Why I'm an anarchist | Sophie Scott-Brown full interview | Anarchy and democracy 

Anarchy means against government. Government is institutionalized self-legalized initiation of force. That is core to its very definition. Freedom is freedom to live as you like in voluntary interaction with others only without coercion. So yes reducing and even eliminating institutionalized coercion is pro-freedom.

Anarchy offers great freedom until a few sociopaths (or psychopaths) eventually use that freedom to garner as much power as possible by pushing the limits of their freedom early on in seemingly acceptable ways. But once they have enough power, they use it in nefarious ways to squash the freedom of everyone else so they can gain even more power. And there is nothing you can do other than start a bloody revolution to stop it. Anarchy only works in a world where there are no sociopathic personalities and everyone has a strong sense of empathy.

I think Anarchy is a way to much more than freedom from authoritarianism. It's a way to finally, and not just as a religious concept, live in a society where do unto others as you want done unto yourself is truly the guiding principle.

I cannot find any listing for Scott-Brown at University of East Anglia

Anarchy means no rulers, not no rules. It does not mean without control, it means out of their control. Anarchism means decentralization to the point of individualism.

Yeah right. You try developing that intellect, books and learning without God or Government. Process away up a tree or in a bog.

The process needs to end for the truth to be. That truth is simply what we see. As soon as the word touches it, it is destroyed.

The truth can never be revealed to mortal men in this world. Our truth is simply the process of the truth being slowly internally revealed.. Anarchy, and abetter society is that process. We have stopped that process with the society we have formed now. Hints why tiktok, and weird people who have to throw god into everything scared that he might not exist. However a true believer has no fear of this friend. 😊

@@minihunt4093 We are not mortal men - we are consciousness, awareness, the unreachable. Try and lay a finger on it. You can't. That is what you are, not a 'mortal man' which is a mere happening in this eternally present awareness, just like the world. Can't wait till all the words pass.

I'm pretty sure Emma wouldn't be an anarchist if she were here today. My dissilusionment in Russia kinda leads me to believe this.

Rojava sadly isn't and has never been anarchist. What ideas it did take from Bookchin were from his later years after he disavowed anarchism. Rojava has cops and prisons and representives and political parties and majoritatian voting systems and capitalism. The Syrian anarchist movement was crushed back in the early 2010s. While Rojava is often supported by the anarchist movement, it absolutely does not fit anarchist ideals. The Zapatistas are a far better example if you want a group that actually abides by anarchist principles, even if they don't call themselves anarchist explicitly.

I'm a graduate of the Institute of Social Ecology, the homeplace of Murray Bookchin's ideas. The disorganization and lack of administrative talent resulted in not being able to maintain a simple property that the summer program was hosted on. That could have been bought for $250K back in the mid-90s. Ridiculous. If using Bookchin's theories, not based on reality, could not build the most modest of institutions, the theories are thus garbage.

That's not solid analysis. Particular people failing to succeed at a task does not necessarily discredit an infrastructural approach.

@@paulraymond139 so people can't be good capitalists thus their anti-capitalist ideologies are garbage?🤣

Chuckles, the fact that you equate maintaining a simple organization, a little sustainable cash flow to continue offering bookchin’s ideas - on municipal libertarianism and lots of fun Solar and permaculture - and maintain a site, a small piece of land, a building with decent student interest, and you equate that with capitalism…? This is the kind of nonsense that makes anarchists so preposterously foolish. Here’s a tip…if you’re going to condemn market based economies with a fair amount of government intervention….and then condemn hierarchies of competence and skill (which is basically by and large what we have now)…you’re going to have to offer some competent model. A competent economic model that efficiently organizes 370M American’s needs. Anarchism absolutely doesn’t do it, as romantic and charming and the Spanish revolution appeared to be.

🤔 Are you sure that it isn't having politicians being beholden only to the richest of society? jk

Nice idea, but communism is more feasible

Maybe you should stop having your head in you're own a$$

no

This is silly democracy goes against anarchism principles

Plaidoyer

@@squeakeththewheel pluto is the 9 planet ...

