That anarchism encompasses a wide range of different systems is definitely an important thing to note, much like how there are many different statist systems.
@@Helelsonofdawnyes it would. It was basically a direct democracy based form of federated socialism. It was a form of governance, it is just that the monopoly on force is based on democracy rather than democracy granted by first gaining order via monopoly on force.
This was a great summary, but I would add that anarchism places a lot of emphasis on the violence needed to maintain states. Police killings, locking people away, or evicting people leaving them homeless are extremely violent acts. They are just normalized violent acts. Protest and rebellion, sometimes even protests where no lives were threatened are perceived as more violent simply because they are not ordinary.
I would like to see an actual study on this topic. Since anarchy is a system less system, wouldn’t that be similar to saying that violence is an innate human behavior? Also, there are forms of anarchy that emphasize nonviolence, and some forms of egalitarianism (similar to anarchy) that shun those who wish to seek power, entitlement, or praise.
I finally did it. I found the most out of touch community on the Internet. I figured it was going to be some right-wing nuts. Nope. Some random pocket of anarchist (children? Hopefully) In the RU-vid comments. Jailing criminals and evicting tennant's is extreme violence? Egalitarianism is similar to anarchy? That's enough Internet for today. I need a nap. Because I'm old and tired. Just a grumpy 'ol stick in the mud. Don't mind me.
That's not true about protests. People get hurt all the time from civil disobedience as well as getting hurt by the state. It's because mob mentality rules over and people seem to forget what they are fighting for and attack innocent people and businesses that have nothing to do with their cause.
@@urbaneblobfish Yes, but Anarchists wouldn't call it a belief. It's a practice based on meticulous observances of the real world, material - social and natural - history. No belief or leap of faith needed.
Critics will call it utopian, but anarchists reject utopianism. They would consider themselves materialists and historians similar to Marx. They want protection of peoples rights, but that protection shouldn't be from a top down power structure such as a state. It should come from bottom up power structures that people are voluntary members of. Emphasis on individual freedom really refers to the individualist anarchists, like Max Stirner who thought that might is right. Most anarchists are social anarchists, who agree with social freedom. Their answer to the question, "are you free to take away another's freedom?" is no. It's inspired by Kant's categorical imperative. The criticism of Violence and Extremism refers to a time in the late 1800s call propaganda by deed. valid critique, and most anarchists have abandoned that strategy. Fringe anarchist groups who practice active violence might still exist but aren't popular. Even then, the violence is against social systems not people. "Hard to put into practice". Now this is the real criticism. To me, its the biggest problem in all of anarchism. Most anarchists will agree that you cannot force society into freedom. So how do you create a free, just, peaceful, and egalitarian society with peaceful and free methods when the current power structures all use some kind of force or coercion to maintain themselves?
Anarchism is reliant on the fundamental hope that humans should be educated with altruism in mind. Our education systems either doesn't do that, or if it does, doesn't do it enough
I'm a newbie to anarchism, but to me the best method seems fostering the right types of commuties, grass roots movements, local councils and groups, etc. over time, as more and more people became involved, they could gain more power in a natural way that doesn't involve subduing people, and would be able to start taking more and more control from the state That way there also wouldn't be a lot of the risk of a fast revolution, and systems could be tweaked and improved over time before they have too much strain on them So basically, continue on with direct action? (I'd love criticisms for this!)
I think that's a a narrow view of anarchism, as you appear to only be talking about insurrectionary anarchism. Anarcho-communism, mutualism, and green anarchism, founded by Kropotkin, Proudhon, and Bookchin are examples of utopianism. Kropotkin imagined a series of city-states akin to the Swiss confederation with machine automation and non-coal powered energy production such as solar panels, Proudhon imagined self-employment and collective ownership of the means of production, while Bookchin imagined a series of city-states that were environmentally sustainable with green tech, and reduced city sizes. Likewise, anarchism uses utopia nowadays as to clarify our values and commitment to anarchism, and map out our principles, while imagining a world we want to live in, and what a non-capitalist, non-hierarchial society looks like.
Yes, anarchism is endless process, not a idealistic end-goal like communism. This is why commie movement failed, but yet anarchist movements still exist.
How does a group eliminate hierarchy which seems to be the natural order of things in the wild as well as the desire of most humans? I ask this in all seriousness.
