Oh my goodness it's been a MINUTE since I binged someone's content and I can't stop watching your vids! I never knew what Black Anarchism was before this and had honestly been struggling to find an ideology (principal, tenant, charter) that spoke to the way I could see the world changing and benefiting and this just...makes sense. IDK. Just thank you so so much for sharing such important information!
@@KhadijaMbowe Algorithm brought me here too so hey, every once in a while it does a good thing. Love your channel as well so I'm so happy to see this thread
Its amazing how little info is out on yt about black revolutionary anarchism wen it seems obvious to me at least tht its black anarchists tht will be at the forefront of any successful anarchist movement. Great video
As an Indigenous anarchist, I appreciate you for taking the focus off of white folks in a history of horizontal hierarchies that finds its roots in colonized populations 💙✊🏽💙
I do strive to understand the movements and details, I do understand that I don't have too to support your guy's cause, and I hope more white people learn to do the same. I unfortunately am stuck in a pretty majorly white area so I don't have the exposure I'd prefer to have.
So glad you included Domingos Passos! One of my favourite historical figures and one of the few things to be proud about my country. The man was a badass and went through so much during his life!
This was so needed. And explained very clearly. This was brilliantly done and will serve us well in terms of political education. You basically covered the essentials of Sam Mbah's work, the reader, the Statement, many of the autobiographies and letters from former Panthers, and theoretical contributions from across Black interpollations of anarchist thought both in written and oral form. Love to see it.
Thank you for your work. I really appreciate that I learn new things from your videos, most youtubers I watch to find resources for other people, I also watch your videos to continue learning myself as well. I can't tell you how refreshing it is to see content that widens my perspective instead of reinforcing and entrenching perspectives I already have even further. So thank you. Solidarity from the midwest 🌽🏴
I have chills.... My favorite video ( my non hierarchal favorite ) thus far. And you featured three f my favorite black women disruptors- Audre Lorde ( rest in power), Angela Davis and Gloria Watkins aka bell hooks (rest in power)! You have added a great deal to my reading list. blessings and love
Just wanted to start off by saying yes, you pronounced Xhosa correctly. The fact that you put in the effort means a lot. Thank you! I personally think that the reason why South Africa in particular doesn't have a more robust anarchist movement is, firstly because most of us don't even know that it exists. I only discovered it this year. Many of the diasporic Africans you spoke of embraced anarchism because they were able to read books pertaining to anarchist thought, ideology etc. In a country where white hegemony continues to permeate all aspects of our society, coupled with the tyrannical black elite, allowing people to access this kind of literature is not ideal and is continuously thwarted. Lack of knowledge is a HUGE factor. As a black South African myself, I've noticed that a lot of (in particular poor) black South Africans actually self-identify as anarchist - they just don't know how to verbalize this and start a movement. Another huge factor is probably the fact that black people only became enfranchised 27 years ago. For most of us (particularly those born during apartheid), voting meant freedom so it is hard to conceptualize not voting for a government at all! But back to your video - I loved it. I appreciate the fact that you mentioned black people all over the world in your discussion. Excellent, excellent, excellent!
Thank you for sharing. Commenting for the algorithm, and to show appreciation for your efforts, even if it isn't specifically for me - there's still a lot I can learn.
OMG, I'm glad to find a video like this. I really could not find anyone from Trinidad how talked about politics beyond local or news clips from CNN. I didn't know that there were trinis who were thinking how unfair all of these systems are
Very curious about your mentioning about the existence and possibility of societies/communities that organise around egalitarian and sustainable (possibly even horizontal?) systems. It would be great if you coukd share a list of such societies and their practices and history, as well as any books or resources we can refer too. Thanks always!
Favourite non-Mario Italian. made me chuckle. Thanks for this history, I will bookmark this to try and remember more. Those were very good quotes at the end. solidarity.
I'm Brazilian and, to my shame, didn't know about Domingo Passos. Read about his life and thought, turns out he disappeared mysteriously while lying low right next to my small hometown. Thanks for your work 🙏
This is was a great video, it really challenged my ideas on some stuff and I came out of it as a better Anarchist. I never understood the black only areas, seen in the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone as an example, but I think your explanation of why those kind of areas and discourses are needed makes sense. Thank you for making insightful videos that challenge my view of the world.
supper fire video bro, i Hella appreciate it fam. I've never seen any video or even weightings with such a comprehensive break down of black anarchism.
Bruh!!!! I've been talking about Domingos Passos for years! I'm so happy just for the fact that you mentioned him and Lucy Parsons. I feel we don't talk nearly enough about them.
I've been following you for a while now but never really looked into your content (I'm stupid, right?) Your video essays are breathtaking. You should write a book (or several). I'm so curious- I doubt you will see this but if anyone else knows- what is your education? Did you go to school for policial science or something? You're incredibly well-educated on topics I have never even heard of before. I want to be able to know about these obscure topics as well but don't have access/money to school. I am so glad I sat down and watched several of your videos. Thank you for educating me/everyone about this stuff. I can't wait to read some books you mention and watch more of your videos. I'm sorry I was late to the party, but I'm here now. Your essays are truly mind-bending (in a very very good way). Thank you.
This is incredible work thank you! I am applying for a phD on the intersection of state-based nationalism and anarchism - this is providing me with some valuable reading resources.