@@vansirgriss it was a new word to me so I looked it up. quite a nice one, thank you. and pluto is a character in mickey mouse cartoons.

@@squeakeththewheel 💖

she lost the plot so hard and no reality backs her empty words.

Revolting against fixed ideas is itself a fixed idea. It begs the question. Which fixed idea is the BEST fixed idea.

@@lightofthelogos You possibly meant 'raises the question', as opposed to the fallacy of question begging, which is a common mistake. If value is ultimately subjective, in the eyes of the valuer, then there can't be one single best idea for all times - not even for a single individual, who may happen upon a new idea, or reappraise an old one...

permanent revolt is a fixed idea!

It is in the name itself. It is the continuing revolt against hierarchy!

Not really. The root of anarchism is about challenging hierarchies. The philosophy grows as we gain a deeper understanding of hierarchies.

It's funny that I didn't even have to look this up to know that it's the same corporation every communist and anarchist brings up in every conversation about anarchy or communism because it's the only one that's ever worked. You probably heard about it from Richard Wolff because he brings it up literally every time he opens his mouth.

Elaborate, sounds interesting

I would recommend looking at @unlearningeconomics9021 video on worker democracy, its long, but its high quality

Thanks for the example because for must of us, anarchists, what we want is the economy and politics done with more democracy. Basically “let’s turn everything we can into a coop”. Mondragón is not as they used to be. They have tiers of workers, but they are amazing compared to traditional capitalist companies

@@dsolis7532 everything is contaminated by capitalism, be it state run such as China, feudal such as Russia, or "neo" liberal as in the Anglo Saxon model. For Mondragon to have survived such onslaught is incredible and is no bad thing as it has shown adaptation and progression rather than stagnation. I'm intrigued by the ideas of Murray Bookchin, he would support progress in the liberal anarchist tradition.

Yea the mindset a lot of people take towards leadership and anyone they see as powerful is still a big problem. You don't deserve more just because you have power. We all have power anyway.

Who doesn’t agree with that?

bro u are called anarchowolf n just explained democratic representative democracy or feudal christian lordship. And we have multiple times in history proving that anarchy is an impossible construct in reality because of the incentive structure and lack of rules to prevent centralisation.

Of course leaders have privileges they would have to make a decision even if it's just one and then they leave that's a privilege. If a leader just gives recommendations then they aren't really a leader they could just be a random dude that has an opinion

Answer: if they can f**k you up, then they legit. Thats it.

Read Marxist critiques of anarchism

​@@JG-es5dj What are they in short ?

who gave Chomsky the authority to say such things ex cathedra?

@@JanB56 well in that context who gave anyone the authority to say anything? Perhaps earlier in the quote, "it is my opinion" or, "I believe that smart responsible people should..." I dont think I quoted in any sort of authoritative manner, certainly Not ex cethedra! Its amazing what can be lost or gained in the translation of one human mind to another....in my opinion, lol.

The second book I used for my PhD.

ok hope you will receive an agent's commission 💲💲💲

What was the name of the excellent book that Colin Ward did on public transportation, very much in the vein of Ivan Illich?

I agree. I feel like political theorists generally tend to be too abstract. For instance, her phrase "increasing democratic practices" to me is so abstract as to be near meaningless. Instead, I wish she would say something like, "Rather than outside shareholders, the employees of publicly traded corporations should elect the board of directors." Which to me is more understandable, more real, more achievable, and easier to rally around and act on than just saying people should, "increase democratic practices" or even "workers should control the means of production." Even though they all mean the same thing. Then again, she says she doesn't want to dictate to people how to be free. Which maybe means we can all interpret how to "increase democratic practices" anyway we want. Which seems not unlike saying, "All I have are platitudes. Figure out the details out on your own. If you think more capitalism and authoritarianism means more democracy that's fine." But if that's the case, why is she even granting an interview?