@@BrettOwen71 80% of the time, consensus based decision making, the rest 20% usually majority based with people who are affected the most have more priority. Horizontal council using direct democracy, with delegation system to perform repeated tasks or tasks that need some specific skills, note that the function of the delegates can be provoked at any time, unlike in role based hierarchical power structures where they'll do whatever it takes to perpetuate themselves and their offspring anyway.
"Of course, let us abolish the [police], that man who protects all privilege by force and is the living symbol of the State. But to be able to abolish for good, and not see reappear under another name and in a different guise, we have to know how to live without him - that is, without violence, without oppression, without injustice, without privilege. Yes, let us abolish ignorance. But obviously we need first to teach and educate, and before even this, to create the social conditions that would permit everyone to avail themselves of education and training." one my fav quotes from Malatesta
@@jb8408Actually, even in an anarchist society, there will be things that must be done for the survival of all. Freedom from disproportionate coersive power structures does not imply a complete freedom from duty. In the simplest form, you could not be considered an anarchist if you would not consider the defence of anarchy something that "had to" be done, as you'll soon find that culture dismantled by the hierarchies you felt unnecessary to prevent. It might sound like a paradox, but it's quite simple: Your philosophy and ideology should be guidelines, not absolutes. Otherwise, they will neither be achievable nor sustainable. Tolerant of the intolerant and all that.
Well balanced explanation. It would've been nice to include Mutualism as one of the leanings within anarchism, as you also mentioned Proudhon as a foundational figure. While I wouldn't (yet?) confidently call myself anarchist, I'm absolutely sympathetic to its ideas and values, and even if I end up disagreeing, I still think mutual aid and prefigurative politics are a force for good.
This lacks Noam Chomsky. He completely removes the utopian aspect of it and insteads sees Anarchism as a movement towards freedom. In this understanding, every form of authority has to rigorously justify itself instead of being outright abolished. It's a process. With growing autonomy, responsibility and community, the state gives up more and more power.
I like the idea that authority must justify itself. I wonder how much personal responsibility people are willing to take up to build a community and gain more personal freedom. That coupled with the idea of increasing complexity and many people's focus on specialization for work.
Most anarchists do not consider Chomsky to be an actual anarchist since he's very relaxed when it comes to what hierarchies are allowed by him. If you want some other contemporary anarchists that offer a bit more concrete vision, some good places to start would be David Graeber, Peter Gelderloos, Zoé Samudzi, Kevin Carson, Lorenzo Kom'boa Ervin, Carne Ross, and Margaret Killjoy. For anarchist youtubers, Anark, AnRel, Zoe Baker, Thought Slime, and Renegade Cut are good.
We just want to pursue unfettered freedom, liberty and an expression of self. We just believe that we can provide everything someone needs to peruse these interests based on their need. We produce enough, we hoard enough, we waste enough, we exploit and abuse enough.
As an Anarchist a response: (I showered today I swear) 1. Idealistic/ Utopian: this is a thought terminating cliché to avoid contending with the criticisms of centralized power structures, and the unjust nature by which they operate in society, it avoids using any sociological and economic analysis. most notably neoliberal democracy has yet to contend with the criticisms and insidious nature of capitalism, because it becomes a system in which the wealthy and influential hold power over the workers, enacting policy over them through their government and manufacturing consent through the consolidation of media. - it creates an unfair advantage in representation, both our political parties and mainstream media stand behind the capitalist model of private property ownership 2. Emphasis on individual Freedom: This is ironically the capitalist model. Or true libertarian, free market theory. Anarchists recognize the value of community labor and investment. 3. Violence/Extremism: Property damage isn't violence. Revolutions and states use violence equally, with the state being afforded disproportionate resources in which to enact violence. Violence is not the problem, the question is whether the violence is just. And, most often it's the state who is enacting violence on communities *See Cops and Criminal Justice* - as for extremism, this is another thought terminating cliche. All social and political change is seen as radical. 