I fucking love your channel, it’s so hard finding strong black history on RU-vid. Only black history you see on the internet is slavery which is no coincidence… but thank you man keep it up love your work!
As a white anarchist, I'd like to thank you for making this video. We all need more content like this. If anarchism becomes homogenous, we will lose before anything even begins. You're doing a good job reminding us all of this.
Just finished a large research project on the Panthers and stumbled onto this, excellent video and I can’t believe I didn’t know more on this subject before! 👍👍
A curious conservative here with a few humble questions: 1. How does one achieve a demolition of systems of domination (in your words, capitalism or government) without creating a system of domination yourself (ie a revolutionary committee that decides courses of action for an organized revolution)? 2. It seems that the goal of factions like the Black Panthers is to build a black racial identity, while the goal of the Liberal Civil Rights movement was to dissolve racial narratives. If Black Anarchism reconstructs a racial power narrative for black people, what stops some future white identitarian group from following the same logic? To paraphrase Mr. King "Hatred begets hatred, but love begets love." 3. Is there such a thing as a compromise, or must the American Republic cease to exist before you can have the world you want? 4. Would it be possible to create your own state, without dissolving the one that so many others benefit from? I think it would be prudent to test what you would agree are radical changes to society. I would support carving out plots of land in the U.S. as "Ideology Testing Grounds"; carved out spots for such radicals to test their ideas, but still have a society to return to if the experiment were to fail. I would prefer that you and your friends not starve to death in the wilderness, after all. 5. From a Black Nationalist perspective, how can one say White Nationalism, or any other form of race based government is wrong (that is to say, how to prevent special pleading on your part)? For my part, I think that racial movements of any sort are the worst sort of demagoguery, meant to control the subjects through pride and vanity via the accomplishments of others based only on a common race with great people. A Japanese man is no greater than anyone else, even though he shares a race with the unifier of Japan Oda Nobunaga , for example. 6. How is the Civil Rights perspective wrong? Would it not be better for people of all races to set aside their differences and experience diverse and interesting cultures together, sans racial judgements? 7. Is it possible establish Socialism without deadly force? If so, what if I say no when I am asked to redistribute my private property? If not, does that not remove the moral high ground of Socialism over Capitalism? Exchanging what from your perspective is a system of violence for another system of revolution and continued violence seems to be a moot point. 8. In regards to justice, how would it be done in an Anarchist society? Without legal doctrine, what happens to criminals? How will one fairly and justly deal with those accused of murder, rape, and theft without resorting to the villainous lynch mobs that plagued wrongly accused black Americans in the past? 9. What is Whiteness and Blackness in your words? Are these defined by inborn racial characteristics, or by culture? If it is by the latter (which is my hope) why could we not create a unified American culture, without any acknowledgement of race? The story of black Americans fits very neatly into the American love of the underdog, and would serve as a perfect incorporative narrative. 10. In South Africa, as in Zimbabwe before it, white farmers are having their land taken from them in what seems like revenge for the transgressions of their ancestors. Is that just? I don't understand how continuing this cycle of violence helps anyone. And following on from that, is not mercy a virtue? Do you need to have your revenge? And does having your revenge make you any better than the oppressors you fight? 11. Why have equality of material when you can have equality of liberty? One is a limited thing that cannot be guaranteed, the other is a thing of spirit and life that cannot be taken away. 12. What do think of John Locke, and his broader philosophies? That is the value of empiricism, the natural viciousness of Man, the value of social contracts, and the state of War and of Peace. I am unaware of Socialists who have a deep understanding of his work, but maybe I will be corrected. I do apologize for the veritable essay I've written, but I am curious what adherents to this worldview have to say about the questions I've raised. Otherwise, your video was good and quite informative sir, and I respect the effort that must have gone into it. Good day, and may peace be with you, whomever may read this.
