted to. But it being violence doesn't imply that the violence is unjust or immoral. In a sense, we employ violence as a means of protecting children (and frequently, other adults) until they can make safe and educated decisions for themselves(hypothetically). Some cases of this are justified, others are not.
@@GreatCanadianGuy it wasn't intended to be bad faith. To understand something it is typically a prudent idea to look for the edges of it. Thank you for replying.
A de centralised structure is strength as if one of your units is wiped out there are always others and the struggle carries on. That is why non state armies have never been totally wiped out. Great vid comrade.
Hmmm... there are some things i dislike about these decentralized military. Today military has a lot of hardware. aircraft carriers, submarines, bombers, planes, satellites, etc. Some countries will sell you weapons, some hardware, but the big ones can't be buyed. So how you're going to handle that? Hiding in the jungle won't going to give you the capacity of buying big hardware. Te other problem i see is guerrilla warfare we see today create a lot of civilian casualties. Let's see vietnam (you put them as an example of a successful army) .. but 2 million civilians were killed in that war (from both parts) . More than 1 million north vietnamese soldiers were killed. That was the winning side. THE WINNING SIDE!!!! the losing side? 60 thousand of american soldiers were killed, and 250 thousands south vietnamese soldiers. Do you want to pay that high price? do you want to lose more civilian than soldiers in a guerrilla warfare, to win a war? Guerrilla warfare produces a lot of civilian casualties. That price is too high for me. Fuck the army, i want my civilian people alive.
@@cristianhurtadocabezas208 Ok. Good points. The big kit (I think) is mainly useful if you attacking, invading and occupying other places. Those bog bits of military kit are all used by aggressors but hardly used for defence although they could be). In line with a purely left wing ideology and defensive doctrine they would not be necessary. However, you can have state/country (of what ever ideology) which has the big kit (either buying it or making it themselves, or parts of) and then having it available if they were attacked. they equipment could feasibly be used by different parts of your decentralised military. Even though you can have a decentralised military that does not mean that they are not co ordinated with each other. If that makes sense?
He re education, love your channel! I just wanted to ask about something I’ve had on my mind regarding anarchism. That is space travel. I just wanted to know your thoughts on how anarchism could work when going to space and when we get there and start building civilizations on other planets. Just thought it would be an interesting topic for you to discuss.
Check out the Mars Trilogy by Kim Stanley Robinson. It's not explicitly anarchist, but the main characters are basically leftists. I think it's a realistic depiction of what colonizing Mars could look like. Red Mars is the first book. It's excellent.
How do you carry out macro military theory (which is a deciding role in victory) without a chain of command. Also pretty much every war and the people on both sides of that war has framed it as defensive. I support the Cubans helping the Angolans defeat the apartheid South African government even if it was “offensive”.
As i understand it, he says that leaderships are allowed so long as they serve the people and are dismantled when they become useless. personally, i suppose that this concept of an elected leader can be used to form some kind of democratically elected chain of command, so that they can see the bigger picture and decide battle plans democratically. It'd be somewhat like electing a representative to represent the anarchist cell you're part of
Wow! Great Comment Rosa. Yeah, Aaron didn't emphasize strongly enough that all of his anarchists were defeated: the Russian Civil War to Trotsky getting that ice pick in the head, the Spanish Civil War, and even China was finally able to shake off the Anarchist Imperative of Decentralization and letting Local Party Officials go into business for themselves (Anarchist Groups after all manifest Self Interest as Group Interest, do they not?) Oh, since we seem to agree at least partially, let me run this by you, a copy and paste from out of a longer comment I left: "Evolutionarily groups were optimally from 50 to 100 members and serious Us vs Them dynamics would manifest at least by 150. The numbers would have to come down either through subdivision or slaughter, with the Us vs Them mentality partitioning the mind so that empathy would not cover the "Thems". The Primordial Garden could only be a relatively small patch. So, yes, it appears that Anarchists are STUCK at this level of Organization. Us vs Them kicks in and outsiders, even other Anarchist Groups are "Thems". I think the way Authoritarian Hierarchy compatible Groups work is that the groups are layered one on top of the other, like Castes. Look at Army Organization where you have companies of a hundred men, but the Command Structure of a Battalion is from about 50 to 75 Company Grade Officers and NCO. Then at Division you have the Battalion Organization but with more mature Field Grade Officer and Senior NCO's (and clerks like me). Of course at the Army Level it is Club of Generals. It is all overlayed. At each LEVEL there is that sense of belonging. " Yeah, on my Channel (just click my Logo Thing and RU-vid will take you there... in my Series "Democracy Is a Bad Thing" in part five I discussed the Us Vs them Dynamic. But look around at the other stuff if you get all the way to my channel.