4. Hard To Put into Practice: Any attempts to put into practice these things have been sabotaged by capitalist forces and those who work on behalf on capital. Often by the use of the CIA and other Western Forces. We'd also need an educated media literate populace, but that requires defunding police :) (Landlords, Shareholders) < these are parasites who contribute no labor to society. They acquire their wealth from the workers labor and desperation. (Cops/Our Criminal Justice System) < This is state sanctioned violence and has its origins from the slave trade era, these forces exist to protect private property. Laws target poor people and criminalize communities, lock them in prisons, and then use their labor for corporations. They also syphon wealth by giving out tickets for asinine reasons. ALSO, we criminalize addicts and those with mental health conditions. ALSO ALSO, they can kill you and not face jail time. They dont prevent crime, they react to it. Preventing crime would look like defunding the police and reinvesting that into our communities. Fuck Pigs. (Corporations) < Mega Parasite. The Shai-Hulude of worms. The castle of modern nobility. Designed to syphon as much wealth out of communities, to gain as much access to resources and labor for the cheapest cost possible, by any means necessary. To establish a large market share, ballooning to a logical conclusion until no other choices are left. With so much capital influence behind them, that they and the government work hand in hand, as a revolving door of public and private industry. Remember, our Democracy started only for the White Males who OWNED LAND. Any progress for democracy, for the progress of everyday conditions of living, has been thanks to the blood and tears of the abolitionists and the labor movement. Any Concession we've received, any rights we have received, are conditional from the State. And when those who control the economic industries start hopping in bed with our elected representatives and government, that becomes concerning. When their interests coincide, there is no need for a declaration of conspiracy when the evidence is clear. (Government) < infected with parasite, might be terminal. Can be a force for good. Is currently doing bad things on behalf of bad people. Some go along willingly, others are oblivious, and some desperately try to change the system from the inside. Ultimately their interest coincide with those who own capital, and will vote in their best interest. We even elected a coal baron Joe Manchin. I'd concede that CEO's might be okay, on the condition that workers vote for them. The pay ratios need to change though, as they stand it's 300/1, and it was 50/1 back in the day. Also Landlords shouldn't exist, housing should be free for everyone. cost of housing takes up 1/2 of peoples pay nowadays. just pay utilities. If renters are paying off a mortgage for a property they should collectively own it as personal property, as in they all live in it. They would just have to pay the maintenance workers when they're needed and for utilities. there are better ways for us to live, if you open your imagination, that's how we formed societies. there are better ways to organize systems of labor and living. Democracy is good, we should want to include everyone and democratize the workplace. Leadership should be based off of merit. freedom is having shelter, food, and community - being able to choose what you want to do with your life without having to worry about being homeless. No im not taking any questions. I'm just opening the door for those who are curious to learn more. [TLDR: Rich make government not run good, make it do bad things. Democracy become limited, rule of minority. World could be better. ]
It was not only for white males who owned land, but also white females ( who owned legal impunity and also controlled local institutions and households).
This explanation is well educated and well informed. Thank you for that. People dont even know much about socialism, let alone anarchism. This is a great introductory video for a non anarchist.
There's also anarcho-capitalism, which I think has some connections to (or might even be the same thing as) libertarianism. I've heard of it, but I'm not well-grounded in all its ideas. I believe one thing it champions is volunteerism--letting people choose for themselves whether they participate/donate/whatever in a thing. This might be a combination of democracy and personal freedom. It might also be a branch of individualist anarchy. Edit: Nevermind. I just watched another video discussing anarchism, and it talked about how anarcho-capitalism is a misuse of the term anarchism.
For libertarianim, right libertarianism refers mostly to some Form of laizze faire while, left libertarianism refers to equal distribution in power and no domination(self defence is not domination)
The fact anarcho-capitalism wasn't mentioned makes me think this video is a psyop. There is one anarchism. All the various alleged offshoots are solipsistic wishful thinking.
This was very well done, given the compressed format. I used to be quite hostile toward anarchism and mock it as Utopian. But I did come to see in real life how needless State intervention in people's lives, even when well intended, could have a ruinous effect. I came to understand that bureaucracy may become an end unto itself, also that excessive centralization of power creates many inefficiencies through loss of contact with the people who are supposed to receive services. I suppose that my view became a little more nuanced when it turned uot that a close relative was interested in anarchism. Perhaps it was a fashionable thing with her peer group. Clearly she leaned toward the Individualistic school, which struck me as an extreme form of 19th-century Liberalism and Radicalism. There was NO condemnation of private property, but criticism of power concentrated in corporate hands. That is where I saw a difference from anarcho-capitalism, which I had read about. This much seemed pretty normal, although I didn't agree with the general characterization of State power as oppressive. I could see that my relative, also motivated by Christian faith, was getting out in the community and participating in useful causes, like the battle against human trafficking and harm reduction for consumers of street drugs. This made so much more sense to me than engaging in partisan politics.
