Introduction to the History of Anarchism 

ru-vid.com/group/PLygqavJysUHJhpSxXn2jf2QqZp9Bic_ef

@@Anarquistas1 pppppppppppppp

@aua ✓ lmao whoops

The only genuine 'leader' is wisdom born of a respect for truth.. It is the severe lack of naturalised 'elder wisdom' that leads to the kind of politicised world we suffer today. When the Europeans invaded the Americas they saw themselves as having the 'right' to obliterate everything from a position of 'superiority', where in fact they couldn't have been more wrong; replacing a self-sustaining series of inter-connected micro systems based on elder-wisdom philosophy with a savage greed for self-interest, leading ultimately to self-destructive behaviour.. It all really boils down to control. External, ever increasing and changing forms of control by exterior and self-interested 'forces', or personal responsibility through self-control, which negates the need for the external, but does still require a form of on-going and naturally evolving wisdom tradition.. Neither are without problems, but the wisdom option can see where those problems arise and has the ability to deal successfully with them. It also has the added bonus of never blindly sinking into a self-destructive state, and thus will remain sustainable..

Nestor Makhno left the chat.

​@Spartan 506 Elaborate, pls

@Spartan 506 Yes I agree that power relationship exist and are inherent to our western societies, but that doesn't necessarily mean that is a natural quality of humans to rule over others and be ruled by others (one of the pillars of communism / anarchism is that investigations have shown that primitive societies relied on cooperation rather than hierachization).

And if anyone wants to follow or be lead by someone else, that potential leader of men can be killed. But then in order to kill him effectively, there needs to be some organisation or direction to make it happen and that needs a leader. There must be equal agreement at all times and if someone naturally tries to take charge rip his throat out.

@Spartan 506 Exactly, people write books about what anarchy looks like and how to achieve it - it still has the same horrible result.

People keep telling themselves 'Humans always *lived like that' .That's not true. Hierarcy started once someone put lines on a piece of land and said 'this is mine', and the rest believed it. Tribes in the amazon live without 'rulers right now. ' .So it's possible.

while she was in a lodge with Lord Byron

And the rich get richer and poor get poorer

dont care

@@landlockedcroat1554 Yeah, you don't care so much that you write a comment.

@@josephstalin7389 Another Fun Fact: William Godwin was an Anarchist before it was cool.

Anarchist means I can shoot you in the head without consequences. What's so great about that? Everybody would shoot everybody in the head until one guy takes control and puts order and we're back to Kings.

Fr

Same

same

You’re not a anarchist if you don’t practice it lol

I agree with all of this but because my country doesnt offer education on political systems or thought I don't know what I would be called.

@Abraham Serafino how my country literally tells people you are old enough to vote at 18 even though we never get recieve solid foundation to base our politics off of. It's why their are so many people voting against their own interest.

@Abraham Serafino Wow insults that means you have a good point. You are the type of swine that makes it easy for the politicians to control us the way they do.

@Abraham Serafino I live in the US you fucking moron

Abraham Serafino Um. I believe you’re the troll here. 😂

many people exhibit willful ignorance.

Well, I like the fact that people are deterred from shooting me in the back of the head because the government will punish them. But that's just me.

yeah

suspiciously and coincidently, all other types of society types are talked negetively about. In truth, capitalism is (by far) not the best societal system but i think it was innevitable. Someone somewhere will innevitably become on top and innevitably that would be unfair and now so nobody notice, they talk badly about other types of societies in schools. Everyones original and greatest source of information

@@universal5459 anarchy is inevitable too, in fact, it’s next !

Cry in chaz

@@hellatze im not talking about U.S. wankery im talking about international Platformism and especifismo

The naturian anarchists explained by a young girl. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-0AiKMdq9QZk.html

More anarchism videos!!!

@@davidhays2846 idk why first world white leftists being tone deff is an indictment of platformism as an organizational strategy. The AK Press Collective worked with Alexander to help gather evidence on Schmidt and, although I can't speak for whatever "milieu" you are involved in, I at least don't know anyone who went to bat for the fascist. This whole subject strikes me as an indictment against whoever you were particularly organizing with if anything and not necessarily Platformism or Especifismo as an organizational principle. Unless ofc you're saying that being infiltrated should be seen as a failure. If so it's definitely not a failure that's remotely unique to us. Maybe don't throw the baby out with the bath water idk.

