How Does Democratic Confederalism Work? 

Yes, it's important to hammer down this point. It's critical to the system functioning as a true democracy.

i believe this is called a "limited mandate", as opposed to an "unlimited mandate" which is how modern democracies function, e.g. you don't need an example, politicians lie all the damn time.

Hello! I have my doubts about anarchism hear alot of people saying communism doesnt work because of the economic calculation problem. Basically that without prices how do we know what materials to use for what. For instance how do we know how much resources to use and what to put our resources into. For example if I put alot of resources into making a movie I want to create and nobody watches is thats not a rational allocation of resources. But if I know what people want through prices I can allocate resources to get whats going to sell on the market. How can we debunk this argument since I believe in social justice but I have a hidden fear for if socialism will work. Does the calculation debate even apply for anarcho communism

@@gearoidryan2509 Short answer for your last question: No, it only applies for centrally planned economies. Under anarcho-communism, all the best ways of making things would be public knowledge, unrestrained by the shackles of intellectual property law; and they would be common knowledge as well because everyone wants to make things in the best way they can. Or at least common among all who are interested to learn it, lol. There also would still be an economic competition of sorts; make a variety of things, let people take what they want, and make more of whatever people take the most. Products would still compete, in that sense.

@@Politictrolerandenthusiast I’ve come to a similar conclusion myself. Did u get the labour voucher idea from cockshott he wrote extensively about that with a libertarian socialist society I only don’t get why you don’t like being anarcho communist for lumpen proletariat. What do u mean do u not like the lumpen or do u believe it will create more lumpen

That's just individualist Anarchism lmao

The issue with the American Confederates wasn’t a desire for a more decentralized political union and government, but the excuse and justification for slavery by which they used the ideal of a state Confederalism to secure. Confederation in itself is a decentralized political order, and the most autonomous form being localism; decentralized to the local community.

If you have issues with the use of the term confederation, then point to other uses of the structure. For example, the U.S. government was first formed under the Articles of Confederation, and the current federal system had compromises made with the anti-federalists. The Sioux Nation is a confederation between tribes, and the Iroquois Nation, which is said to have influenced the U.S. Bill of Rights and Constitution, was also a confederation. Even the Tlaxcala, one of the few republics in Meso-America, was a confederation. It's just a government structure, but the culture and norms will determine what interests are protected or promoted. For example, the federal system upheld slavery for roughly 80 years before abolition, but that isn't a determining factor of why federalism is "bad". It just shows that slavery was the main mode of production within the U.S. during that time.

Look up the still functioning zapatistas in Chiapas

Who knew it was so hard explaining people an entire ideology while the Bourgeois drown it in lies, misconceptions and misinformation would be so hard?

Of course it's a state. To claim otherwise is just semantics.

@@iachtulhu1420 ​ @Ia Chtulhu quite the opposite, what a reductionist view of statism. in 250k years of human existence, states have existed for 13k max, 6k if you're realistic, and for less than 500 years in their modern form (nation-states). to view all forms of human organization as 'states in denial' is ahistorical and doesn't hold up to the tinest bit of scrutiny. the democratic confederalist model displays none of the core features of statism, being: hierarchical social/political organization, centralized political and economic systems (to varying degrees), a monopoly on the use of force (professionalized standing army/police force), and socioeconomic inequality between classes.

No. 'State' has a very specific definition under Anarchist theory. Rojava doesn't fit that definition.

@@iachtulhu1420 When you're discussing the definition of words, all arguments are semantic.

@@ajmentel2453 The state is simply the means by which class rule is enforced. This isn't necessarily hierarchical in organization (though it can be). Functionally, a democratic confederalist system empowers the majority class (the proletariat) and disempowers the minority classes (the bourgeoisie, under the current system).

if you haven't, check this out about Rojava, it is the most important political system to analyze when talking about demconfed being its birthplace and all ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-cDnenjIdnnE.html

@@ajmentel2453 yes i know Rojava is a demconfed place. However this video is explaining the details as to how democratic confederalism works while a video on Rojava would be talking about it being in action. If you get what i mean.

@@comradeabigor8314 that video breaks down how the different committees are organized, selected, and how they interact with each other. a demonstration of it in action is worth far more than any theoretical breakdown IMO but they work best when cross-referenced.

Great questions. I want to make a video about rojava eventually, it's definitely on my to-do list. And as for the mutualism video, I am actually working with another content creator to produce that video. It should hopefully be out in a couple of weeks.