Thanks for asking all these questions. Below are some possible answers, understanding that they are all far too brief to be adequate. Some of these issues (such as what's going on in South Africa, and Locke) are pretty far from anything that I consider interesting. So I can't say I could possibly have given adequate answers in those cases. I hope, however, that you will watch some of the many videos I linked, and even read some of the many books I recommended. 1. To start with I'm going to link a couple videos, mostly by the channel Anark, to give you a better sense of what anarchism actually is. Firstly, zoe Baker's video about siezing state power and why anarchists reject it. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-vsRyTWBj84E.html Next, Anark's "After the Revolution": ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-sMoTWFZjoYA.html A video on the AANES, a libertarian socialist movement in Syria: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-cDnenjIdnnE.html After that, Anark's video "Power": ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-HZeQrwKhJRQ.html And finally, the most important of them, and if you watch or read nothing else I send here, you should at least check this one out, Anark's video on Modern Anarchism: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Ag9EcQsqP_8.html 2. Black anarchism is not about racial domination over white people. It is about ending all forms of domination, including racism, sexism etc. 3. All republics must cease to exist in an anarchist perspective, because the republic represents the antithesis of anarchism. With a republic, the means by which people control their own lives and destinies are alienated from them, and concentrated into a set number of "representatives" whose own interests are then said to "represent" the interests of the people. As the anarchist Errico Malatesta says, "Anarchists, including this writer, have used the word State, and still do, to mean the sum total of the political, legislative, judiciary, military and financial institutions through which the management of their own affairs, the control over their personal behaviour, the responsibility for their personal safety, are taken away from the people and entrusted to others who, by usurpation or delegation, are vested with the powers to make the laws for everything and everybody, and to oblige the people to observe them, if need be, by the use of collective force." 4. Anarchists do not want to create their own state. They want to dissolve states. So no. We cannot carve out plots of land as ideological testing grounds because the state would never allow that, since it threatens the state's monopoly of power. No one wants to starve in the wilderness. The goal of anarchism is not to leave society, it is to change it. 5. Most nationalist, or more accurately nation-statist, movements do not seek to liberate the people, but rather to create new systems whereby the people are alienated from their power. Anarchists do not want race based governments. Black nationalist anarchists do not want race based governments, or nationstates. They want to abolish governments and the state, be it race based or otherwise. That said, what defines white nationalism (a racial, rather than ethnic nationalism) is that it is predicated upon the violent domination of other (black and brown) races. The same cannot be said about black nationalism. But in case you disagree, here's a good video on the subject, in the form of one leftist critiquing another: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Q9a7nqz-CJ4.html 6. Unfortunately, people cannot set aside their differences, be they racial, gendered, ethnic, etc. because differences are integral to who we are. More importantly, the material reality of capitalism makes this impossible. Capitalism was built on the backs of enslaved people and indigenous genocide. Furthermore, the Civil Rights Movement was not a homogeneous exercise of nonviolent civil disobedience led by Dr. King. Different people had different ideas of what mattered. That the narrative that is most easily consummable and most easily coopted by capitalists has become the dominant view taught in school is not indicative of what the era of the Civil Rights Movement was really about. That it is even called the "civil rights" movement or era is an example of its recuperation by the very institutions that destroyed it. 7. No. It is not possible to establish socialism nonviolently. That is to say, the state would never allow anyone to eradicate the state without putting up a fight. Capitalism is predicated upon violence, be it wars for resources, the violent state apparatus, or the every day violence of abusive working environments. Socialism is predicated on ending this social violence. That the violent state will not peacefully let go of it's own power is not a point against socialism. 8. This is a question that whole volumes have already been devoted to. Since I'm trying to make my responses brief, I'll just say, what is a criminal? How do we define criminality? What causes antisocial behavior? How fairly and justly are people tried today? Let's not forget that those lynchmobs were built on racial hierarchy, and existed in a capitalist, not a communist or anarchist, society in the first place. Murder and rape are predicated upon power dynamics, which is why so often people say that rape is not about desire, it is about power, and one person's death at the hands of another can be defined as murder by some, as criminal negligence or simply "killing" by others. Theft, in a society without property is kind of impossible. The book The Dawn of Everything talks about how indigenous societies without a sense of private property operated in that regard. So does the book Changes in the Land. An anarchist would seek to get to the root of antisocial behavior, understand individual actions on a case by case basis, and use restorative and transformative justice to deal with these acts. Other solutions exist, but I'll just recommend the books Prisons Make Us Safer by Victoria Law and Are Prisons Obsolete by Angela Davis. 9. Whiteness and blackness are cultural constructs, though physical appearance and the perception of others based on physical traits (not talking skull morphology here; I just mean skin color, nose shape etc) play a role in our perception of who is "white" and who is "black." Saint Drew, not being an "American" is not really the best person to ask. But it might help if you read two books, Nationalism and Culture by Rudolf Rocker and Seeing Like A State by James C. Scott. To put it briefly, there can be no American national identity. It's an illusion, an amalgamation of significantly more diverse local and ethnic diversity. Black people aren't a quintessential American underdog. They are a nation, or several nations, in and of themselves, occupying indigenous land which some call the United States. To flatten the diversity of the various cultures of white, black, and other people of color into one national "culture" is to bastardize them, to flatten them, and to make them consumable. Another book that might be of use is The Nation on No Map by William C. Anderson. 10. South Africa is not an example of socialism. When property is commodified, and when the accumulation of private property goes hand in hand with political power, there will continue to be violence associated with property ownership. Currently, white landowners own 70% of land in a country wherein they represent just 8-10% of the population. I don't want to get into a protracted discussion about SA, given that they are so often tinged with white nationalism, and historical illiteracy, but suffice it to say that, yeah, I think all anarchists would agree that 10% of people should not own 70% of the land in a given country, and that it is not "revenge" to return stolen land to its rightful occupiers. 11. People do not have equal liberty under capitalism. I can't go anywhere that I want, I can't eat anything I want, I can't engage in all activities that interest me because I have to work, and I don't make a great deal of money, yet many people have low paying jobs that are necessary for the functioning of our current society. Those jobs have to exist, so saying that people can simply leave those jobs is missing the point. It's important to note, however, that communists do not advocate for material equality. You can watch this video to learn more: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-pzQZ_NDEzVo.html 12. Tons of anarchists and socialists have responded to Locke and other thinkers of his time. I don't have a ton of readings on this because this isn't really anything I'm interested in, but the book The Dawn of Everything, which was recently published touches on Locke (if I remember correctly), but moreso on Hobbes and Rousseau. You should read it.