The only genuine 'leader' is wisdom born of a respect for truth.. It is the severe lack of naturalised 'elder wisdom' that leads to the kind of politicised world we suffer today. When the Europeans invaded the Americas they saw themselves as having the 'right' to obliterate everything from a position of 'superiority', where in fact they couldn't have been more wrong; replacing a self-sustaining series of inter-connected micro systems based on elder-wisdom philosophy with a savage greed for self-interest, leading ultimately to self-destructive behaviour.. It all really boils down to control. External, ever increasing and changing forms of control by exterior and self-interested 'forces', or personal responsibility through self-control, which negates the need for the external, but does still require a form of on-going and naturally evolving wisdom tradition.. Neither are without problems, but the wisdom option can see where those problems arise and has the ability to deal successfully with them. It also has the added bonus of never blindly sinking into a self-destructive state, and thus will remain sustainable..

@@fluentpiffle Those Indians were sacrificing children to their gods so they weren't so innocent either. If anything the less savage "savages" won, we should all be glad else we'd be like Mexico.

If I "most people" you mean sane, mature adults.....you should listen to most people.

@@MisstyG And by "sane, mature adult" you clearly mean yourself.

Adolf Hitler took great inspiration from him.

@@phoneticalballsack what does adolf hitller have to do with petr kropotkin? They are the complete opposite of each other

@@daitopallw They both hated whites

He was a pínķo c0mmìe.

@@daitopallw , wrong, they held the same, exact ideologies, with the same, exact motives. Híțĺer was just a little more drug-addicted, and a little more perverse.

Marcelo Rincon While I agree with it, it can be said that there's some resemblances, and also possible communications with Anarchism with Amazonian indians. Clastres work for example, as Graeber described it, does a lot of contributions to Anarchist thought.

@Marcelo Rincon I desagree with you. There is a book called 'Anarquismos en confluencia, Chile y Bolivia durante la primera mitad del siglo XX' published by Ivanna Margarucci and Eduardo Godoy, wich principal topic is about the history of the anarchist movement at the frontier of Chile, Bolivia and Perú (región andina). The history (the historians) has taken care to hide the history of the anarchist movement across the world. Hence the hypothesis: 'does not exist an anarchist movement on those regions' is very common and accepted. Precisely, the autors are committed to prove the opposite hyphotesis.

This video was primarily about anarchism as a coherent political philosophy which to my knowledge was founded and has been based primarily in what is usually called "the West" from Godwin to Bookchin.

Agreed, no Josiah Warren & Ben Tucker?

I know what you are getting at but you are actually imposing western ideals on indigenous cultures by claiming them Anarchist . The lack of a state does not therefore equal Anarchist .

Probably because the majority of people aren't awful lol

@@christopherharvey5693 ?

@@iswitchedsidesforthiscat its a shitty channel

@@iswitchedsidesforthiscat low effort neo troll

@@thecincinnatisaboteur7574 ?

Indeed. Spartans were fit, then they disappeared.

One of the most misquoted quotes of all time

They also pass on their genes.

Sharks

@@Mike-zd8wq so they weren't fit

Goldman, Marx, Lenin, Trotsky.....hmmmmmmm, i wonder what single factor links those people?

@@nathanprentice5759 Being lefties - Lenin was not jewish m8

@@m0rgenthau maybe you coupd tell me what percentage of the Bolsheviks were? I mean, i know its in the 80s somewhere. I know that Maex was a hack writet incapable of original thinking employed as a front man for wider interests.. Also i know that outside/alongside the Armenian Genocide he created the greatest massacre of christians in the history of the world. I know about the young turks and their true affiliations. And i know that if you speak about these things someone will always pop up to try and smear you. Never disprove. Just smear. That is all i need to know. Thanks though.

@@nathanprentice5759 If you are implying that Emma Goldman was a Bolshevik, you could not be more wrong. Completely, utterly, devastatingly wrong. theanarchistlibrary.org/library/emma-goldman-my-disillusionment-in-russia I'm pretty sure you are just as wrong about the Young Turks. You want to try me?