@@JoJofghjYeah. Being charitable, I can see not dictating how people should be free to mean that the specific details of how people organized shouldn't be pre-dictated and the same everywhere, but can still follow some guiding principles - which I think is fair -, but I can just as easily see it as being "to each their own just let me do my thing" - which is hardly actionable in any very meaningful way when it comes to the societal scale. As an aside, you mentioned "workers should control the means of production", and I think that's a phrase which was a bit of a victim of its own success. Like, when that first became a motto it was very practical, very contextualized and surrounded by both theory and practice. Nowadays it's a lot of the time used just as a motto with little update. Which I think is a bit unfortunate because to me the core of the message is still fresh

@@JoJofghj "I feel like political theorists generally tend to be too abstract." True, but are we at a stage in human development where our abstract minds have risen so far above the concrete world that the two can never meet? Have "all" our political systems become far too abstract? As an engineer, it reminds of the divide between the theoretical physicist and the engineer. One dreams...the other has to make it work.

@@anthonybrett I don't think our political or economic systems have become too abstract. However, many academics and theoreticians might be a bit too removed from anything outside of academia to be able to help us put much theory into practice. I think your comparison to physicists and engineers is a good one.

@@JoJofghj Workers controlling the means of production is not abstract in the slightest. It means what it says.

I think you mean "The Dispossessed" Just read "The Word For World is Forest", some similar themes set in the same universe, so might be one you would like too.

@@radroatchThank you for the notice, just `repaired` it, well english is not my first language. Yeah, I know the story, you mentioned, too. She´s a nearly forgotten genius. In "The Dispossessed" she shows very well and understandable, how and where the problems in a deregulated society come from. Well, the story has a kind of happy ending, not sure, if that fits reality.

@@Thomas-gk42 No worries, an easy mistake for native speaker too. We could do with more writers like Ursula K. Le Guin. Her Earthsea and The Left Hand of Darkness are still pretty well known.

@@radroatch yeah right, nice to meet someone who appreciates her. Wish you the best

Sorry, but sci fi is always about us. Foreign planets or distant times isn't but an expressive tool.

Government is organized crime

At least it wasn't Sophia the robot.

We hold to these virtues, yes? So why would we endanger a minority?

@@MartinPeel you cannot count on the totality of society to hold the same values

@@truedarklander The totality, perhaps not. Enough to cooperatively run society better? Definitely.

What she talks about here is a time limited leadership, that's bound to special tasks, a community has to fulfill. That's a much more romantic idea, as we think about the term today. Most native Americans bands worked that way.

I think that the big problem with leadership now is that we abdicate our own responsibilities and decision making. We delegate and forget about it and expect things to be taken care of, and then we complain and protest when it isn't. Trotsky was right of course: The revolution must be permanent. We can never take anything for granted, but must be vigilant and must watch everything very carefully all the time. Then the feedback to the coordinators aka leaders is instant, and they having a flexible mindset unlike our Dear Leaders of today, will take the right decision, having received the information they needed from the grass roots, directly from the people who have a problem. Modern IT makes that very easy, but it starts with our mindset, how information flows and is acted upon.

Leadership accountability has always been in question. I thought Anarchism was to make that point explicitly? Power corrupts people who seek corrupted power.

many things in this whole video are plain wrong and psychotic

For many, the very attraction of anarchism is that it tends to diminish the inequality of power and wealth warn of above.

If it's Anarcho-Communism, wealth would be shared pretty equally, so there wouldn't be people with significantly more money able to influence things. People could still be convinced by people making bad faith arguments sometimes, but I do think it would overall be much better.

Yeah that is a valid concern. It would be nice if we could just switch to that ideal world, but it’s going to take a lot of change to actually make the transition. I personally don’t believe that I’ll ever live to see the end result of our striving, but with enough effort to change, someone someday will eventually get to see what we’ve achieved

Because you are framing Democracy from the current capitalist perspective. Number one direct democracy is not direct vote. In an anarchyst society EVERYONE, works in government. What does that mean? One example, every 6 months your local council must have new members, and every citizen must participate in the local council at least once every 2 years, otherwise you can't vote. That would mean that you have first hand knowledge of the issues of your society, so it's muuuch harder that someone would spin tales that the vast majority would found credible. But that's not freedom. Anarchy has not got anything to do with freedom, is against oppression. No one forces you to do anything (and all your need are met) but if you won't participate in the bettering of society, you can't participate in the decision process.

she also does not mention that this is worked on and being called digital direct democracy. DAOs and real scientists do a lot of work on it. She got no clue what she is talking about far as I see

Then read about the last 20 political years in Argentina and how it worked for argentinians...