They have won major battles and freed communities before though. After successful battles they dont take prisoners, instead taking their weapons and equipment and allowing them to go home freely unlike generals of other authoritarian forces. Also they would tend to go on the offensive to liberate communities like peasant communities ruled over nobles or bourgeoisie landlords. This has it happened in both The russian civil war and the spainish civil war and is pretty well documented.
I really like your content , but I feel that the title was a bit misleading it was more about the history of anarchist/decentralised military than a how it works. At least in my opinion.
I think he touched upon the basics, just pretty broadly. The military itself isn't centralized, it's small squads with elected leadership, and the rules and discipline within those squads is decided on by consensus. Though, yes. That could be unpacked more
Because all they have to point to are a few guerrilla fighting squads. A decentralized army does not actually work, it just operates for a time until a centralized military reestablishes control.
I'm curious about this: *How can an arnachist military can fight effectively against a state military?* Because while a state army have massive industrial power to back them up, which allow them to have a huge material powerhouse (Firepower, technology, etc...) most arnachist military rely on unofficial source (Stealing, black market,...) to improve their military power. The Vietnam War is an example. The Liberation Army of South Vietnam ( Which is the military wing of National Liberation Front of South Viet), while an effective fighting force, still need a lot of support from Democratic Republic of Vietnam. And once the US and their vassal enter the field, *directly support and fought side by side with People's Army of Vietnam.* (Which, from arnachist viewpoint, PAVN is a state army)
The short answer, they can't. No one addressed your issue because the anarchists don't have a solution to it. At best they could enact guerilla warfare tactics, but they would be bodied by any industrialized military.
They're effective basically the same way any revolution is. Taking control of factories and sources of supplies that belonged to the previous powers solves the issue of resources. As for fighting, like someone already said, guerrilla tactics are useful. So is the fact that the revolutionaries are probably more familiar with the places they're fighting in and have a lot of determination to fight, which are both advantages. In general though, you're right, they are fighting at a disadvantage. Though the same could be said for almost any revoltion in history, so that doesn't necessarily mean defeat is guaranteed, it just makes things harder.
Anarchy isn't against all leadership, it's against hierarchical, top-down authority which is non-consensual. A leader who becomes a leader because you respect him/her and want to follow them is fine, that's actually great. What's bad is when someone is a leader because someone said so ... because they had a lot of money or their dad was important or other people just forced you to obey that person. As I've gotten older and matured as an anarchist, I've gotten away from ideas of violent uprising or revolution. It's no longer the right way to affect changes, and it's a pipe dream of angry kids. I've gotten more into the agorist philosophy of a peaceful revolution by gradually cutting off sources of profit for the state and not participating in coercive systems ... as technology improves and society becomes more difficult to govern they simply lose their relevance and we start governing ourselves. That, I think, is the key to revolution and what will take us into the future. I've grown tired, however, of the "an-comm vs an-cap" schism and infighting. The truth is, anarchy doesn't even _have_ a "system" people have to follow. It merely offers you choices and negative liberty (the ability to pursue your interests without coercive restraint). So you can _choose_ to live in a communist community with like-minded individuals (or not) and your favored system is never going to be enforced on everyone else. Personally, I choose free trade and a community where people have morals and values which oppose abuse of economic resources. I don't think "capitalism" is actually _free trade_ and I don't think communism has the right answers for most people. But to each their own, we will have a world where we can choose and live amongst our peers and decide together how we want to interact with other communities. On larger matters and smaller ones we have technology to enable us to communicate, trade and govern ourselves. I'll work with people who identify as "communist" and "capitalist" to end centralized government and top-down coercive hierarchy, but I will then oppose those people if they try to enforce their favorite economic system on the rest of the world. Again, _anarchy has no system_ ... anarchy is choice and freedom from coercion!