@@jeffcowdrey1578 think what you want. We all do anyway. At least for now.

Forehead man had good points

Your name and profile pic are amazing. Crass is the best.

@@sixela6 That’s not a forehead, that’s Crass.

@@TheBLGL forehead man refers to stirner. the surname "stirner" literally means "forehead guy" in german.

Need better narrator

Anarchy means no rulers not no rules

@Pavor www.google.com/search?safe=off&client=ms-android-motorola&ei=PHDpXtnvCMuU-gTr2qToAg&q=anarchy+word+origin&oq=anarchy+word+origin&gs_lcp=ChNtb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXdpei1zZXJwEAMyAggAMgYIABAWEB5Q_RVY7zNgujpoAHAAeACAAfIGiAGzEZIBDTAuMS4xLjAuMS4xLjGYAQCgAQE&sclient=mobile-gws-wiz-serp

@Pavor dumb pos

Seven comments[ not one of them is actully about the pinned request for support. Ungrateful lot....

Thank you!

still based

It's spot on. Anarchy isn't bad only the ones using it in those violent ways are. I like the topic of morality and ego.

@@jamesphillips7590 ironically people who tried to spread anarchism through history were silenced in a lot of violent forms

@@joelmarin1840 your right on that white rose society in 1932 against the Nazi regime were all beheaded. Well one survived and wrote books on it. Pretty interesting stuff

@@jamesphillips7590 sounds interesting, gonna research that 🤔 thx

Thank you!

+ The naturian anarchists explained by a young girl. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-0AiKMdq9QZk.html

+ The naturian anarchists explained by a young girl. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-0AiKMdq9QZk.html

+ The naturian anarchists explained by a young girl. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-0AiKMdq9QZk.html

Anarchy does literally mean "no rulers" from the greek "an" meaning "without" and "archy" meaning "rule".

+ The naturian anarchists explained by a young girl. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-0AiKMdq9QZk.html

+ The naturian anarchists explained by a young girl. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-0AiKMdq9QZk.html

@@jackcade68 he levies a good point

You look like a hall monitor who told on people to the teacher

Oy Vey

wait holy shit are you serious

sounds very similar but sadly it ain't

On that note, you might be interested in learning about UBUNTU Contributuionism Here's an introduction: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-GbiFCwZdqgM.html And another one ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-RXY8Rbx3fwIb.htmlut I'd recommend the first video

I think it's good to work from a set of principles and a good understanding of different political schools of thought, so that you can act and change accordingly. If you want to make decisions based on what works, you first need to know what you want to achieve, and what principles are behind it.

+ The naturian anarchists explained by a young girl. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-0AiKMdq9QZk.html

I did a video on Socialist Realism last year (ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-MfJv9QlXVDo.html) - I would definitely like to do more in the future. Thanks!

+ The naturian anarchists explained by a young girl. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-0AiKMdq9QZk.html

@@asacash well, antifa means just "antifascists" so... yeah, I guess you are right? You don't have to be anarchist to be antifascist.

@@MoraCat666 Every anarchist is, however, an antifascist.

The only type of true type of freedom.

@@MoraCat666 Guess the Nazis were socialist then🤷🏽‍♂️

@@LK-nh7yj Nothing says freedom like being a slave to capital.

"The naturian anarchists explained by a young girl." ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-0AiKMdq9QZk.html

+ The naturian anarchists explained by a young girl. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-0AiKMdq9QZk.html

"The naturian anarchists explained by a young girl." ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-0AiKMdq9QZk.html

I like to think that anarchism is taking things like liberalism and utilitarianism seriously, i.e. refining them and bringing them to a philosophical conclusion. I'm hesitant to make that comparison, though, since liberalism has always been wielded as the justification for capitalism, even in it's infancy

@@elchingon12346 You wouldn't be the first to make that comparison. Noam Chomsky talks a lot about how anarchism is essentially the modern embodiment of the timeless values of classical liberals, while modern liberalism is essentially an embodiment of the conclusions of classical liberals, which of course were products of their times (markets being better than monarchy was essentially the conclusion).