@@otherperson Ah, Wonderful! Thank you for your consideration; I was worried my veritable essay would remain unread for time immemorial. If you wouldn't mind Mr. Jalen, a few questions of you specifically? I have no pretenses of the video's author actually responding to this humble comment. For brevity's sake, I too will try to tamp down on point length, but we seem to be a pair of verbose fellows, so that may be hard. 1. I started watching these videos, the second one by Anark specifically. In his video, he explains what an anarchist society will look like if a Revolution for his ideas were to happen. My problem with Anarchism is the one that is evident in his video: he's already constructed a Republic. At about ~8:25 in his video, he gives the exact same justification for a written Constitution that the American Founders gave: Tyrants will always seek power, be they Iron Fisted Rulers or Demagogues of the Mob, villains will find ways to empower themselves. How long before he finishes constructing an "Anarchist" state? Trust me man, I wish Anarchy could work too (I went through an Ancap phase a few years ago) but the problem is that Humans can sometimes be greedy little bastards who want more for themselves at any cost, including Human life. The construction of a state then becomes necessary to ensure that Liberty is protected. 2. Excuse me, I must not have been clear about the point of my question, so I'll rephrase. The Black Nationalist belief is that the only way to achieve liberation is through creating and reinforcing a powerful black-centric racial narrative that stands in opposition to the white racial narrative. In my experience, most white people do not have a racial narrative, and are repulsed at the idea of having one (I can attest that I am one of them). If forced to either A). Accept the Black Power narrative and hate themselves for the rest of their lives or B). Create or revive a White Power narrative to fight back, which will most people choose? I fear that for many the answer will be B, and the resurgence of the Klu Klux Klan is not another apocalypse I want added to the list in the 2020's. 3. All Republic must cease? Really? Ok, so what happens to me if I like my Republic? And what if I don't want to have to do the moral, legal, and tactical calculations to provide for my personal and communal self-defense? And why can't you just go somewhere else? I bet if you just had a frank conversation with Right Wingers, we'd be more than happy to get anarchists a bunch of land all alone so they'll stop threatening us with Revolution. The Black Hammer people almost made it happen, but I guess their contract on the land fell through. I just don't understand how your system magically falls apart when a Republic merely EXISTS in the same reality. Like, America's badass, but we're not so badass that we can telepathically destroy Anarchist Communes, ya dig? 4. Are you sure, 100%, that your theory is so correct that it will not fail? My concern is that you'll bulldoze the American system, pull a Lysenko and make a mistake or two, and then you'll be left with starving people who blame you and your friends for everything going to shit. I'd rather you not get killed by an angry, hungry mob friend. 5. I suppose that again I have made a mistake of wording, so I shall try again. How can a Black Power narrative say that a White Power narrative is wrong without special pleading? My disdain is for racial narratives of all stripes. Every culture and people has great figures and technology they can point to and claim as their own. No one has more base-value than anyone else. 6. No one can set aside their differences? I was in the Army for a while, and I'd have to disagree man. I've met Haitians, Jamaicans, Puerto Ricans, Chinese, Mexicans, Ohioans, Californians, New Yorkers, Texans, and Michiganders to name a few, all of different races, cultures, motivations, and creeds who came together to serve the same United States. I don't want to be mean, but this narrative that people can't come together is stupid and ignorant, and is exactly the sort of attitude that makes Racism possible. Again, I don't want to be mean or accusatory, but understand that I fundamentally believe that anyone can be an American, and a successful one at that. 7. Allow me to get this straight: You're going to end violence for all time by... Violently slaughtering anyone who disagrees with you? So why even bother starting? Exchanging violence for violence is pointless. You think you'll end "Capitalist Violence" once and for all, but if you get your way that won't last long. You'll end up on the same path as the Soviets, PRC, Khmer Rouge, and countless other butchers of men. It'll start with the obvious extermination of the Bourgeoise. Then you'll run into Farmers and rich peasants who don't want to give you what little they have, so you'll kill them too. Then your fellow Revolutionaries will become horrified by all the death, and you'll have to kill them before they start a counterrevolution. Then you'll have to give up on you Anarchism so you can clutch your rifle, because for SOME WEIRD REASON a bunch of angry, vengeful peasants keep trying to kill you. You'll die either a deposed ruler or as a paranoid old man, just like Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and all those sick, twisted men. I don't want this future for anyone, for you and your friends, and me and mine. 8. I can tell you right away what a criminal is: A violator of other's rights. If someone violates your rights to Life, Liberty or the Pursuit of Happiness, they are a criminal. How does an Anarchist stop these violations? How do you prove that they even happened without an investigation? And do you think that there are just shitty people out there, who don't care about partaking in your restorative/transformative justice programs? Actually, what does happen if you just have a rapist, you keep putting him in a transformative program, but he just keeps going out and raping people? Do ya just kill him at that point? 9. So Whiteness and Blackness are stereotypes? Or are they cultures limited to people of a race? And how is the American Identity an illusion? The number of Flags, guns, hamburgers, and English speaking I see every day would tend to disagree. People of every type participate and add to that culture, and I consider that a positive. And black people are a sperate nation? Sooo, do they have an embassy? Maybe a seat at the UN? What kind of trade relations do we have with them? Jokes aside, if people want to be separate that badly, why not leave? I don't want people to leave, they're welcome to stay, but if they don't feel welcome there are hundreds of nations around the World that have zero Americans in them. And yeah, when you're in America you adopt American culture. That culture is assimilationist, so you can take whatever you have from wherever you came from and show it off, and maybe others will think it's cool. And why be so adamantly against repairing old wounds? Maybe it'd be better to bury the hatchet and not hate each other? What happened in the past was shitty, but there's really nothing we can do about it in the present except say that it was bad, and try to move on. 10. I didn't say SA was Socialism, I said it was race based violence. But the question is, do you endorse what the government is doing? If yes, keep in mind the example of narratives I gave earlier: What stops a White Nationalist from saying "See, they're trying to steal our land, we should get rid of those guys before they get the chance!"