@@DeadHeadAnimation okay can't wait to see🤗🏴

That is a very funny conundrum. I've never had anyone ask this question before. I would say not only could this happen, it would actually be beneficial in many ways if it did. Communities don't exist solely in real life on a municipal or city level, there are also many forms of communities that can exist digitally, or through shared interests. Those communities would certainly have opinions about aspects of how we organize our systems. For example, maybe the rock and roll lovers union may have an opinion on censorship of lyrics, or how certain forums are run. It would make sense that the lovers of that content would have a seat at the table when decisions are being made about that content. But to your deeper point on whether or not certain groups could form that have no real benefit or necessity other than to gum up the system, certain methods of vetting could be implemented. Since we vote on policy, it should probably be the goal of each interest group to form policy. If they are unable to formulate a policy position, it stands to reason they would not be a direct participant in the assembly. That isn't to say their opinions couldn't be heard, but that could possibly be done in a separate forum. I don't have a perfect answer for this, because I haven't thought much about it, so thank you very much for the question.

@@DeadHeadAnimation I have to ask, what is the problem with tyranny of the majority? The tyranny of the majority that America's founders were concerned with was the working class outvoting the capitalists, and I do not put any stock in that as a legitimate problem. Are you talking about something else here? I feel like a better answer, if one is necessary, has to do with scope. More specifically, it has to do with who is affected by a given decision. Decisions that affect only me should be up to me, decisions that affect everyone should be voted upon by everyone, and decisions that only affect rock music fans should be voted upon by rock music fans. I reckon that oppressive measures one might fear from a tyranny of the majority in fact disproportionately affect the minority because that is what oppression does by definition, and for that reason, the votes of said minority should override the majority in that situation. That's my ethic, at least. I do not know exactly how to go about codifying this. Let's actually consider an example here: Covid vaccine mandates. Everyone is affected significantly by the presence of covid, so it stands to reason that everyone should vote on whether to have vaccine mandates. Is this tyranny of the majority to antivaxers? Perhaps, but it is justified because the decision affects everyone, and not just them. Another example: Polio vaccine mandates. Here the situation is different; Polio is gone so the only people affected by the mandate are those who refuse the vaccine. Therefore, should there be such a mandate, those who refuse the vaccine should get to veto it.

@@Holobrine tyranny of the majority isn’t anarchism, which is opposed to the institutionalization of governmentalism. Anarchism seeks to form institutions and organizations that aren’t government, but based in autonomy and self-governance. There is no authority over any individual, there is only cooperation and free associations in whatever form it takes. Depending on the community/interest group. Sometimes the terms direct democracy is used, but be certain that anarchists do not seek democracy in the conventional sense, which is just another form of government. Anarchist philosophers actually had anti-democratic rhetoric. The goal is not to replicate government and extraneous authorities upon individuals and communities or unions, but to assure autonomy and self-management, cooperation and free association. Majority tyranny is just government, and usually just results in oligarchy. Anarchy is the absence of government and authority, it is the spontaneous social order of ungovernable people.

To my understanding, when it comes to certain topics that don't involve them, while all are free and welcome to give there opinions, it is direct involvement that matters when settling certain topics... As the final outcome. What I mean is if doctors are discussing something, the rock and roll society wouldn't have much to contribute as experts on how to perform a surgery or the how a specific medicine is made. They can say we need meds of course, but not have the same insight to say how that medicine is made. Opinions may vary, but that's how I understand it would work.

Missed you bee

@@DeadHeadAnimation I missed you too, comrade ✊. Always amazing videos.

That's a good point about the time stamps. I will see what I can do for the next video. I don't have a specific video on general assemblies, but I should probably make one for this series. I believe general assemblies could be held on several different levels, for instance community, municipal, provincial, and Federal. Each Union would indeed discuss vote and formulate policies in Union meetings, and the representatives would take those policies to the general assembly for discussion and facilitation from the community/city/federation. It's similar to the way I described teams and spokes councils in my "how to democratically organize a community" video.

I assume the people would decide themselves to form a group (i.e. a neighborhood collectively deciding to make a group and send elected delegates to the town level.)

your example .... personal autonomy. in this ancom society, you envision how do the boundaries of such autonomy get decided? based on science? theology? superstition? "what feels right"? greats/east number? greatest/least percentage? statistic significance? of course the anarchist answer is through democratic decision making, voting, consensus. but i am more trying to gauge individual moral grounding here. core philosophies. because a libertarian would agree with much of this but their core philosophy is me, me, money, money. even the facists like a democratic front to their operations. but if everyone has the same core philosophies of facism , the autonomy to choose and vote and be democratic is still honored. democracy is only as good as its individual people. my interests lay in core philosophies (people when they are fully themselves) and big picture (people during social catastrophe i.e., a pandemic, a volcanic eruption, social unrest, large scale unemployment/poverty/homelessness/starvation) . second by irl daily action items that perpetuate progressive community power. so the question is: what are the boundaries of personal autonomy and what criteria is used to establish these boundaries? p.s. re: Supreme Court and the Senate, many political positions. their powers , terms, accountability, constituency, and how they are elected are certainly areas of concern. reform is needed for sure.