@@elchingon12346 so it's looking at a retarded clown and going wow this is deep

+ The naturian anarchists explained by a young girl. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-0AiKMdq9QZk.html

@YHWH How is fighting for the working class cringe?

@@jibbobdion5072 You're pretty cringe.

@@PerkohIsgud :)

@@PerkohIsgud Also, being against. Anarcho syndicalism just makes you look like a bad guy, the philoposhy wants the working class to control the means of production, why wouldn't you like that? no trickle down economics.

That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. You can’t call your self and anarchist and advocate a political ideology or whatever you want to call it. That makes you a statist

Still better than anarchy :) Even granting you your myopic mean-spirited view of the world as given, it's still setting the bar real low.

@@fuckamericanidiot What is anarchy to you then?

@@fuckamericanidiot I'm not sure what's "mean spirited" about wanting to protect individual autonomy (both positive and negative liberty) to the greatest extent possible, and remove authority and subordination of individuals by others. In fact, I would argue that those who think that authority, which is always ultimately accountable only to itself, and which restricts the ability of people to solve their own problems, live their own lives, and develop their own capacities, can ever consistently be used as a force for good, are the ones who are "myopic."

+ The naturian anarchists explained by a young girl. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-0AiKMdq9QZk.html

+ The naturian anarchists explained by a young girl. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-0AiKMdq9QZk.html

So what. I saw what I want. Nobody rules me

Hahahahahaha what a fucking larp

+ The naturian anarchists explained by a young girl. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-0AiKMdq9QZk.html

Old comment, but I wanted to reply anyway: In contemporary anarchism it's usually agreed upon that anarcho-syndicalism is the method, and anarcho-communism the outcome. Even to this day many anarchists believe that syndicalism is the method through which we can achieve anarcho-communism.

To be fair, Durruti often quoted Kropotkin's "The only church that illuminates is a burning church."

nope

+ The naturian anarchists explained by a young girl. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-0AiKMdq9QZk.html

What u expect? 5 million subs? This aint a music video genius, 200k alot, most probably bots

totally depends on who you ask, is the thing. many anarchists get criticized for not having a very clear idea of what the intricacies of their society would look like. personally, i've never heard a stance that is totally anti-voting, rather just arguments made against the current system of voting we have (first-past-the-post) in favor of alternatives like the borda count. i've also heard proposals like community councils that are often rotated with multiple community members, ensuring no one/few people are given power for an extended amount of time sufficient for them to abuse, while also ensuring that everybody in the community has an opportunity to make their opinion heard. even after choosing a specific branch of anarchism (anarcho-communism vs. anarcho-mutualism vs. anarcho-whateverism), people within these branches do have different ideas of how society would function, but band together over the common goal of dismantling current systems and replacing them with their ideology, however vague. if you look up "what would an anarchist society look like" or "how would an anarchist society function" you should be able to find tons of resources! and here's a video on the first-past-the-post vs. borda count voting system that i found really helpful: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-1yuok9TQfpo.html sorry for such a long response, hope that wasn't too confusing!! i tend to ramble haha

+ The naturian anarchists explained by a young girl. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-0AiKMdq9QZk.html

1 await orders from FBI Agent 2 Comply 3 ??? 4 Star Trek Picard

@Social Libertarian true but you won't have freedom in practice

One way practiced is "consensus". Its a process to reach agreement within a group. Consensus can be defined as "no strong opposition", not unanimity as one might expect. The basics of it is that people identify a particular issue and discuss solutions. If there are disagreements then people will try solve them and find a solution that satisfies each member, or at least a solution that is not strongly opposed by each member. There are certain criteria for what a valid strong opposition is, usually to do with it violating some group principles or being harmful to the group. Personal preference is not a valid reason, for example. Obviously concensus can't be reached in every matter. If people have tried and failed to produce a generally satisfying solution, depending on the nature of the issue, the group can putthe issue aside until thoughts or solutions have changed, or if a decision has to be made then some form of majority voting can be done. However, members would still have the right not to participate. So if someone still really hated the solution, they don't have to participate in its implementation, and ate of course free to continue arguing their case. You can also not participate if you just generally dislike the solution.