*Anarchy is an anti-political philosophy." That is all. PS: No mention of Lysander Spooner is shameful. In all seriousness though, pretty good summary of Anarchy in less than 5 minutes. This serves as a great intro to those who are unfamiliar with the topic.
You have very good points, and i see the both sides of pro anarchy and the anti anarchy. But i think you talked about it as if the anarchy comes from some kind of overthrowing of a goverment, which is why anarchy is used as a word for chaos and violence. But what if the anarchist country/state/place was CREATED with anarchy in mind. This would only work if the small group trusted each other, and respected, tolerated or even liked each other. This bond could create this dream, but i know there are a lot of things that come with this. All and all, i think this stateless society could work, but only in small groups, and the group HAS to TRUST each other.
There is a lot of political theory under the banner of anarchism with contention on the pathways that humanity should take. I have found much agreement with Daniel Baryon from the channel Anark. The groups in his "liberation in action" videos are great to show people who believe what anarchists are promoting are "unrealistic" or "utopian".
I’d just like to point out that the arguments against anarchism are simply hypothetical and have always been viewed that way. Noam Chomsky puts this well by criticism these arguments as hypothetical scape goats well aligned with “that’s just human nature”. They lack merit because anarchism has not been legitimately practiced in our modern world, it’s been attempted and all observable hardships endured during the Spanish civil war and the French Revolution were seemingly artificial, and were artificially introduced by governments withholding resources and engaging in military action. To claim anarchism is often tied to violence is a Luke warm argument, as governments attempts to squash collectivist and mutual aid efforts are often violent in nature costing immeasurable loss of human life and resources.You can almost infer in the same breath that they criticize anarchist movements to engage in self defense they’ll defend their own barbarism simply as “human nature”
@MTN_Dew_Baja_Blast There are quite a few types of socialism. There is more than 20 mainstream types of socialism, and countless more obscure &/or fringe types. This is why you hear of leftist infighting, and where the stereotype of ‘true socialism has never been tried’ comes from. Here are just a few in no particular order: Marxism/Scientific Socialism Market Socialism Mutualism Marxism-Leninism Ho Chi Minh thought Libertarian Socialism Syndicalism Anarchism Syndicalist Anarchism Communism Communist Anarchism Council Communism Maoism Trotskyism Platformism Dengism Etc.
@Max There are many more forms of socialism outside those two as well. Some examples of non-ML, non-SocDem forms are Council Communism, Communalism, Situationism, Autonomism, Left-Communism, Democratic Confederalism, Orthodox Marxism, Market Socialism and more (and anarchism is also a form of stateless socialism) You're correct about demsoc, but ML believes specifically in a vanguard party to lead the revolution, and democratic-centralism as decision making process. Vanguardism means that they belief that a core group of dedicated and educated socialists should educate people on class consciousness, and should lead the revolution. (In my personal opinion, I find this very condescending towards workers.) Democratic-Centralism means that when the majority of council members of a socialist party have voted on something, the minority can no longer bring that topic up again or question the decision. This is meant to keep the group focused and unified. (fun fact, some socdem parties that used to be ML/Maoist parties, still use this method internally.) I think in practice these two things are big reasons of why many ML experiments turned out authoritarian.
Thanks for the video overview which is accurate. Anarcho Communism is a popular far-left version which they still often advocate some form of “centralized control” by expecting that everyone in their group would adhere to similar “communal” rules, etc. per the name “Communism”, which is the exact opposite of what an-anarchy actually means - no rulers. True anarchy would not create rules for communal sharing, that would be through choice. Anarchism really has one definition, but it’s how people interpret it that creates these “variations”. In reality, you have total government on one side and no government on the other side, not exactly the same as Left vs Right though. Also, the commentary regarding violence coming from anarchists… The state forcibly takes our taxes, which we have zero say in, spends ~60% or more on military and carries out wars on a constant basis in other countries regardless of our disagreement. So while any individual or country can carry out violence, it’s the state that hides from accountability through bureaucracy and “collective goals”. Individuals cannot hide from accountability like this and thus are deterred from these types of war. Just my two cents on that. Any system can be used for good or evil. Anarchy is ALWAYS depicted as CHAOS. No, chaos is just a type of activity that comes from centralized governments or individuals who choose to violate Universal Law. Ethical individuals can also engage in cooperative, creative and just societies and not chaos. So anarchy does not equal chaos.