​@@Andre-qo5ek Fair question. I would say that if you're not harming yourself or someone else, and everyone involved consents, then you should be free to do what you like. My personal take - and I don't know if Eron would agree with this or not - is that there are certain rights that should not be subject to democratic consensus. A great example is women's reproductive freedom; that should be entirely up to women and possibly their significant other (if they so choose). Other rights, such as freedom of speech, should be weighed with the right of others. In other words, I shouldn't have the ability to talk shit about you in the press (not that I would do this); you have the right not to have your good name slandered. Does that make sense?

@@ringo8410 on its surface "if you're not harming yourself or someone else, and everyone involved consents, then you should be free to do what you like. " sounds alright but once we get down into the intricacies of those statements get really muddy. definitions for 'harm' and 'consent' need to be agreed upon. after it is defined, getting people to agree on how serious a violation was. how to deal with violations of 'harm' and 'consent' is a spanking acceptable for a child that uses the lord name is vain? is a doctor stating a patient is clinically obese harm? can a person consent to giving up consent? can a person consent to self harm? does a criminal have to consent to their punishment? is an online pop-up of term and services consent? is purchasing basic necessities ( food, water, shelter) consent? is it harm to be denied when you do not have payment for basic necessities ( food, water, shelter)? is taxation theft (harm)? no taxation without representation (consent) ? * these are all every day instances where the waters get muddy. as for your line " there are certain rights that should not be subject to democratic consensus" this reads to me as the Unalienable Rights used in the US Declaration of Independence. and similarly the Universal Declaration of Human Rights | United Nations. i'm not sure what the larger anarchist community has to say on this. too easily can these rights be ordained by a god, bestowed by an authority, 'scientifically' determined by 'genetics', logically determined by the intelligentsia, self derived from 'sincerely held belief', intrinsically evident by virtue of morality.

@@Andre-qo5ek I get where you're coming from. The idea of inalienable rights can be tricky and hard to define. I - and I say that because this is my opinion; I'm not sure about the opinions of other anarchists - think that defining inalienable rights should begin with some very basic questions we ask: 1. Are you hurting yourself? 2. Are you hurting others? 3. Does everyone involved consent/can they consent? 4. Do your actions constitute limiting someone else's rights (which probably goes back to #2)? But at the same time, the question of rights should be taken on a case by case basis, because catch-all laws tend to do a lot more harm than good.

@@ringo8410 " rights should be taken on a case by case basis, because catch-all laws tend to do a lot more harm than good." the language here... eek... ripe for Animal Farm style changes from 'All animals are equal'... to 'All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.' All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others. seems to fall within the letter of your premises. (certainly not the spirit of it of course) more equal than others - does not hurt yourself more equal than others - does not hurt others more equal than others - what is there to consent to? this is just self enhancement more equal than others - does not limit others, just enhances their own i can understand solutions being tailored to situations but rights? not so sure about that. the right to vote being revoked after a criminal serves their time as a ward of the state(2nd class citizens)? do we just remove the right to vote from people that committed voter fraud(recidivism)? just to the ones that voted for your opposition(voter suppression)? all criminals regardless of the crime, selling lemonade without a permit, tax fraud, murder, theft of a vehicle, trespassing(severity / mitigating & aggravating factors)? never(abolition)? only if the crime was committed in zone 1 because it isn't a crime in zone 2(jurisdiction)? but of course laws and rights that are so rigid they force unreasonable results is problematic. this comes down to another core question, do we let a few bad events to happen to protect potential good ones(due process)? or do we let a few good events get crushed in the name of stopping bad events(3 strike laws). nothing i say here is new or enlightening though. it just feels like these "revolutionary" theories and systems try to reinvent the wheel over and over again from scratch without really addressing the the intricacies that have developed with the current system. i agree that a paradigm shift in human relationships to each other , to property, to resource, is absolutely needed. even with just those people imbedded in the current system could do some serious good. that with a revised system they could probably do exponentially more good. i understand, like re-education comment elsewhere, "Even though we want a perfect society, that is a long way off." i just feel like people are redoing work that has already been done. i'm more of a Ockham's razor kind of person. i guess i am just looking for something more comprehensive but also simple; as they say, 'if i had more time i would have written a shorter letter' thank you for the considerations though. i will try to consider your criteria more frequently to my analysis of things.