Propaganda of the dead "Fucking stupid" ... hm we have a saying in Germany "Taten sprechen Lauter als Worte" (That said I just want to add that the loudest person is not always the right person)
Edit: I've answered my own question, which I've added as a reply and encourage you to read. Original question here: This touches on my biggest concern about anarchism, so if you or anyone knows more please tell me: In a fully-formed anarchist society, what prevents a charismatic leader from pulling a Julius Caesar and garnering enough support from soldiers to become a dictator? An army naturally wants to be able to coordinate itself at large scales (otherwise it's vulnerable to divide-and-conquer strategies), and soldiers naturally have more in common with each other than with the civilian population (participating in violent conflict changes how you see the world), so it's pretty easy to imagine military members as a distinct population in an anarchist confederation. Since the military has all the guns, if that group ever has a strong enough difference in opinion from the rest of the population, well...let's just say guns make very convincing arguments. And don't discount the power of a charismatic leader. Trump is dumb as hell, and yet he was able to speak to the core of the White American working class struggle, garner support, and become president. He even tried his own coup, which only failed because he didn't have the right political connections.
@@scptime1188 In the last few months of research I've come up with the answer to my own question. The short answer: train EVERY citizen in self-defense so that it's physically impossible for a military to overpower its own citizens. But the long answer brings up even more important problems that need to be solved. So--here we go. First let me clarify, I'm talking about the natural tendency for leaders to appear--individuals who are respected and are on good terms with lots of people. This always happens, and is usually a good thing! But it's also a risk factor for utopias, because equality and liberty are a balancing act. They are ACTIVE processes. A realistic utopia is not just a society where everyone is free, but a society structured in a way that challenges oppression anywhere it appears--including in your own community. If I could snap my fingers and convince everyone to be anarchist, it would start out great but then fall apart over time. Without serious structural changes, our differences would end up tearing us apart. You'd have some anarchists with more access to land than average, some with more friends than average, some whose houses are closer to the gunpowder factory...and so on. So, what happens if Sarah the anarchist has more friends than you, and you get into an argument with Sarah? And what if it's a really serious argument, like you're deciding how to share water during a drought? Well Sarah might decide to call all her friends, beat you up, and take all of the water--not out of malice, but just to make sure she and her friends don't die of thirst. To bring it back to the military question: any military, even an anarchist one, is at risk of the same problem. But instead of having more friends, these anarchists have more guns than you. So what's the solution? You train EVERY citizen in comprehensive self-defense. You teach everyone that you need to be able to protect yourself the same way you would protect your friends. In a world where guns exist, you cannot ignore them, or trust that a single group will ALWAYS use them to your benefit. Eventually a day will come where there is an irreconcilable conflict, and everyone needs to be ready for it. Luckily, in a free and equal world, having everyone able to defend themselves also reduces the chances for tragedies like civil war. When you know everyone can defend themselves, it's easier to come to the diplomacy table instead of thinking that coercion is an option.
@javi7636 To build on what you're saying, I think education is a big part of this too. Making sure everyone is taught from a young age that society only stays free if we all work together and try to be diplomatic, as well as teaching history, science, and humanities, help with these issues after a few generations. There are already more collectivist societies now, and they're that way because of the way children are raised and the values they are taught. Children taught anarchist values will grow up questioning leadership and authority and recognizing that a free society requires vigilance and collective effort to function. A more educated population will have a better understanding of how to preserve freedom and if they're taught to defend themselves as well like you suggest, they can take action when necessary. But just one is not enough, everyone in an anarchist society needs to know both how and why anarchism works, as well as be able to take action when there are issues.
Hey... I love your work . Keep it up. I also have a doubt. Imagine,..... currently the world is full of anarchist communes and covid 19 struck . How will anarchist communes able manage the situation ?.
Those affected would probably quarantine, those not would makes sure those who are get their needs met, perhaps something along the lines of what Vietnam did for their people.