Could someone explain how healthcare would be provided under anarchism. What forms of anarchism would allow this? And how could it be done without some form centralised state/government?
In an anarchic system, healthcare would be decentralized and community-based, relying on mutual aid, cooperation, and voluntary associations. Different forms of anarchism approach healthcare differently. Look into mutual aid anarchism, platform anarchism, anarcho-syndicalism and post-scarcity anarchism.
Is anarchism realistically achievable? Or would any society who tried it fall behind centralized governments in terms of both economic development and military power
We only need two laws. Let's see how many here recognize where I derived my two laws of humanity. First Law: A human shall not act in a manner that causes another human to come to harm, or through inaction allow another human to come to harm. Second Law: A human is permitted to do anything they choose as long as it doesn't contravene the first law.
Cool rules, now let's determine what exactly counts as "harming" someone? People have differing opinions on that. How do we determine the exact definition of harm? A vote might work, but what if the losing side doesn't agree and refuses to adhere to the voted definition?
@@minihalkoja590 Differences in that definition come in when someone who either has already done harm (and they know it) and those who are about to do harm (and know it) seek to give themselves permission to proceed. If you feel the need to justify an action *against* someone, it is probably you giving yourself permission to do harm. It can be tricky, I won't gloss over that, which is why one should always lean on the side of keeping one's mouth shut, keeping one's weapons sheathed, and being respectful in all interactions. Russia invaded a sovereign nation because the leadership gave themselves permission to do so. I had the crap beat out of me and nearly lost function of an eye because a group of people decided to give themselves permission. Permission is *always* given to oneself to justify harm.
I'm with you 100% but you can't enforce tha in capitalism.... because it works in a way that if you take something... someone else misses it... thats why the richer someone gets... the poorer someone else gets... unfortunately we live in a system that we harm others simply by living our lives
Anarcho communism is a contradiction in terms. Communism requires a central authority to dictate that individuals can't have property, otherwise, what is to stop anybody from claiming property when nobody has the authority to tell him no? The most reasonable and realistic brand of anarchism is Anarcho-Capitalism, because it is the closest thing to the natural order of the world and of man.
Hello, I’m a new subscriber. I also subscribe to you on my other channel. I’m aware that anarchism can help anyone as long as we have the same motives within anarchism as a collective developing the same cause.
1. The state is redundant 2. The state puts human species at a greater risk 3. Statehood is constructed atop the practical reality of life 4. Humans are cooperative by nature 5. Everyone has an absolute right to pursue their own agendas free from persecution or surveillance 6. Misery and violence occur when those absolute rights are violated by restrictions.
Well, many say it's "without rules", but it's more like "without rulers." In the real world, many anarchist groups (like your local friend group) have implicit or even explicit rules, without any rulers.
@@johnchrysostomou9417 you use computer and internet, which is byproduct of society. Cut yourself from internet, so society can finally be free from individualistic persons like you
The simplest way I would describe anarchism is it wants to abolish hierarchy. This means there would no longer be a group of people who control another group of people. For example there wouldn't be a government to tell you that you can't be gay, or a boss to tell you that you can't take a break or go home when you're exhausted. Instead the idea would be that you can do anything you want as long as it doesn't infringe on other people's freedom and everything would be run communally.
@@bickeya.j.m8470 Anarchy stems from the principle that every single form of authority has a burden of proof to justify itself to those who that authority is imposed on, if the people find that authority to be illegitimate then it should be abolished. Although it gets complicated when people don't realize that the authority being imposed on them goes against their own interetsts much like a lot of slaves used to perceive slavery as a legitimate form of authority.
"Anarcho"-Capitalism maintains capitalism--a system of hierarchy and power--and therefore isn't Anarchism. They are only spicy American (right) Libertarians.
No. Communism in its base terms is a classless, moneyless and stateless society. Anarchism is the same. They simply differ in the way of getting there. Anarcho-communism is basically the same as communism.
the organization of society on the basis of voluntary cooperation, without political institutions or hierarchical government. Voluntary cooperation is mostly trade. I do this for you and you pay me or do something else for me. If you block those transaction then the definition of anarchy doesn’t make sense.