? And how is the logic "The Whites own 70% of the land but are only 8-10% of the population, so get rid of them" different from "The Jews own all the banks, but are only 1% of the population, so get rid of them" ? This goes back to the root of the problem: What makes you any better than your supposed enemies? 11. You're right, and that's the point. You can't just violate someone else's rights because you want to do something. Liberty is more than just Freedom, it's the responsibilities you have to your Family, Friends, Neighbors, State, and Country, and your reward for fulfilling those responsibilities is more Liberty in the form of money and status. The wonderful thing about our system is that you can get off on the Liberty train anywhere you please, accepting as much or as little responsibility as you like. Some people cheat, and some fall through the cracks, that much is true. But the solution is not to tear down the whole system, but to call out the cheaters and help up those who have fallen. Under a Communist system you'd have the same responsibility and none of the reward, so what's the point? And once again, you don't have to participate. You can always go somewhere else, the US government isn't going to assassinate you if you wanna just fuck off to the middle of the Savanna and never be seen again (Actually, that sounds like fun. Mind if I come along?). 12. Hey, fair enough if you haven't read him. I haven't read your stuff either, so I've got a lot of work to do. But I think one of his more pertinent points is the necessity to have a shackled state. One that has the power to defend its people, but is restrained so as not to harm them. That was very long winded, and probably a bit more adversarial than the original questions, but I thank you for your patience and care Mr. Jalen. I've sprinkled in some warnings of potential tyranny; keep them in mind. If we can agree on one thing, I hope it is that we must always be ready to stand against tyrants in all their forms, no matter whose side we think they come from. Please take care, and have a good day.
@@sirbenkenobi9495 1 A constitution is not a republic. I think the video makes that clear. The difference between an anarchist society and a republic is that republic pretends to care about anti-authoritarianism, and then creates all of the mechanisms through which a dictator might arise. Note that many of the dictators of the 20th century, be they Hitler or Stalin or Mao, arose within republics, not anarchist societies. This will be a trend within my responses. You use critiques of actually existing states as though they were critiques of hypothetical anarchist societies. "Anarcho"-capitalism is an ideology that shares pretty much nothing with anarchism. Your critique does indeed point to a logical fallacy of anarcho-capitalism. Luckily, there is no mechanism wherein the greedy can horde resources in an actual anarchist society, unlike within anarcho-capitalism (and capitalism at large) wherein greed is not only incentivized, but easily weaponized. One has bank accounts, private property, businesses, political offices, etc, within which to horde wealth and power. None of these exist in an anarchist society. That being said, I'd highly recommend a full viewing of the video "A Modern Anarchism". It is a far superior introduction, and can dispell some of the misunderstandings in this comment. A republic, for example, requires representatives--a senate, a parliament, president, prime minister. The cideo you watched constructs none of this. So how is it a republic? It is a consensus based direct democracy. This is the exact mode of government which Plato (who hated Athenian democracy) argued against in his text The Republic. 2 This is kind of too big to talk about here. But in brief, white people do have a racial narrative. You are describing it in all of your questions. That of assimilation, the "American identity," the Western style republic. Whether or not it is called a "racial narrative" does not change its history as such. To rapid fire eespond to your points: A) Black power has nothing to do with how white people feel about themselves. B) the white power narrative, while invisible to you, is sociologically apparent to anyone who is aware of it. This is the norm. Whether it is the Ku Klux Klan or any other white identitarian group, white nationalism is already on the rise. You are blaming black nationalism, a philosophy of recognition of the historical and current oppression of black people, ie. material reality, for the resurgence of a racist ideology based on perpetuating historically and currently existing power dynamics. I think this is irresponsible. You should look into black nationalism and what it actually means. Because your definition is inaccurate. 3 I don't know why people always assume that anarchists will behave like states in every possible curcumstance. If you like republics, then find a bunch of other people with the same interest and create a republic. If you can convince people that they are better off alienating themselves from their own power, go ahead. Whether or not your republic will be able to interact with an anarchist society depends on what the anarchists agree to. Are you assuming that no professionals/specialists would exist in an anarchist society? We aren't talking about subsistence foragers here. We're talking about a society rooted in neated federations. If yoy don't want to involve yourself in politics, you don't have to. You can livevyour entirr life playing videogames on your couch. Something tells me that you (and most other people) would rather have a say on the things thatcdirectly affect them. For the later bits, I'd again suggest you watch the videos Power and A Modern Anarchism. Suffice it to say that, historically, the United States has gone well out of its way to destroy any anarchist, or more broadly socialist project, and the same is true for all right wingers when actually in power. You thinking otherwise isn't really pertinent to material reality. 4 Nope. I do not know. But I am certain that the current world regime is not good--is causing unprecedented climate change (i know this is (somehow) still contentious on the right. When uour sources are politicians paid by big oil companies and the big oil companies themselves, you probably ought to be wary about your sources). A system that seeks to undo these issues (with an eye on autonomy and liberation) is automatically on better ground. This autonomy, by the way, includes things like food sovereignty. You are imagining that anarchists would somehow be the "people in power" in a society without people in power, or, more accurately, in a society wherein people are not alienated from their own power. This is a society truly rooted in personal (and also communal) responsibilty. In capitalism, I can do everything right, but if, for whatever reason, massive inflation destroys my livelihood, I am left without options. 5 You were not originally talking about black power. You were talking about black nationalism, which is a separate, though occasionally connected phenomenon. More importantly, black power seeks autonomy from real, existing racial oppression, and came about in the 60s as a response to that oppression. Whote power seeks to perpetuate unequal racisl social dynamics. These are only comparable if you are wilfulliy ignoring their projects and suppositions. Bkack power is not black supremacy. One does not have to assume a "base value" (capitslistic way of thinking about something, by the way) of one given culture over another to advocate for autonomy. 