Anarchists are just cowardly control freaks. Whatever, dystopian system they really have in mind waits off stage for its cue.

Well said!

seems like you kinda poisoned the well a lot with the words "responsible" and "tyranny". I mean, nobody of any political stripe would disagree with your statement!

@@ChannelMath But what they might say is that his perfect world cannot exist without some external force protecting it from the tyrants of the world. How does the anarchist society which spends presumably little to nothing on defense defend itself from an aggressive dictatorship that is spending 5% or more of GDP on a standing military?

@@jlpowell51 Folks that should think those things trough really don't. Their tunnel vision prevents it. They want the police defunded until their house is invaded by another anarchist of a less-ethical disposition.

When you say demonstrated, what are you thinking of?

Agreed. I’ve thought about this before where people argue we need the state because the state protects us from crime and violence, but two things are clear to me for why this is somewhat incorrect. Higher crackdowns on crime don’t prevent it or lessen it, and all crime is punishable only after it’s been committed. The state doesn’t prevent crime it dishes out punishment. Two is that we act like we need the government to stop us from murdering eachother but I think that’s very suspect, for one thing other people are likely to condemn murder and theft no matter what as a matter of principle and community another thing is who actually just had the desire to kill people, I don’t think the average person does and in our personal relationships I don’t think without a government we would just suddenly kill and rob eachother, and I say this because the idea we need government to enforce peaceful cooperation is ludicrous because what it should imply is the need for a police state to constantly force us to act appropriately, but we don’t need or want that and our laws against murder reflect a commonly held almost universal value.

Well said, I agree.

bruh u trippin ahahahahahahaha

Well it has grown organically in Switzerland. Do you think it works well there?

I can't wait to see the progressive reaction on direct democracy when the people get to vote on immigration.

@@aristocraticrebel, immigration was the other irrational reason that led to Brexaster. The first one was not liking Europe. These are deeply seated in human nature, and unless there's a crisis and another Churchill comes along, nothing is going to change. Oh yes, direct democracy will happen, but only when we humans are more evolved. BTW I was very interested in Anarchism when I was very young, half a century ago. Now I think direct democracy is a better term, now that communication is instant.

The interview doesn't make this too clear, but it's important to note that anarchism *is not* direct democracy. Direct democracy is a tool, while anarchism is a social system (and/or the social movement towards it). So anarchism entails other things, such as an opposition to capitalism (and private ownership of the means of production and wage labor, as particular examples) and the state (as understood by anarchist, not necessarily as understood by some marxists). This all has implications on what, how, when and by whom methods of direct democracy are to be applied. This is not to say that anarchism leads to a singular mode of organization - the actual shape of an anarchist society would depend on the society itself, it's conditions, etc -, but it does come with some limits, mainly in the sense that people and their societies are allowed to defend their freedoms and refuse domination, so that things which are incompatible with freedom or bring domination do not need to be accepted. Anarchism is not "utopian" in this sense. It also does not need everyone to play nice out of the kindness of their hearts, but that's another topic. Of course there are many strands of Anarchism, and I'm talking in a general sense. There are exceptions, but they're not the main views and do not represent most of the history or of the current work of anarchists.

@@user-sl6gn1ss8p, yes, of course the goal is Utopia, Heaven on Earth. All ideologies proclaim that. I was concerned about the stigma of the words anarchy/anarchism. Long term I'm very optimistic for humanity, in the near term not at all. We are in the beginning of the sci-fi age, and in a century or two our world will be completely different. I find this subject of our future so fascinating! Yes there will be setbacks, but we humans aren't nearly done yet!

Twitter doesn’t seem like the best baseline to compare to though since it’s an absolutely toxic hellhole.