Black anarchism and indigenous anarchism lay extra focus on deconstructing hierarchies of white supremacy and settler colonialism, and analysing how those systems manifest themselves. So it's more about focus than that it's separate ideology. Same with anarcha-feminism and queer-anarchism.
Anarchism was white (european) and asian. Their view on races was that they exist, and either some are backward and so the more intelligent ones ( whites and asians ) should assist, and develop them - or that all are roughly equal in potential and that will be fulfilled if capitalism is abolished.
I believe in anarchism because it leads to inequality based upon how individuals use their freedoms. Inequality is the natural state of society; any attempt at forcing equity is itself oppressive and tyrannical
I don't really agree with that idea. Sure, forcing equity on others is authoritarian, but so is owning the means for someone else's survival and setting terms for them getting it. Equity and sharing is the natural state of human affairs. It doesn't have to be forced, it simply happens in a healthy community. Just look at the family. Imagine if the parents demanded payment for dinner, they would be seen as insane and tyrannical.
@@Tiogar60authoritarian just means extrem inequal distribution of power+domination of others with this power. While increasing equality mostly does reduce domination and therfore liberates people.
Most Anarchists don't consider "Anarcho"-Capitalism a true form of Anarchism because it shares next to nothing in common with most Anarchist ideas. Capitalism of any kind is hierarchical, inequal, exploitative, and coercive which most Anarchists are extremely against.
It is fantasy land. People will always try to hire out some big dudes to be some sort of community security force or police. Then people in that community will probably try to work more in their chosen occupation/contribution to the community probably according more to their skill and expertise, and so that they won't always have to worry constantly about self-defense. Then the community can more readily try to technologically thrive. Some sort of 'Wild West' land should still exist, but this is how human communities work.
You apparently have no idea what anarchism is. Anarchy means "no rulers". While old school anarchism is against hierarchies, not ALL forms are. There is nothing negative about not having rulers, except that most humans are not able to govern themselves. Most humans are NPCs. If most humans were more intelligent, they would be anarcho-capitalists. What is most important is the NAP. A lot of old school anarchists believe in the initiation of violence to force compliance. Nothing wrong with centralized systems as long as they are voluntary and not forced upon people at the point of a gun.
Not real anarchism. Anarchism in its inception has been a social movement, from the days of revolution. American Libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism in general are ways to decieve gullible workers into buying into a false sense of freedom.
I would definitely say that anarchism in general is more conservative than liberal. Today’s liberals want power over individual freedom, quite of the opposite of conservatives. This is just my opinion, it’s just what I see being described
One world order is a fear tactic used by religious ideologues to keep people and planet from becoming an equitable system for all. That idea is the definition of dogma and stands in direct opposition of human progress. We are all one! We are all in this together! The forward momentum of this planet must be in embracing community. ✊🌈♥️
Someone here in Toronto opened a cafe called "The Anarchist" and the owner thinks that Capitalism is "oppressive" while selling a product (food & drink) in exchange for money 😂😂😂🤡🤡🤡
It depends on how he operates the company. If he shares all profits equally with his staff, then he is not a capitalist. If he truly was against capitalism, he would also share ownership with the workers.
Capitalism is not "selling a product in exchange for money". Many other systems including some forms of socialism have markets and currency. Capitalism is about private property, wage labour, competitive markets and profit motive.
@@therongjr Owner of coffee shop is therefore owner of a PRIVATE company and operates it for PROFIT (by selling food & drink products as I mentioned above). This is litterally the definition of capitalism. Good try though!
Anarchists please, there's always gonna be police, because people like to band together into communities and tribes for protection, and they'll always try to hire out some big dudes to be some sort of security force. Whether you call it a community security force or police, it's still pretty much the same thing isn't it.
@slipgate5293 its observable throughout history we tend to allocate strong/brave folk to uphold basic rights amongst community given some may try to break them, but if there are no laws or rules how does anything work? Ive never undertood anarchism
I appreciate the suggestion. At this time, I’m mostly focused on general topics to grow the channel. I could see doing more specific videos that dig deeper like your suggestion in the future.
Everything sounds better in theory. The fact is, nothing works. There will always be opposing idealogies and people willing to die for theirs.. Until there is no one left to fight for anything.