Great question. This is accomplished in two ways. First, all the councils are merely just the facilitators of the community members votes, which in turn have to abide by an agreed upon "Constitution" or pact based on the ideals of direct democracy, autonomy, Mutual aid, anti-fascism and so on. If a community within the federation wanted to go against these fundamental principles, they would be in obstruction of the contract. The federation could then decide through local communities what should be done. Whether that be a physical intervention of some kind, or an expulsion from the federation itself. The second point is that smaller represented interest groups would also get a seat at the table, with the support of the larger community along the federal level. For instance the LGBT community in some small Christian Town may be minuscule, but they will have just as much of a voice in the local assemblies as any other group. just because their numbers might be small, they're representation would be equal in the council. And if they're demands or needs are left unheard or obstructed in the local community, they can join together with the larger LGBT community on a federal level, and use their collective bargaining power to fight for better conditions. I hope this makes sense. Feel free to ask any more questions if you have them.

given aaron is an anarcho-communist, i presume the answer would be "they don't get paid because money no longer exists."

Though in the Paris Commune the delegates were paid a common wage, like a min wage for their services to the public or commune. However in a communist society there would be no wages or money, so they would just be serving their communities and like all else freely take from the communal stores and stocks what they need.

Each church would respectively decide on how it works, whether it wants to use a counsel system or work like anarcho-syndicalism... What have you. If it collectively chose to use a hierarchial system, that's their choice since it would only effect them. So long as it's volunteer, it's fine. Like karate. If a dojo wants to use the traditional white to black belt hierarchial system, they would be free to do so. It is voluntary. But that head black belt has no more power outside of his or her dojo than anyone else. Another dojo may choose to run it very differently, and they are also free to do so. Simply put, the only thing you are not free to do, is to take away the freedom or involuntarily risk the freedom of another, like putting them in harms way against their will.

@@beeinthehive Aren't most religion inherently involuntary tho? Like kids are dogmatically indoctrinated in or for the religion to proliferate. Very few people rationally decide to follow a religion. They just follow what has been ingrained in them since childhood.

@@justaguy6216 That is very true. I remember some comrades and I having this same debate back in the Google Plus days. The unfortunate truth is that it's a problem in all societies which don't commit religious genocide. We looked for solutions within our small group, and it's obvious we can't exactly go in with guns blazing and force the children to listen while still maintaining a free societal status. In my group, ideas included things like dropping pamphlets or talk over loudspeakers occasionally in some cases, while others thought we can befriend them and try to talk to the children and even the adults... Help deprogram them. There were several more ideas, but the truth is that it's a difficult problem for any system. It really depends on details of what's going on in each community as to how we handle it. However I'm very confident that with millions, even billions of minds worldwide thinking about it and (under anarcho-communism) the voices of those minds are actually heard, we can come up with solutions. Like everything else we do, we can experiment to see what's most effective. That's a lot of minds at work. There's also strong evidence to show that in areas of the world where poverty has been slowed or stopped, religion fades with the loss of that desperation and depression. Many poverty stricken areas are religious simply because they live in misery and it gives them the hope there is something better out there, since it isn't currently here on earth. Also religion is big on the other end of the spectrum, like with those who control us. It is a useful tool whether they are actually religious or just faking it to keep support and power. With anarcho-communism, both of those elements (rich and poor) are removed from society entirely. Many think religion will continue to fade on it's own, as it's doing now in many places in the world, especially in the US. I'm very open to ideas on how to handle this situation, as are others, but one thing is for sure no matter what. It is a problem right now and no one is even trying to stop it, or has the power to do so. With us, there will always be attempts until we work it out and/or it will fade with no poverty and no powers that be. It's only a matter of time. But for the record, we would definitely move in to stop the exploitation of children in any form. Many governments and corporations around the world do nothing but keep it rolling because it's profitable. Child labor never ended, it was just moved during the early 1900's from North America to starving nations... Out of sight, out of mind for consumers in North America and Europe. That won't be an issue with us. S3x cults involving child (and all forms of trafficking) ends with us too. We have a zero tolerance and will move in to stop it without the red tape. Many governments look the other way because of capitalism. So I guess the real question is do we work to try and end it, or let it fade on its own. I don't think anyone can say for sure, but I can say without hesitation that with us it will be more manageable and may actually be solved. The same can't be said now.

@@beeinthehive Great analysis, thank you for you insight. I suppose it's a open ended problem. But yeah the way religions operate now is very un-ethical and need to be changed.

@@justaguy6216 You're welcome. Thank you for reading all that. I know it was kind of long.

Democratic confederalism is one of many proposed organizational structures anarchists could use to organize cities provinces or entire "nations". Where as anarco communism is a political philosophy and school of thought that seeks to abolish the control and dominance of man over man, and the tools used to facilitate that control (State, class, and money). So anarcho communism is the goal of a free society, and Democratic confederalism is how we organize that society. Hopefully that makes sense

@@DeadHeadAnimation that does help clarify the ideas, thank you. It reminds me of how some tribal people could be called communist is so far as the tribe owns everything instead of individual ownership, but the tribe is governed by a council.