+ The naturian anarchists explained by a young girl. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-0AiKMdq9QZk.html

@@lobservatoiresituationnist3583 I honestly don't know if you're taking a piss or what, but I do think anarchism as a whole, naturist anarchism as well, have pretty good points to be talked about. Maybe not not as a way to be implemented as a general social system, but as a way of puting the powers that be in check. But you might as well be a fucking troll making fun of a smarter girls talking about shit you can't quite grasp for yourself.

I see where you come from. But this the argument for that. It just sounds good on paper but when you execute the plan your going to run into problems. Just look a stalin he took power as an absolute dictator, Trotsky had to flee, and Lenin was afraid that if Stalin were to take into place that system would fail(more or less). Its the power hungry we should watch out

People are ignorant and unlearned of how the system works. They focus on the dictorship

+ The naturian anarchists explained by a young girl. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-0AiKMdq9QZk.html

@YHWH huh?

Correct- see oligarchy

What Fang and claw, or power comes from the barrel of the gun, that is what always happens, people are no good at all, rotten tot the care.

As a woman I oppose your natural patriarchal law because that's what happens 'might becomes right'

I am the law

I've heard the term tossed around, but I thought it was tongue-in-cheek.

Anarcho-monarchism? Hahaha Explain?

Ruben Granz no it’s just an abstract philosophy. However Daoism indeed was an ancient belief that included anarchist principles. Ultimately one cannot have anarchy (absence of rulers) and monarchy (one ruler).

It's a meme ideology.

+ The naturian anarchists explained by a young girl. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-0AiKMdq9QZk.html

I think you mean Archism.

"The naturian anarchists explained by a young girl." ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-0AiKMdq9QZk.html

@sKy - My veiw in brief is if you put children in effectively a prison - school - and make adult/child attention/engagement at a ratio of 1:35 expect some rebelliousness until it is potentially crushed by this system. If you or anyone is serious about the serious question of education my suggestions: For a quick rebuttal summary watch Chomsky interviews on it. For a deeper drive try the excellent Paul goodman. And to some degree Alfie Kohn (relevant though not an Anarchist). For more traditional stuff try Emma Goldman. List could be longer but I've already exceeded youtube etiquette as is. Oops! :) When education is not liberating, the dream of the oppressed is to become the oppressor" - Paulo Freire

there is actually democratic schools in uk rn. summerhill. it work pretty well but most anarchists would say 'ok but there is no cooperation' to this school. fostering cooperative behaviour (which is healthty for kids btw) early is important for most of them. not for systemic reasons but cooperation fosters self-esteem in the school. there is, then, two ways of schooling them: least authority and fostering cooperation.

+ The naturian anarchists explained by a young girl. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-0AiKMdq9QZk.html

@@lobservatoiresituationnist3583 From the mouths of babes!

@@lobservatoiresituationnist3583 This generation will be the best one.

@@badger1296 We hope so.

Nope. That is the history you have been taught, by people who stand to benefit from a strong vs weak dichotomy. The fact is, humans could never have evolved if we hadn't gathered into communities and cooperated with each other. Protecting and caring for each other. We are naturally pack animals, we need community. We need to be cared for and we need to care for. Helping feels good for a reason you know.

@@rosemali3022 You are right, human did evolved propensities to cooperate but those aren't the only natural human tendencies. Human history and prehistory is of groups not only banding together to survive but or warring against other bands and fighting to lead their own band. Something or someone has to counter those darker human tendencies. But that something will be impotent if it doesn't have some power or authority.