"Centralized systems of power are necessary for protecting and maintaining people's rights," say the detractors. "Yeah? How's that been going since 1492?" I ask in turn.
What happens to a person in Anarchism when they do not provide a good or service to fellow man? Are they taken care of anyway and to what extent? The Bible teaches that material things are not ours but rather they are Gods and it is our responsibility to manage them to the best of our ability until we die. This is where religion and anarchism somewhat align, I believe. However, I can’t seem to wrap my brain around it completely.
If you are not useful to other people that you are doing a disservice to yourself. You are starving yourself to death if you just lie around doing nothing all day. The problem corrects itself in anarchy
I lean anarchist and this feels like a fair summary so thank you. I’d say allot of anarchists probably dislike individual anarchism for the reasons you pointed out which is funny because it’s self crit. Another thing is for the time they were living in anarchist assassins may have been wrong in some instances but they were also in a time when men like Frick (who Goldman tried to assassinate) would have groups of over exploited workers straight up massacred and forced to work under armed duress. It applies today as well but it’s a big reason anarchists advocate revolutionary violence as self defense even then they understand the importance of not glorifying violence or hoping for it, they only acknowledge it’s probably necessary given the violence people face under normal circumstances of state authority. And for the point about being utopian I’d say just look at historical examples rather than basing that opinion on principle.
Here is some arguments against the critique : Decentralized is not bad at it's own. The ideas of having a society within small communities would still be within the ethics as long as it's not extreme. *2* Too much of anything is *NEVER* good! Right now we have too much capitalism, too much people in power, too much propaganda from every source on the internet. Anarchism could work if there is no oppression and evil rules. But right now Evil rules are our reality. Right now the illusion of choice in a president and illusion that were ruled by people that "protect" is a lie! They will go to any lengths to flex power & opression. *3* extremism and violence IS NOT ANARCHISM! It's the same with ANYTHING It's not because your Muslim that you're radical and a bomber. Not because your Jewish, that you are agreeing with the Isrealie government. Even the most people who live there DISAGREE with the extremism, yet some people can't see that and place a ethnic group, belief system, or ideology in a small minded BOX and do the same by saying ALL these things are bad & evil. *4* It's hard to put any new system in practice when we are currently in a global system where basically the world leaders are the mafia. Anarchism has to come from the people. Anarchism needs to be understood correctly, and people need to see the REAL meaning of Anarchism not the twisted meaning of what the media is trying to frame as Anarchism. Humanity is always doing hard things to accomplish a better future. Why do people go to mars? Do you think that any great achievement was easy? OF COURSE NOT! If you don't want to live in modern slavery with a law book only benefitting the charlatans to keep their wealth and power LEARN THE REAL MEANING OF ANARCHISM and once people wake up it's time to change the world FOR THE BETTER WITH NO VIOLENCE! No more Putin using citizens as pawns, Ukraine leaders doing the same. China that strips away human rights and sent people to slave camps to make products on TEMU. NO MORE LEADERS THAT DESTROY OUR BEAUTIFUL PLANET AND FILL EVERYONE WITH HATE AND VIOLENCE!!!!
As my last thought here, anarchists believe in property rights. The Declaration of Independence famously calls for Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. The third term was originally PROPERTY. A double-cross from the start.
If "Free Market" is about "discovering" the price, not inventing it, then Anarchism is about discovering diversity!! It promotes Symbiosis, unlike Hegemony that promotes (only) Neurosis!!!
The only point I'd like to make is that anarchism does believe in hierarchies, just not hierarchies that is formed from above. Many doesn't want to call it a hierarchy and I can agree that it is not the best term. However, you also can't have a direct democracy in every question as it might be extremely difficult to organize. For instance, syndicalists form federations with elected spokesperson's for the group. Other times, someone may need to be the one in "charge" to organize several groups together. Think for instance that you have 500 people working on a project, every 10 is their own small collective that votes and directs their ideas on how to deal with their sub-work and then elect a spokesperson to talk with the other 49 elected spokesperson's to organize the teams efficiently. When there comes something big that everyone has to be involved in (For instance, how should the entire finished product look like?) everyone votes in a direct democratic way, with options being presented by anyone willing or interested. This is by no means "perfect". It is slow and chaotic, but that is democracy for you!