That's because the medium strongly determines what kind of messages can be sent. Twitter is unfit for communication between peers, so why is it surprising that communication between anarchists fails?

It couldn't. Anarchism, like libertarianism, is a stupid idea that doesn't work in reality.

Could this be changed to the "core purpose of minorities is to ensure fundamental minority rights"? Perhaps the problem is that government protects those rights through a monopoly on violence?

There are many many forms of anarchism, it's such a broad field of political thought. Within it you can find systems that ensure that minorities are heard and respected. Anarchist praxis can employ various mechanisms to prevent tyranny of the majority. I'm skeptical of "systems" though, and much more sympathetic to Sophie Scott-Brown's view of anarchism as a process. To me, anarchism is more about creating a durable culture than designing a "perfect" system. As with any culture, its worldview would be paramount for the wellbeing of its members and the society itself. As an side, "rights" are not universal. But respect is. I think Simone Weil was onto something when she talked about obligations.

@@ximono Give me an example of one way an anarchic system would protect minorities.

@@peskypesky As you command, my lord. I think I indirectly did? One with a strong culture where respect for others is a core value, an essential part of who you are as a people. Especially respect for minorities, as they are intrinsically more vulnerable. This would require a strong cultural identity and ensuring the continuation of the core values, where deviating from those would be taboo. Further, the decision-making process would have to be wise enough to include the views of minorities. I like the Quaker method that's neither majority vote (majority happy, minority miserable) nor consensus based (everybody miserable), but seeking a "sense of the meeting" (everybody happy). It does sound like consensus, but it's not. It's about seeking unity about the wisest course of action, with every voice being equally respected. It often leads to creative solutions rather than watered-down compromises. They're not stupid, these Quakers. This is all just in principle, I can't say how it would come about, as I don't believe in designing a utopian system. But I do believe it's a better approach than enforcing rights by force, which only leads to resentment, polarization and more conflict, without ever solving the underlying problem. Someone will always be miserable and hateful in such a society. You can't force people to respect one another, it has to come from within. In the real world, there's the democratic confederalism of Rojava, largely inspired by Bookchin and based on human rights. Whether it's actually anarchism is debatable, Bookchin is considered a post-anarchist. I think it's still within the broad scope of anarchism, and a good example of how some concessions have to be made in order for it to work, at least in a transitional phase. But this is the designed from above system approach that I'm skeptical of. I believe in growing organically from below. You can't force these things.

Could be like Gilligan's Island, or Lord of the Flies, depending on the personalities involved. But once you get a charismatic personality that promises meat and is able to deliver it, they're going to be chosen to be a leader by the tribe, and the anarchy is gone.

@@theboombody - yes, sadly that's the reality - .. and the reason for that quote by BFranklin about '... having a republic.. if you can keep it..' - it requires a populace educated about- and willing to uphold ethical- moral conduct - same is required for a functioning anarchist society; the people need to understand liberty, some basic philosophy, basic economic principles of human action, and why- and how other political systems inevitably, in the long run, lead to civil-society-destroying ideas taking hold and power -

@@PeterQuentercrimsonbamboo A shedload of people out there had no interest in anything outside of themselves. Capitalism is maybe the culprit, however, it goes way back longer than an -ism. People are fine earning enough to pay for housing, their family and a speedboat. Good luck getting Aussie tradies to become anarchists.

@@theboombody choosing a leader isn't the end of anarchy, obeying a ruler is. A leader is followed out of respect, a ruler is followed out of fear of violence.

@@MrHarumakiSensei Well there needs to be a better verbal distinction between the two types of society you mention. Because the term "anarchy" to me implies non-obedience to a leader or a ruler. If anarchy only means non-obedience to a ruler, what the heck would be non-obedience to a chosen leader?