6 People can "set aside their differences" for the sake of collective activity (this is, in fact, what drives communism). That does not mean that tjose differences disappear or that they are unimportant. Being a puerto rican in the US army does not affect the status of PR as an imperial territory of the US, for example. Your personal experience is not really pertinent to my argument. You are describing a subset of people, those who joined the military, and those you met who joined the military, and those in the military who you met and engaged with, and tjose who you met in the military who you engaged with and were honest with you, and are assuming that there is some wider message here. The US is not the only place around. Some people cannot join the US military, yet still encounter US racial relations. Not everyone wants to be an American, furthermore. Many people heavily disagree with the US's policies. Many people simply hold allegiances elsewhere. Say your PR fellow wanted an independent Puerto Rico? Would their personal experience have any effect whatsoever on the island as a territory? Anarchism seeks autonomy. It does not seek uniformity.
7 I did not claim to end violence for all time. That would be silly. Anarchists do not believe that there is some "end" to history or violence, not that there will ever be some true, scientifically verifiable "anarchy." That being said, what I claimed is that the state would never allow anarchism to exist. Just as the state resorted to violence when faced with civil rights orvthe 8 hour work day, or the end of slavery. The state would resort to violence over every other emancipatory project, especially one seeking independence from the state. This has born out on ever occasion in which anarchists have tried to create an anarchist society. Despite what you believe, right wingers have been no better than state socialists when it comes to suppressing these movements. So what? Should anarchists lay down and give up? You are saying that, because anarchists acknowledge that they might have to defend themselves from violence, they are just as violent as their abusers. If someone attacked you and you pushed them away, would you be stooping to their level? Is this really looking at my position with good faith? The later vits of your response is, to me, a bit irrelevant. You're describing state responses, and statist policies to deviation from state narratives. Anarchists do not want to create systems of oppression. They want to abolish oppression, be it the oppression of capitalists or bureaucrats. This is why anarchists such as Makhno were the enemies of the red army during the Russian civil war, why they sought to liberate, rather than control the peasants. You are assuming that anarchists will act like states. The fundamental contention is that anarchists and states are not the same thing, and so eould necessarily behave differently. It's useless to compare anarchists, like Durruti to state capitalists, such as Stalin. Your critique of so-called socialists dictatorships does not apply to their literal enemies. 8 When someone smokes a joint in the woods, whose rights are they violating? But if they are caught doing so by a police officer, can they not be arrested? If they are caught with a pound (let's say) of weed, even without smoking, can they not be put in prison? Whose rights are they violating? Your definition of criminality is, to me, insufficient. Why do you suppose that investigations cannot occur in an anarchist society? Do police have a monopoly on investigayions? Don't you investigate hypotheses in science classes? Again, this is really a much bigger subject than I'm willing to get into here. Suffice it to say that someone who is a threat to wider society would be dealt with in whatever way is deemed necessary, just as is the case within our current society. But you are supposing that some people are just evil and do things for no reason. I propose that human actions are influenced by their material conditions. Rape is not an immutable condition of human life. Certain indigenous groups in the Americas didnt even have a word for rape in their vocabulary prior to Spanish conquest. You are assuming that humans would arbitrarily go against rules that (in an anarchist society) they themselves created. If you only want to focus on this, I can devote more time for it. As it is, I'm not willing to jump into the nitty gritty of it when I have 11 other questions to respond to, but I've given resources on the topic nonetheless. 9 No. Whiteness and blackness are not stereotypes. They are social constructs. Theyre subject to syereotyping sure. But they are racial relationships manufactured in our society, not mere stereotypes. A hamburger and a gun is not an identity. Nor wre Americans thevsole curators of said objects. Nor do all "Americans" (as in people living in the US) wave flags, own guns, eat hamburgers etc. Just because you see something on the day to day does not make it a reality everywhere, and this is exactly what I mean. You are describing stereotypes of white middle Americans and calling that a national identity. This is the illusion. People are complex, diverse, changing. There is no such identity. And what makes this thinking so insidious is that people who deviate from such strereotypes are seen as social deviants--as "Un-American" and are thus more likely to be subjected to state violence. A nation is not defined by an embassy, because a nation is not a state. This is another way that the American nation-state is an illusion. Embassies have not been an immutable fact of history, so I don't understand your point. I'll explore this more below, but people can't just leave. That's the problem. Movement, in state regimes, are super restricted (but again, see below for more detail). The past is litwrally just the sequence of events leading to the present. Past actions have effects that continue into the modern day. "Burying the hatchet" as it were, is denying that past actions continue to contribute to the present. Given that the present is predicated upon the past, I do not see how this is possible. This country literally would not exist without the genocide of indigenous people. Yet this genocide not only represents itself in modern demographics, but in systems of government, ecology (check out the book Changes in the Land, for more), and the economy. There is a reason that reservations are impoverished, and that early colonizers sae the United States as a pand of riches and abundance. That dichotomy is meaningful. No one is talking about hatred of others. Socialists are not interested in personal grievances. They are interested in widespread social relationships--that is, class relationships. I want to remind you here that it's important not to be trapped on some words of what I'm saying. Pay attention to my entire point--what I'm getting at. It's easy to change the subject to class now that I've said it. But the important part is the discussion of nations as they exist, and what exactly nations are. Again, I'd suggest reading the book Nationalism and Culture by Rudolf Rocker. It is a trxt written by a German during the rise of the Nazis.