No individual has a monopoly on force. The military is 100% voluntary, and democratic. If they fight, they're fighting of their own free will, and the beliefs or ideals that they hold. as for how the military is organized I have several videos on this in my how anarcho Communism works series. I would say the anarchists were more susceptible because of sheer numbers. In almost every case they have been a small group being attacked by a large Nation. Ideally this wouldn't be the case, but it is certainly a concern.

no you're not being too nitpicky, these are legitimate questions. The reason why I chose 100 people is because that is feasibly how many people you're able to communicate with before things get too complicated. But obviously this number is not going to work in every situation, and other methods of organization may need to be adapted. I need to do more research into this aspect, but my first thought is that no individual or group of individuals are in charge, so it wouldn't be a gerontocracy even if the majority of people are elderly. Many of the policies being discussed May cater to an elderly population, but that shouldn't mean the concerns of underrepresented demographics shouldn't be addressed as well. That's why we would be using systems that don't cater to majority rule, but rather consensus (ie. equal representation through council delegates ect). We all need eachother, so it isn't an us vs them situation. It's more of a question on how we distribute resources so everyone can thrive. Such as distribution of resources by need. As for completely unrepresented groups, that is a very good question. Could you give me an example of what you mean?

That's a great point, and that's why we would also allow for systems that encourage experts to be able to make informed decisions on matters. Politicians aren't necessarily experts, but they can employ experts to help them make decisions. Without politicians or money, those experts would still exist, and we could also use their insight. that's why alongside direct democracy we would also use systems like "liquid democracy" where we can nominate individuals to make complicated decisions on our behalf, who are directly responsible to us, and immediately revocable at any time. You don't elect them to make decisions for you, you nominate them to help you make informed decisions, and cast your vote in a way that reflects your desires. And if they make a decision you don't like, you can fire them immediately, and nominate someone else, or learn about the topic yourself and cast your vote independently. I hope that makes sense

@@DeadHeadAnimation personally I feel as though the state of society currently is far too reactionary for a liquid democracy to work. one policy can be phrased the wrong way and some people would instinctively vote against it. you call it an billionaire inheritance tax people love it. you call it a death tax people hate it. perhaps in a democratic confederacy with a socialised economy there won't be any incentive to manufacture consent. but it just sounds like such a sci fi concept for the 22nd-23rd century. not something our societies are mature enough to pull off yet.

@@leftistadvocate9718 perhaps, perhaps not. I have a lot of faith in humanity, and think that we can achieve great things in very short amounts of time. A few points so I can clarify the system. Most decisions that need to be made within an entire country are on a local basis. Few overarching policies would encompass the entire federation, and need every person to vote on it. For instance the federation might need to vote on concepts outlined in the "Constitution", but most of those votes would be things the average person would likely understand. more complicated votes would be had by experts in their field. for instance if a bridge is going to be built, the entire federation doesn't need to vote on that, only the local community and the building crew. Or determining where doctors are needed would be voted on by medical experts, with respect to the needs of their communities. It's actually not very complicated, and I believe that we would need far less political participation for things to run smoothly.

@@DeadHeadAnimation I can’t deny it’s elegance in simplicity. An do too agree that most political matters can me coordinated on a local level instead of state or federal level. However I still have my doubts that things of nation concern such as public rail. Military and education spending. Taxes etc could be voted on in an informed way for the average person. However revenue and spending are just one aspect of government and even then with this democratic confederalist model a lot of that revue and spending becomes the responsibility of the local government which would reduce the possibility of a federal issue becoming irrationally divisive

I understand where you're coming from, but in an Anarchist society we wouldn't have taxes, finances, or money at all. One of the main features of an anarchist society is it doesn't function through the use of capitalist markets. Instead we use sharing or gift economics, resource-based economics, usufruct, and the idea of distributing goods and services based on need. So for a rail system, each community would work together with engineers and builders to determine the best path for the rail system, but not every individual in the entire community has to participate. Rail experts would propose the best path they see, and residents can propose whether or not they want it to go through their backyards or not. So it's not like anyone would be making decisions that are to outside their wheelhouse. National education systems would be determined by the teachers unions, and teachers and schools would be moved to and built in places where they were most needed, based on polling and other methods.

It sounds like you already have ✊🏴🚩✊

Spread the word.

@@beeinthehive That is a point. And thank you. :-)

@@ExkupidsMom You're very welcome, friend. Welcome aboard!

@@ExkupidsMom Let me know if you need anything.

I love it. They way I see it, anarcho-communism is the way to take what is now a hierarchy, and spreads it evenly over everyone who wishes to participate in the system.

@@beeinthehive I'm not here to get into a political debate so no comment

@@nurdle I hear you, but I wasn't trying to debate you. I was just pointing out an amazing pro about it.