She very briefly mentions federalism - that's one of the proposed ways. The general idea is that people form groups which come together in nested and interlinked structures. What exactly these groups are, how the nest and how they link up can vary from society to society, depending on it's needs, previous conditions, the conditions under which revolutionary activity happens, etc. An example would be federations of producers and federations of communities coming together at different levels. As much as possible, things are decided on the most direct possible level, so that the higher levels are left for coordination. The participation on these different levels would be, where necessary, made through delegates, which would be chosen for a specific task and to defend a specific position and would be recallable. Transparency and efficient communication are key. This is of course a simplified overview, but this sort of method could, for example, flow nicely from a revolutionary process based on heavy syndicalist activity. As pointers, you can look up for example Rojava and Chiapas. They're not strictly anarchist, but are generally taken as important case studies for anarchism, and are influenced by it. There are of course more direct but more short lived anarchist experiences, such as Revolutionary Catalonia. For societies which have lived under social organizations which have aspects in common with anarchism, there's a book called "Anarchy works", by Peter Gelderloos. It can be found free online at "theanarchistlibrary". It's not meant to be a proposal to simply copy any of these societies, but it does help bring some things to a more concrete level. A very brief historical introductory text for anarchism is Malatesta's "An Anarchist Programme". His earlier "Anarchy" is a bit longer and also good as a primer. Both can be found online at "theanarchistlibrary". One thing to keep in mind when looking into anarchism is that most anarchists do *not* have an utopian view of society, humanity or anarchy itself. In some senses anarchism is actually fairly pragmatic when you get down to it - even it's strong position for a permanent unity of means and ends is not idealist. But anyway, I'll stop here, this wall of text has gotten long enough : p

IMO, anarchism doesn't scale. And one could argue that human societies _shouldn't_ scale, as it only leads to its own downfall, ref. the Anthropocene. So if anarchism is to work on a larger scale, I think it has to remain small-scale, distributed, horizontal. How _that_ might work is an interesting question. (BTW, it's anarchism, not anarchy.)

It starts with us, our way of thinking. Then we can create the society we want based on that.

@@user-sl6gn1ss8p Anarchism is like Buddhism. The former isn't politics and the latter isn't a religion, but both get put into those categories. IOW we all need to discover the essence of our convictions.

@@ximono, I think it's not about scale, but about the fundamental ways we think. When that's changed we can cooperate freely on all levels.

Said from someone who thinks logically and not just romantically. Thank you.

@@theboombody Personally the majority of humanity seems to be going insane. I see more and more people acting with emotional irrational tribal like thinking, increasing intolerance, increasing racism, increasing nationalism, increasing extreme religious belief, a denouncing of objective facts while embracing clearly false narratives which serve this tribal thinking group or another tribal thinking group, and a literal growing desire for having an all out war with anyone not aligned enough with one's tribe. This is feudalistic thinking and we historically know the result is very long and bloody wars, except now we have chemical, nuclear, and biological weapons.

Well said. I find anarchism to be extremely naive just like modern day libertarianism

@@lechuck312 I consider myself a libertarian, though not in terms of associating to any party and I believe we have to apply rational logical thinking when seeking to maximize the liberty of individuals to do whatever the hell they want, because we are an advanced very social race and thus we must not only compromise with each other on what freedoms we have but help each other better achieve freedoms we could never achieve on our own. The huge elephant in the room with anarchist is they usually want things that if achieved would immediately catapult the society that achieved it into a brutal and probably quite bloody feudalistic struggle for power which would send us centuries backwards in social progress. Things like laws and law enforcement are a requirement to prevent society from turning into a collection of war lords ruling as dictators over their territories they seek to expand. Things like doing away with money is just stupid, because the most primitive form of money is literally direct trading of goods and services... which was incredibly inefficient and why people started using some common currency. Now, how our laws work, how our law enforcement works, how our money works, etc.; all that can use improvement. But, you can't just do away with it without going backwards in civilization by a whole lot.

Anarchists weren’t actually against government and laws, the confusion comes from the term state which meant something different to 19th century Hegelians. Anarchism really was just socialist democracy with a futurist/individualist philosophy guiding it. Anarchism was finished off by stalin and franco.

I love Beau. He seems to have an insider's understanding of events while remaining grounded and sincere.