10 Anarchists do not endorse gocernments. Why would an anarchist endorse South Africa or its policies? Within SA, just as in every other state, the people are alidnated from any decision making power. So no. An anarchist would not endorse SA. Hence the anarchists in SA who seek to abolish the government there. The white nationalists who say that are wrong. It is not their land. It is nobody's land. Land is only commodified under capitalism. You are mixing up my words. I did not say "get rid of the white South Africans" I said, create a more logical system of land management, where in a tiny fraction of the population is not responsible for 70% of said management. The difference is that one is a statistic and one is a racist, imaginary charicature. Jews do not actually own all of the banks in the world. But more importantly, given that an anarchist would want to abolish commodity production and wages, any torm of banking would also necessarily be abolished. The difference between the far left and the far right is that the question is never about the extermination of people on the left, but rather the extermination of social conditions. 11 I'm going to go backward on this. Unfortunately, you absolutely cannot fuck off to the middle of the savanna. Which savanna are you talking about first of all? If outside of the United States, you'd need either a visa or some form of citizenship, without which you fucking off would be criminalized. You could easily end up in prison, and who knowd what those conditions ate like, depending on the place. Within the US, you'd have to own the land on which you are fucking off (in which case you'd have to pay taxes on it, and have the capital with which to purchase the land) or else fuck off onto public land, which can easily be criminalized. More importantly, is fucking off a realistic/ideal option? Everyone knows that indelendence is financially more difficult than codependce. This is why our families pay for us when we are children. What you've described is not a wonderful thing. It's a commonly stated illusion which disregards all the barriers to actually doing this. We cannot truly be independent of the state in any real sense. We can talk about responsibilities all we want. At the end of the day, schools need janitors. But those janitors are not necessarily making enough to fulfill their "responsibilities" to their families, friends, neighbors etc. The point I am making is that these jobs need to exist for our system to function, and yet people cannot survive in any comfort with those jobs alone. The problem is that our system does not place value on necessary labor, it places value on commodity production. 12. I don't think that we should accept the writing of a 17th century thinker as immutable fact. People have opinions, but looking at the historical record (and again, I'd highly recommend The Dawn of Everything, since it lays to waste any notion of the necessity of a "shackled state" or any state whatsoever) there is no evidence to say that the state is an inevitable fact of life, or that life is hardh ir difficult without one. Modern nation states exist largely because of European colonization. We have anachronistically fit this conception onto earlier societies as well, but it is, as I said anachronistic. You can also check out the video by this author here, where he discusses the myths of human history, but I'd highly recommend reading The Dawn of Everything. What's great about anarchism is that there is literally no way for tyrants to come into power, because there is no representative system within which they can come to represent a large group of people. As before, this is really a tiny sampling of a much wider set of theory. I highly recommend reading some of what I suggested, and watching the videos as well. For other questions, there's actually a 6,000 page anarchist FAQ, which I'll link here, but thanks for engaging in a respectful and intellectual way. I definintely appreciate your responses. www.anarchistfaq.org/afaq/index.html
Oh, i thought the talk would be about white and black anarchism in the 1900-1928. Not the race colors but the idea colors. But still new things for me so welcomed.