Hmmm... there are some things i dislike about these decentralized military. Today military has a lot of hardware. aircraft carriers, submarines, bombers, planes, satellites, etc. Some countries will sell you weapons, some hardware, but the big ones can't be buyed. So how you're going to handle that? Hiding in the jungle won't going to give you the capacity of buying big hardware. Te other problem i see is guerrilla warfare we see today create a lot of civilian casualties. Let's see vietnam (you put them as an example of a successful army) .. but 2 million civilians were killed in that war (from both parts) . More than 1 million north vietnamese soldiers were killed. That was the winning side. THE WINNING SIDE!!!! the losing side? 60 thousand of american soldiers were killed, and 250 thousands south vietnamese soldiers. You want to pay that high price? you want to lose more civilian than soldiers in a guerrilla warfare? Guerrilla warfare produces a lot of civilian casualties. That price is too high for me. Fuck the army, i want my civilian people alive.
I think the focus right now shouldn't be on forming militaries, it should be building dual power and using direct action to make real tangible change. We have a lot better chance in the west to convince people through their hearts and minds than we do through having Superior armaments.
I'd like to especially thank you for this one, comrade. This is one of the videos only you seem to cover. It's very important because it's a common question from both our adversaries and those potential comrades who are genuinely interested.
hi folks im a ml this is myfirst time lerning about the black army and you guys ar badass fighting comies and monarchists at the same time is very based lol
add the Anabasis of Xenophon - when the Greek generals were murdered by the Persians at the "negotiations" - the Greeks Elected new generals, then proceeded to hack and slash their way home.
Good Morning Aaron, Great, short and sweat. Yeah, but Anarchists have always lost. Aaron, to be principally against centralization, hierarchy, leadership and chain of command, well, those are LIMITATIONS and ASSET PACKAGES. Yes, there is a psychological appeal with Anarchism, but it doesn't explain very well. In my Series "Democracy Is a Bad Thing" in parts 5 and 6 (20 minutes to watch both. Part 5 is the explanation of how Humans evolved in Groups and how that effected our individual and group psychological impulses, and Part 6 how these psychological vulnerabilities can be cynically exploited). But yes, any kind of Group Organization will appeal to our inherent Back to the Primordial Garden yearning, to be one again with our life long Group that accepts us and knows us so thoroughly it is almost organic. Everybody misses that. That Authoritarian Groups get that too. There is the Curse that goes along with the blessing, and that is the Primordial Group is limited in size. Evolutionarily groups were optimally from 50 to 100 members and serious Us vs Them dynamics would manifest at least by 150. The numbers would have to come down either through subdivision or slaughter, with the Us vs Them mentality partitioning the mind so that empathy would not cover the "Thems". The Primordial Garden could only be a relatively small patch. So, yes, it appears that Anarchists are STUCK at this level of Organization. Us vs Them kicks in and outsiders, even other Anarchist Groups are "Thems". I think the way Authoritarian Hierarchy compatible Groups work is that the groups are layered one on top of the other, like Castes. Look at Army Organization where you have companies of a hundred men, but the Command Structure of a Battalion is from about 50 to 75 Company Grade Officers and NCO. Then at Division you have the Battalion Organization but with more mature Field Grade Officer and Senior NCO's (and clerks like me). Of course at the Army Level it is Club of Generals. It is all overlayed. At each LEVEL there is that sense of belonging. Why is it that those to whom Anarchism has a strong appeal can't do the layering thing in order to stack up their power and influence? Again, I can't find a flattering explanation but need to resort to cynicism, that Anarchists don't want to acknowledge leaders because each individual Anarchist nurses the delusion that he or she is the effective leader. Naming a leader would be to throw a blanket over that delusion that gives meaning to their lives. Or it is an issue in regards to "damaged goods" personality types, you know, people who had been traumatized by parental abuse. They see Leaders as abusive Father figures. In psychology they call that projection. Notice that we get a lot of Anarchism in Patriarchal Societies. Look at Medieval Europe where the effective "God" was actually "The Mother of God", where Chivalry was a big deal which is hard to explain to Moderns but it idealized Women. Then we can see that Knights who were otherwise completely Barbarian in terms of Social Morality (see my Creating a Better God Series... very recent) well , they sure as heck could organize by Layering the Groups. Really Feudal Europe turned by Patriarchal Anarchism both when the Muslim Moors tried to cut up through Spain, and then later when the Turks and Mongols off the Easter Steppes were turned back with the Crusades. And the Golden Horde of Genghis Khan never made it past the Wall of Vienna. Yeah, Aaron, Anarchism is a weakness, not a strength. Take care, Man. Your production values are impressive and I love the idea of Keep It Short. I don't have a think longer than 15 minutes and try to aim at between 7 and 10 minutes. Longer than that and I focus on coherent central ideas to create PARTS so I can subdivide a SERIES coherently.