Decentralization and custom laws (AKA custom rules) take care of it. If you want to live in a community which doesn't allow meat, feel free. The ones which do allow meat are also free to do so. If a meat eater visits a vegetarian community, they must respect the rules while they are on their visit. They would be there voluntarily, and it would be just like if you went over to a friend's house that didn't allow smoking, yet you are a smoker. You wouldn't light one up in their house. You respect the rules while you're there. In your house, your rules are respected. That principle is the same with communities in anarcho-communism.

@@beeinthehive So if a group were to decide to exclude women, blacks, gays, you would be ok with that. If a group of copper miners decided to pollute a stream that would be ok with you, as their community voted to do so.

No that would not be the case. To join an anarchist federation you have to agree to a "constitution" or set of ideals outlined in agreement. Things like anti-fascism, feminism, Mutual aid ect. Excluding women, minorities, and the other examples you listed would not be tolerated. Since something like a stream is considered communal or common property, owned by everyone, they couldn't just pollute a stream. The rest of the community would suffer, so they wouldn't let that happen.

@@DeadHeadAnimation So you do have rules some of which exclude those with who you disagree. Can a group simple choose not to join the federation or is membership somehow compulsory? How does the federation deal with those outside.

Joining the federation is not compulsory, it is entirely voluntary. if you choose to follow by the Constitution and join the federation you would get all of the benefits of being in a large group. anything the entire federation was able to produce you would have access to. If people chose not to adhere to the constitution, or not join the federation, that would be entirely up to them. But they would not gain the benefit of being a part of the federation itself. If members or entire communities break the agreement then they would be subject to intervention, or expulsion from the federation, depending on the severity, and what the federation decides to do.

Yes it could be seen as something similar to a union of Soviets, Soviets being local community councils, with several modifications to keep things democratic and non hierarchical.

The original Soviet Union (before the Bolsheviks) was a council communism (look it up), similar if not the same as an Anarcho-syndicalist federation. Council communism is just seen as a libertarian Marxist way towards anarcho-syndicalism, in that the philosophical underpinnings of the revolutionaries were based in Marxism rather than Anarchism. Anarchists however played a role in the revolution of the Soviet Union of worker’s councils.

@@beeinthehive -- the clear answer is that this system would allow for any local group to come up with their own scenarios and solutions. through "consensus" (as defined by them) they "know what's best for themselves". (based on their own core values) so in truth any and all conversation on the matter in the hypothetical is nearly irrelevant. -- some hypotheticals though: " the federal councils without any dictatorial control only the ability to facilitate what the local councils need" all it takes here is for the facilitators to allocate less than is needed, put a local counsel last on the list, or a list of other hinderances. discretion of the facilitators is power enough to cause drastic inequities. what then? this entire system is based on like minded individuals that can get to a table and compromise. what about the people that will not compromise? any group that does not get their way can claim tyranny of the majority, discrimination, oppression. what then? a town that starts to self govern with anarchic influence can still easily become an ethnostate, a corporation, a militia, a libertarian's wet dream, as long as everyone agrees. and dissenters are just banished for not sharing their ethos. or ignored since they do not have leverage. another example, the federal council of theist's ( supposing you can get them into one group to start) do we suppose they will include atheist's into that council? i fear not. i fear organized religion will do what it has done since its inception, divide, conquer, have crusade , proselytize, accumulate wealth and power. - i appreciate the dream of an enlightened society where these issues are non-issues because no one would think of exploiting a person for laborer for profit for power, exploiting an animal for labor for flesh, exploiting the environment for personal gain ... but that's not where we are. - Hearing realistic threat models and strategies to combat corruption of anarchic systems is where my vote is. - a second request would be to have a serious deconstruction of our current systems. (Canadian i guess for this channel if i am not mistaken) any government doctrine would work honestly. deconstruct line for line what 'reforms' are needed. in other words, not reinvent the wheel when hundreds of years of legal precedent and decision making has already been thought of. use it as a starting point to consolidate ideas. current laws are based on real world events with real world people making real world decisions. p.s. but.... my voice at this table will it get me anywhere? will the tyranny of the majority silence me? is this not an ideal place, a community of like minded people? will we come to a compromise? since this space is really not any of ours (the collective viewership) but the content creators, are we not at their mercy? maybe the mercy of youtube/google/alphabet? our ISPs? our Great Firewalls?

These are all really great questions. To answer your first hypothetical, the representatives in the facilitative council would be randomly selected from a pool of qualified individuals. If they tried to neglect one of the territories or communities, that territory would have them immediately revoked and replaced. These delegates are also non-permanent, and represent the communities they are a part of. As for your point about like-minded people, it is irrational to believe that everyone is going to agree on everything, or ever come to a solid compromise on certain issues. Even though we want a perfect society, that is a long way off. But having this form of community involvement and the elimination of the profit motive would reduce a serious number of controversial topics. There are a number of other checks and balances in place to reduce these things as well. It certainly won't be perfect, because humans are imperfect, but it is a whole lot better than what we have now.