I didnt catch the name of the first "Post panther Milieu" you said there, but he he's the only black anarchist I ever read, or was even aware of until watching this, and i feel a bit shameful about that now, especially having not realized it or at least been willing to acknowledge it as a blind spot of mine. The same thing happened when I discovered Emma Goldman in my early misogynist 20's, I went "well fuck, I am ignorant of a large part of this world, heres my chance to be a bit less ignorant" thank-you for this is what im trying to say. Thought Slime Brought me here, and I cant thank the both olf you enough today, its what I needed.
i would consider myself an anarchist and somewhat knowledable about its various flavours. however i sit in shock over my own ignorance towards the contributions of our african brothers and sisters in the struggle to freedom,equality and peace. that this is not more widely discussed and/or presented in anarchist circles is worrying. i have all sort of books from the "classic anarchist thinkers" but never heard of ojore lutalo,ashanti alston,lorenzo kom'boa ervin or kuwasi balagoon..which i will now make sure to get and read among others, i thank you for opening my eyes and giving me a chance to further educate myself on the topic of black anarchism! solidarity and love from germany (A)
I'd love for you to make a video about how harmful the idea of technological progress and seeing everything only through the lense of efficiency/technique/utility can be. Because surprisingly or not leftists also fall for these things. Or a video about the need for degrowth and symbiosis with non-humans and the land. Our society objectifies everything, it turns men into producers and consumers, land into private acres to be sold, pastoral animals into milk/meat wells, forrests into wood reserves. Purely artistic and cultural endeavors, life for the shake of life, unutilized old growth forrests, animals that aren't consumable are discarded. It turns communities of organisms into monnocrop factories and it conquers living environments with urban dead stone worlds. This sort of aspect of our current system, the way efficiency, technique, utility, instrumentality and productivity gain a monopoly over how we view the world, the quantity over quality culture might be the biggest characteristic of our society but it can be very underdiscussed in anarchists spaces. Sometimes it feels like the only things anti-capitalists talk about are minority rights and democracy in the workplace (which are good of course, but you are missing a big ass piece of the puzzle if those are the only things you're talking about) and some might call you "A hippy going against the glorious proletariat revolution which will liberate technological progress from capital's grips and achieve automatic luxury space communism." or tell you that ecological destruction is good if it happens democratically/communist-ically(?) (Look up the stuff the soviets did to the environment). We need to not think of liberation as something work/production/human centered too much. A lot I've said echoes ideas from "the mirror of production" by Baudrillard and "the question concerning technology" by Heidegger. Ok, sorry for mucho texto, just felt like this is the stuff that needs to be said and is missing from online discourse. Love your channel man. You are very swag for uploading actually informative and quality stuff in the realm of RU-vid "politics".
Mucho texto indeed, but I appreciate your thoughts. They echo a lot of my sentiments. Videos on "progress", degrowth, work abolition, and more are in the pipeline ;) and thank you.
How can one have anarchy, but use any form of force or coercion to diffuse any forming hierarchy? One cannot. Anarchy, an-arkos, is liberation from rulers, not hierarchy.
Hierarchies produce rulers. Rulers are but a symptom of hierarchy.What makes anarchism so compelling is that it engages with problems at their roots ; hierarchy is at the core of most of our social problems, if not all.
@@FujinKeima and not defending "capitalism" but under the principles of anarchy, people are free to participate in voluntary commerce, which inevitably rewards performance, and forms "hierarchies" and while hierarchies CAN produce rulers, and seemingly due by sheer statistics, they are not that which DIRECTLY produces rulers, as one can choose not to rule or be ruled- even at grave consequence. Anarchy can only flow from a moral standing moment to moment, and using force or coercion to diffuse "hierarchies" is not anarchy, it is forceful equity, which is just another form of systemic violence.
@@Obelo69 I think commerce as we know it would be completely obsolete in a classless,stateless and moneyless society, but I digress. Hierarchy literally produces rulers though; hierarchy, by definition, creates and perpetuates the conditions that allows some to rule over others and limits the ability to (safely and freely) opt out from toxic power dynamics. I'm not sure why you'd claim otherwise when this is also a consistent pattern in history. Dismantling hierarchy is inherently at the core of anarchism.
@@FujinKeima It would not, as you cannot stop prostitutes from selling their ass, nor other people from valuing their intellectual capabilities. No amount of abundance, robots, classlessness, be it state enforced or natural by product of stateless ness will halt these activities. One sperm makes it to the egg fam, it's apart of life. Dismantling hierarchy requires violent force and coercion, which is communism, not anarchy. While I would agree that many of the "hierarchies" we see today would be null and void in a condition of anarchy, hierarchies in and of themselves would not be. The equality in which I assume you are intimating would progressively manifest if people were respecting natural law and embracing an anarchical set of behaviors- but cannot be brought about by "dismantling" and utilizing force- it is brought about within, and acted out day by day. If people cannot do it, we cannot have it. Systems are systems. Tyranny is tyranny. Investigate deeper, both your thoughts and the history surrounding this before you respond to this please. peace and love.
Hierarchies are definitionally rulerships. The two words are practically synonyms. Hierarchies are abolished in anarchy. Both physically and structurally. If some manages to be born anew, any suppression is self-defense. Just as it is not hierarchical or coercive to stop a person from stabbing you by any means necessary, it is not recreating a hierarchy to stop a hierarch from taking root. You can think of it like the paradox of tolerance if that helps. They only way to make sure intolerance does not arise is to be intolerant of intolerant ideologies. Likewise, the only way to make sure a society of force and coercion is not created, any people witnessing such a thing being born must take steps to stand against it and defend their free society.
I agree with Thought Slime, this video was so amazing and gave me hope. I truly think Anarchism is the only way to end capitalism and white supremacy. Thanks for this amazing work, solidarity forever.