Anarquist army's did lost every wars... For that razon i thing proletarians need a centraliced major state to win the war against burgueoise states ...
Yeah, I see your point. the only thing in History that Anarchists have ever done consistently is lose, or make it hard for the Collective to win. Anarchists are on the same boat but always want to row in another direction. The Anarchist Defections during the Spanish Civil War handed the victory over to the Fascists. George F. Orwell, famous for his Anti-Leftist Literature, but whom is nonetheless worshipped by Anarchists, started on the Socialist side but finished the conflict fighting to protect the Flank of a Fascist Brigade. Yeah, in the Russian Civil War and with the Chinese the Anarchist Regiments could not be trusted... always looking for the better deal. Yeah, if the Revolution ever comes, well, the Left needs two Victories, but the Capitalists only need one. If we defeat the Capitalists Predators and Freedom Mongers, it's best to turn on the Anarchists while we are still alert and away and facing them then to let them stab us in the backs while we sleep.
@@leovolont What are you talking about? The anarchists were the revolting against the CEDA as far back as 1933. How are they "defectors" of a revolution they started? Every conflict that anarchists have wound up getting crushed in has been by so-called "socialists" who like to pretend they are "for the people" while stabbing them in the back (or the back of the head). This kind of authoritarian nonsense is why the left is struggling so much to get any traction, because people know they'd just be trading one master for another. There are plenty of ways to have anarchist and Marxists co-exist, and doing so is to the benefit of both. Since they are supposed to have the same goal in mind (a stateless, moneyless, classless society of equals), then the only reason for one to undermine the other is if their goals are actually something else.
@@argophontes Good Morning Argo, "how can they be defectors of a revolution the started". We are not talking about a Society Wide coherently organized centralized organization that has centralized leadership that can keep everybody and everything focused and all going in the same direction following the same rules, no, we are talking about Anarchists, and you know what that is, right. Take all your lovely propaganda about equality and no leadership as Heads of the Coin and now flip it over and see what is bad about those very same things. Without Centralized Leadership each Anarchist Group will naturally be hijacked either by strong arm thugs who can intimidate the votes their way (voting is not secret, is it? Anarchist voting is nearly always by acclamation and they are usually unanimous, which means that dissent is apparently not allowed, right?), or we are talking about Groups of Men... forget the tern "Anarchist" as though an intellectual designation means anything to just plain ignorant people. And so the confluence of Self and Group Interest, in the absence of Centralized Authoritarian Leadership, with the power to impose its will, well an Anarchist Gang is likely to do anything. Anarchists in the Spanish Civil War were not monolithic and some anarchist Regiments did turncoat, and maybe even sold out because the Fascist side was paying in gold. Yeah, if you have time then watch parts 5 and 6 of my "Democracy Is a Bad Thing" series. You will find out why you are psychologically inclined to think anarchism is a good idea, though I don't especially address anarchists there. Anarchists may go one step beyond. Anarchist have an extreme aversion to authority which is so bad that anarchists should clearly be able to see the strings of defeats they undergo simply because they refuse to consolidate their power under some central command. They let themselves get killed! SO I think Anarchists must be like "damaged goods" probably beaten too badly by fathers or school teachers or they misunderstood an early Gang Initiation and ran away (in a lot of childhood peer groups it is common for new members to bond in by getting into a fight, probably with the group leader, and then just not running away afterwards... the kids accept them... male bonding is weird. But if a kid cries and goes home, well, what is the kids psychological development supposed to do with that. It reminds me of High School Reunions where people show up and 'confront their old 'bullies' and the 'bullies' are really confused by it. They were parts of a clique and probably dominant members but their interactions were not intended to be hostile... they were TRYING to initiate these other kids into the Group. So, who is normal and who is screwed up. Who adapts better with Society and who has to work for systematic and structural change of everything in order so they can finally fit in? Yeah, Argo. If you carry away anything from what I am saying it is that, well, this is the internet and you may have gone down the Anarchist Rabbit Hole and all your content is anarchist-affirming. But, remember, all the Bad Guys that united to defeat the Anarchist Brigades, well, ask yourself why they risked their lives to stamp out the Anarchists. Did they do that for nothing? Those who did stamp out their anarchist factions survived. Look at how rough China's first 3 or 4 decades were because Mao had to recruit Red Army with Anarchist Promises which lingered on and on. Yeah, I think Patriarchal Societies have a lot of Anarhists which means Fathers Beating their Sons too much. You guys just walk talk and act like Damaged Goods. Take care, Argo. I don't intend to be unfriendly or patronizing though I know this is how I might be perceived.