@@Andre-qo5ek I'm currently sick and groggy, so I'm a bit out of it. I'd like to reply to your voice being heard first. Eron said everything well as always, and in addition to what he said, there's another reason your voice would get you somewhere because (if you choose) you'd be living in a community which already agreed with you in many or most of the stances you take. Not only would there be less infighting because of that fact, but your community would already hold many of your views and stances so it's like it's echoing your will en masse with most things. In other words, the weight of the community to which you choose to contribute, will be making your voice louder. In an an-com society, say you've already gone over the database and looked up a community that's just right for you. Different communities have different custom rules, of course. So in the database, let's say you're looking for a nonsmoking community. You quit smoking now and you don't want to be around it. You also want moderate drinking and pot to be a part of your life, but you don't want religion... Whatever combination you want. There are no reasonable limits. Maybe you want a moderate climate and you like farming, and so on. You may even have an interest in training to be a veterinarian. All of those flagged interests will pop up with the locations (just by odds, there would be many which fit the bill, especially since we're talking about your choices being global) and pick the best for you. So you starting off already sharing many interests with your community, and as I said, they will already echo many of your desires and positions. Generally communities stick to around 100 people, so your voice is very well heard in your local community, of course. But also as your community reaches out to others, that part of you is carried with them. Currently, "representatives" of your area have never even met you and probably never even been to your local community (or care about you beyond a single potential vote) and also don't do what's best for you personally or your community. In fact, odds are at even a state and "local" level, they don't actually represent you. To them, communities are just random collections of random people, good for gerrymandering. In an-com, they are our neighboring communities which we wish to keep in good standing, since we all voluntarily give each other mutual aid. They wish the same. Imagine chanting in a protest. Your voice is being heard with others who feel the same way as you, as a group. In short, your voice speaks directly and with equality in your community, which is an enhancement of you. You will be heard as much as all other voices, and certainly far more than in any other system I know.

@@Andre-qo5ek To your first point, if everyone answers to each other, it will always keep better checks and balances than anything new have now, where they only answer to their richest donors. @André Towns are too big. The communities are much smaller, and we don't have corporations, and without money, no libertarian would consider it a dream... but I get your meaning. In any system there is that risk of someone breaking off. It would be very difficult to face the rest of us, however. The very idea is to not have power accumulate in a centralized location. In a manner of speaking, we cut out the root before the tree can grow to big. @André As far as the federal counsel, what you said is already a huge problem. The difference is that we will keep it balanced. Plus we can keep them from getting out of balance because we're supply them with everything. We don't even need a federal counsel of you ask me, and I'm not alone. Like during the earthquake in Mexico City, the government wasn't doing anything but getting caught up in its own red tape. It was all the neighboring communities which came in with equipment and saved lives... Volunteers. That's what we need. @André Compromises will usually work with consensus democracy, but if now, a majority vote may be needed. Communities are free to leave and find another web of communities.

@@beeinthehive "we cut out the root before the tree can grow to big." isn't that a Monsanto slogan? /s

The daily life that you have under democratic confederalism is quite different than the one you have under a capitalist regime. Of course you don't envision yourself going to all of these meetings and voting so many times when you have a full time job, working 8 to 12 hours a day and bills to pay. That's the thing about capitalism, it just doesn't allow you to be a political being in any real sense. Under democratic confederalism you wouldn't have to work this crazy amount of hours for a capitalist. You'd have more free time to study and participate in more communal activities like voting. That's why Bookchin says that once workers have earned a modicum of power, the first thing they have to fight for is reducing daily working hours so that they can actually have time to engange in politics become actual political beings. Plus, under democratic confederalism you'd likely work in a co-op that's likely going to be associated to a community council where more voting is going to take place, so voting would also be a part of your job (if you want to). You'll start to integrate democracy as just a normal daily activity that you do in your life. This is what has happened to the people of Rojava, yes, they do go to the meetings, yes, they do vote for many things and yes, they talk and talk and talk politics until the sun comes out. This seems foreign to us, but this is the type of culture that they have nurtured thanks to democracy. That's pretty much what a democratic culture looks like. Democracy is not voting between one of two assholes every 4 years, it's about knowing what's going on in your community, informing yourself and participating in decision making constantly.

Do you not know the definitions of words?