@@myothersoul1953 We have had anarchistic societies in the past that worked out just fine, and not every tribe had "alpha humans" in the way you think. The science is still young as much of our previous knowledge has been riddled with bias, or even purposefully destroyed, but matriarchies have been shown to have extremely egalitarian societies. Beyond that, I think what your getting at is the fallacy of tolerance. As in, you must not be tolerant of INtolerance. I see no reason why that would have to change. Take a look at how towns have gotten rid of white supremacists attempted take overs. That all being said, I doubt any true leftist would ever say that anarchism should be put into place with force. It just isn't how these things are done. As far as I'm aware, first we strengthen unions, then get partial worker ownership of the means of production, social safety nets, ranked choice voting, an actual democracy, etc. Then move into actual socialism, then move on from there with the buy in from the populous. We have a lot of work to do before we get to a place Anarchism is achievable, and people will evolve and change inside of the newer systems we put in place. I would argue that despite being raised in a cut throat society in which if you dont work, you die, where greediness is rewarded, and the majority having far far too little: that most are good, actually. Most people have been generous to a friend or a stranger. Most people have given a guy a dollar in the streets. And I think that those who dont, most of THOSE people have to be taught not to. "Oh, they will use it for booze or drugs. Oh, they obviously must have done something wrong to be homeless (bc I must protect myself from believing I could ever end up there, so they must deserve it so that I can make sure that I dont deserve it so I dont have to worry about my tenuous grasp on normalcy), etc. If we weren't fundamentally community oriented, they wouldn't need to own every single media station, they wouldn't have to put propaganda into everything we see, and they wouldn't need to divide us up into segments for us to hate. They could just let capitalism be capitalism and nobody would care that others were the have nots. But no, they spend a monumental effort into tricking us, and every half a decade or so we always go back to demanding socialism. So I dont think your wrong, but I do think your missing a significant portion of the full scope. I appreciate the convo btw, be well.

@@rosemali3022 Thank you for your response. I also don't think you are wrong, I suspect there is more we agree on than disagree on. The problem I see with socialism, capitalism, anarchism and ever other "ism" is they are bound to particular ideologies. Because people tend to notice what fits with their preexisting ideas and dismiss what doesn't, ideologies become rigid, more focused on dogma than solutions. All too often practical solutions to real problems get dismissed because they are capitalistic or socialist. The societies with the highest levels of well being or happiness aren't ideologically driven but are rather pragmatic. You are right, humans are highly social creatures. That drives both cooperation and status seeking. Humans are also diverse with no single set of universal values. However, we do share many common positive values. I think if we are willing to listen to others and focus on finding common ground we can progress. I also think curve of history is on our side, the long view of history shows progress. It's not inevitable progress so we need to be keep trying, but it is progress.

@@myothersoul1953 ik this thread is like two years old but I just wanted to add that for many anarchists (Malatesta for example), anarchism is not a rigid political or social ideology. An anarchist society is a society that is in constant change, always adapting and improving with a certain set of "ground rules" like the rejection of power over others. This is why it's not that easy to find hard, clear-cut visions of an ideal anarchist society, because it is entirely dependent on the location, culture and period in which it is observed and is therefore very difficult to "predict" as we have no way of knowing what our society will look like in a hundred years. There won't be an "anarchist revolution" where we suddenly flip society on its head and impose "anarchism" as the new ideology, but rather a constantly changing society that adapts to whatever is needed or wanted at the time. It will develop naturally as a consequence of a larger social revolution in which capitalism is rejected, and room is created for building sustainable communities that take care of every member as a whole. Zoe Baker has some great videos on these ideas (and she sure loves Malatesta haha) Anyways yeah just wanted to shoot this in there as I found this discussion very interesting and I think we agree on a lot of things!

The American definition of "Libertarian" is a very unique thing. Everywhere else in the world, the word "Libertarian" and the word "Anarchist" are interchangeable, referring to people like Stirner and Kropotkin alike. American Libertarianism is it's own thing, concerned with the defending of private property and the free market. Stirner was an anti-capitalist, as he saw the market as another oppressive hierarchy which hampers the individual, no different than the state. Indeed, one of his most vital frameworks was the notion of Illegalism. While collectivist anarchists like Bakunin and Kropotkin advocated property theft as a means of building a revolution, Stirner advocates for property theft merely for its own sake. If you are an American Libertarian who is interested in more conventional anarchist thought, Mutualism would probably be a better option, as it leaves the free market intact.

@@R0S3inC0NCR33T the capitalist definition of libertarian has been growing up a lot here in Latin America sadly.

He is mostly criticizing all those abstractions that we strive for, identify with, or those ideas that we use to get together and he would definitely refuse to say that he is a libertarian. His critique is the most fundamental and therefore philosophical that i have ever seen. If you ask me, i would say that it is the very core Essence of anarchism because even though he would also refuse to identify as anarchist, in the end he strives for ABSOLUTE autonomy or the refusal of any Control over his own will.