@@leovolont Well, I was going to give a serious response, but then you suggested that high school bullies are somehow the good guys, and I realized you're just completely disengaged with reality. Literally none of what you said in this whole diatribe has anything at all to do with how reality or human associations work. Please, read a book.
You forgot to mention the Kronstadt sailors uprising in 1921. As well it would have been nice to mention that Nestor Makhno was betrayed by the bolcheviks, laying the grounds for a real hatred, that exists still today, between Russians and Ukrainians, even though they speak a very similar language. That’s why anarcho communism sounds to me a bit like an-caps, a contradiction in terms. Communism never was in Russia at least about giving power back to the people, the Kronstadt rebellion was put down by Trotsky. That’s why as an anarchist I have no time for communists. I believe there can’t be any freedom without equality. The two are linked.
Good Afternoon Beer and Blues, Okay, but if you are for Freedom, well, what Conservative Right Winger isn't for Freedom? Any Revolution we have in regards to attaining to property we don't already have or in securing protections against the exploitation of others is a Revolution AGAINST Freedoms, not for them. And in terms of Anarchism, well, my understanding is that you are transferring Self Interest into Group Interest and you somehow assume that your individual interest will always be aligned with that of the Group. And they would be if you happen to be the de factor leader of the group. Yeah, I know the Ideology, that Anarchist Groups don't have leaders. But that is School Yard Rule Book thinking but in the real World whenever you say "whose in charge here?", well, somebody always looks up. But with Anarchists it is the guy who says "Nobody's in charge, so what can I do for do you?" Yeah, Beer & Blue, the thing that Anarchists don't get is that in order to maintain our Security and Protections, and to make sure we are not abused or exploited, well we need to pull together collectively, no, not just crappy little Groups where everybody knows your name, but entire Societies, and go with a kind of Social Contract that LIMITS EVERYBODY's FREEDOM for the sake of Collective Protections and Security, and, no, not enforceable by School Yard Honor and the Invisible Rule Book that Anarchists think actually applies to Illiterate Thugs who will push people around whatever you call yourselves... No, the Collective Security must be enforced by an All Powerful Authoritarian Hierarchical Regime that won't take schitt from any cunning little grasping and Self Interested Gang of Thug Bomb Throwing Anarchists. Yeah, Beer and Blues, you don't seem to understand that YOUR freedom is just the same as Capitalist's Freedom, and that your Group will be just as ready to compete and exploit just as any other Predator unless you are put in your place and actively suppressed. READ HISTORY. The violence against Anarchist Organizations was always reactive. Anarchists were deemed as attacking the Collective. Also, on the practical level, aren't you at all worried that Anarchists always lose? Yeah, yesterday i was first to comment to Aaron on what I perceive to be the weaknesses of Anarchism on the practical side, and, not to be rude or dismissive, and since I have already taken plenty of time to share with you, let me copy and paste what would take a lot of effort to say any better than I had said it before: *Evolutionarily groups were optimally from 50 to 100 members and serious Us vs Them dynamics would manifest at least by 150. The numbers would have to come down either through subdivision or slaughter, with the Us vs Them mentality partitioning the mind so that empathy would not cover the "Thems". The Primordial Garden could only be a relatively small patch. So, yes, it appears that Anarchists are STUCK at this level of Organization. Us vs Them kicks in and outsiders, even other Anarchist Groups are "Thems". I think the way Authoritarian Hierarchy compatible Groups work is that the groups are layered one on top of the other, like Castes. Look at Army Organization where you have companies of a hundred men, but the Command Structure of a Battalion is from about 50 to 75 Company Grade