@@johnharvey3069 Yes I do. Do you? There is no way to enforce a policy in a anarcho society. You're responsible for your own protection and enforcing what policies you want. On your own property. Otherwise you might be seen as a criminal. And rightfully so. You cannot enforce policy unless it is universally agreed upon in a anarcho society. Stuff that occurs off your property like theft or murder. And this still comes from an individual. He is responsible for figuring out what happened and what punishment is enforced. He can hire out for help but the individual is liable for his actions. You can't just say we have this leader who is enacting policies. Okay. Well how do you get people to go along with this policy? Well we can have police. The police are serving a leader and punishing people for not following policies. We already have that. That is government.

At least bookchins version

Yes Öchalan was heavily inspired by Bookchin

Noncompete made an excellent video on this topic. If you're interested, it's in my playlist names "RevLeft". The first one, not 2 or 3... Etc. It's near the top and you'll know it when you see it from the title. The general idea is that each community elects "police", and I use that term loosely since they don't literally police. They don't patrol around and harrass people and look to give out tickets and make arrests. Instead those police enforce the custom rules of each area and prevent domestic problems. They are highly trained in de-escalation techniques and use that first. Force is the absolute very last resort. These police are only called when needed and since they are elected by and for the people of each community, only the right temperament is elected, unlike now. After all, you know they people closest to you the best. Those without the right abilities won't be elected. Also, unlike now, the people of each community retain the power to collectively fire them as well if they are incompetent or become bullies. Just knowing this fact will help keep the an-com police from going too far. Of course the police won't want to harrass the people they work for, but they will try to impress them. They know the people have the ability to fire them at anytime if they deserve it. Talk about being on your best behavior. Imagine if it worked that way on bosses today, for example. Think how well they would treat the workers. Another basic principle is that they will personally know the people in their community, so they are less likely to be aggressive anyway. They aren't going to bully their friends and family, and if they do, they may have to find a new career because they'll still get fired. The an-com police couldn't keep their jobs with only one or two bias votes in their favor. It won't stand up against an entire community, therefore they must treat everyone well and do their job with competency. The military essentially works the same. This has been tested in An-com societies and works well. The military is also decentralized but may come together for emergencies when required. The military also uses consensus democracy to a point, such as electing leaders and having councils for certain larger changes. Of course the military is for defensive purposes, like a fascist uprisings or aggression, but also for tending to disasters like the Red Cross or national guard. They also vote within their own ranks. No one knows and understands how things work like those who do it for a living, and there are training and apprenticeship programs too . It's how they move up the ranks, and it's the same principle as they can be removed or lowered in rank. Again, only those who really experience them on a (virtually) daily basis can know them best. Say they need a sargent. They may choose vote instead of everyone just automatically moving up in rank whether they are individually ready or not. Anyway, you may want to check out the Noncompete video I mentioned. Sorry if that was too long.

Considering council communism is a libertarian Marxist/Left Communist organization of federated worker’s councils they didn’t believe in authority either, but self-management. I recommend Anton Pannekoek and Rosa Luxemburg for more on council communism. The Anarchists also have their own philosophy to the same social order, however they called it Anarcho-Syndicalism the federation of autonomous radical unions and syndicates. Fun fact: the original Soviet Union was based in council communism and anarcho-syndicalism (influenced by Alexander Herzen, Narodniks, and the proletariat struggle) before the Bolsheviks and Lenin took over. Before the Bolsheviks Russia was forming a decentralized federation of worker’s councils, the Soviet Union.

Literally how?

@UCcExXi4izGLxciIA52QGbhQ a representative is a person you vote to put in a position of power and that person would be free to do whatever they want till they turn is over. A delegate is a person who you choose to go through with the policy you've selected but that person is not in a position of authority and all they can do is simply follow with the policy they've been assigned to follow (be that organizing the building of a word or making preparations for a party or representing their community's will in a council meeting or whatever) but appart from that they can't really do anything else(such as make laws etc) and if they don't do their assigned duty, or they do something else from what they were supposed to, then they would be removed from the delegate position and someone else would be choosen to take their place. That quite clearly is not what we have today since all we have is just a bunch of statists lying for vores so they can be free to do whatever they want.

Literally not at all. Anarchist federalism is a confederation a commune of communes. No government or state

Ahh yes the person who does not believe that society can’t change.

tell me where in the fucking history capitalism worked. (without ignoring people around the world dying because of it constantly!)

@@YoungSpirit1312-161 hahahahaha It is so easy to troll anarchists. You two are thinking I am some anti comunist or something. But I am not I am not just an anarcho comunist. I am a stalisnist Well, I actually support you all anarchists... I support you in Yakutsk Hahahahaha

@@robertoleary5470 same answer to you Read my previous comment

@@GuilhermePereira-vi6vc we never said that you were anti communist. But really following a political philosophy that sacrificed millions of lives within his own nation as well as closing off his resources to other left movements for the sake of his own power?