Officers and NCO. Then at Division you have the Battalion Organization but with more mature Field Grade Officer and Senior NCO's (and clerks like me). Of course at the Army Level it is Club of Generals. It is all overlayed. At each LEVEL there is that sense of belonging. Why is it that those to whom Anarchism has a strong appeal can't do the layering thing in order to stack up their power and influence? Again, I can't find a flattering explanation but need to resort to cynicism, that Anarchists don't want to acknowledge leaders because each individual Anarchist nurses the delusion that he or she is the effective leader. Naming a leader would be to throw a blanket over that delusion that gives meaning to their lives. Or it is an issue in regards to "damaged goods" personality types, you know, people who had been traumatized by parental abuse. They see Leaders as abusive Father figures. In psychology they call that projection. Notice that we get a lot of Anarchism in Patriarchal Societies. Look at Medieval Europe where the effective "God" was actually "The Mother of God", where Chivalry was a big deal which is hard to explain to Moderns but it idealized Women. Then we can see that Knights who were otherwise completely Barbarian in terms of Social Morality (see my Creating a Better God Series... very recent) well , they sure as heck could organize by Layering the Groups. Really Feudal Europe turned by Patriarchal Anarchism both when the Muslim Moors tried to cut up through Spain, and then later when the Turks and Mongols off the Easter Steppes were turned back with the Crusades. And the Golden Horde of Genghis Khan never made it past the Wall of Vienna*.
@@timekeeper2538 Good Morning Timekeeper. Really, it is obvious you don't have a degree in anything. The give-away is your reductionism. People who use the argument "in other words he is saying" while they reduce paragraphs to a sentence, well, that has got to be simple minded, right? I take it you're an Anarchist. Yes, one of the arguments I often use with Intellectual Anarchists coming out of the Universities and selecting Anarchism as their pet ideal because they are attracted to so Anarchism's Golden Rule Book and Glorious Set of Ideological Imperatives, well, my argument is that not every anarchist they meet will have a Masters Degree in Political Science, but that most Anarchists are just Damaged Goods High School Dropouts who hate authority because their drunken working class fathers beat them to often or too severely. I argued that Ideology is meaningless when working with Human Groups. Groups don't HAVE ideologies, they just have Psychological Group Dynamics. Okay, Timekeeper, try to 'other words' that.
I mean in the context of the Russian civil war it was probably best that the USSR gets to secure itself than allow for an unstable Ukraine to probably facilitate a Polish or Allied invasion of Russia. Maybe if Germany and Russia had united to destroy Poland(NOT like that!) then Ukraine wouldn’t have been such a risk but the way it is I think it’s better to have a secure USSR than a free but weak Ukraine.
@@beeinthehive very true. I don't think either side was really looking at the big picture well enough to work together in such a time of chaos but that certainly would have been better.
@@beeinthehive yeah and these days we don't really need a vanguard party so I think everyone should be down to start speedrunning communism any day now.
@@user-iv2ul3yh6g Yeah. I prefer a Velvet Revolution approach as to any classic revolution, myself... Especially concerning a vanguard party..We'll never beat the state using violence since (in the modern era) they have cornered that market, not to mention we'd lose too many comrades even if we somehow managed to beat all odds. Our bravest and brightest will be needed to help construct a post-revolutionary world, and they can't do that in a grave. If we use a William Godwin approach and direct action approach of simply focusing on building communities, co-ops and recruitment, we are much more likely to slip it in through back backdoor. Once we are in well enough and lead by example (you cappies claim we're like that, but as you've seen, we are like this) we have a much better chance. It may take longer, but slow and steady wins the race.