The baby teeth analogy doesn’t work. Government is a parasitic phenomenon. The analogy is more like a baby trying to grow with leeches on it. It can take one or two, too many kill it. But the baby is never better off developmentally with leeches on it.

Yep. A huge army of bureaucrats all thinking up ways to get more jobs for themselves.

Gee if you take an honest look at humanity then you can see the futility in weaning people off of the desire for big daddy. Religon has been hawking big daddy in the sky since it's inception. We're all raised with the image of big daddy in our parents. I see no proof that it will ever change in any meaningful way.

@@hostrow The Desire for for big daddy to me is akin to a puppet longing for his stings, or a bird yet to leave the nest. The larger system will change our nappies until we grow up and take care of our own sht. I understand the idea that a higher authority may know better than the average Joe, but Joe stays average until he starts paying attention and that has nothing to do with the larger system but everything to do with Joe. The system is a crutch we will toss aside not a viable replacement for fallible Joe.

Foolish hope. Read something, even You Tube replies, outside 'sane, safety.' Not god, or ideas keep humanity from literally, eating itself. Government, fear of, its big messaging, saves us. Contestable, depressing, yet true thought. People are just, very bright animals. Without a leash, experiment and history have shown, we are horrific, cretinous, even suicidal.

I don’t think this is true maybe you should learn more. Competition is by definition not co operation. Many anarchists believe in individual freedom and Liberty as the highest value the burden of society is shared by all because anarchism would be a free society of free association. That’s not utopian necessarily it just means people do what they which is live and work in society it would just be a society that has as little restriction of freedom and Liberty as is possible, so within reason you understand.

I ain't gonna lie, this write-up sucks and lacks introspection. There are anarchist groups, villages, and even some cities that don't operate the way you are defining. You are ascribing ideas to a group of people who do not take on those ideas for themselves. This is like an exonym in a way. I think you would benefit from reading some of the literature regarding anarchism or having a discussion with some anarchists. The internet is widely available and has many hours of content if you take the time to actually learn. If you don't, then this write-up just serves as word vomit to perpetuating ideas that are more akin to propaganda.

Yes that’s how we all sit

Yes, it's the first lesson in the anarchist handbook

Huh, weird. I'm apolitical, but anarchy was always the idea that attracted me the most, just because decisions need to be made by the people, throughout time. The only lasting thing within time context is either constant change or perhaps something to do with black holes. Since we cant form our politics around black wholes, like we currently do, we should cling on to change. Anyway. What's weird? I've sat like so all my life (no, not ALL my life 🙂) too! It's very comfortable. But I only lean against one side. I know I have skuleosis today, maybe I did even as a child. Anyway, I'e always sat like that becuse I have a flat ass and this is the best combination between comfortability and stability. I guess anarchists like adapting to change, sort of like I adapted to my ass. 😁

@@adityaramesh1764 *cookbook

Can't have power without taking it from others

Yeah. People have to figure out some way to live sustainably and effectively without hierarchical paradigms, or hierarchies that are greatly reduced somehow in their influence and authority, while still retaining their basic utility and purpose And still make it work and get shite done pragmatically enough. They are incredibly destructive. Or like you say, just hand over dictatorial power to a philosopher king and hope for the best.

The absolute irony of this comment. YOU are the one who is not an anarchist? Rothbard?! What a total joke. Take your right-wing nonsense and get lost.

@@totlyepic you going to make an argument for any of what you’re asserting? I’d love to hear more about how rothbard is not anarchist…

Isn't being forced to be free basically being kicked out of everything?

That's because the guys fighting to take over in Somalia want to be rulers, not leaders.

@@MrHarumakiSensei humans are humans the world over - Human nature, our evolved instincts and behavior, are not different.

@@thenathanimal2909 "Human Nature" is not a thing that actually exists. All it is is the traits we pick up from the culture and societies we grow up in, but even then everyone is different and can change over time. Yes, there are things that can be "natural" to us as individuals like skin color or some disabilities. Anthropologists - the people that actually study humanity - are the ones who say this.

@ozzie_theotter I'm not talking about something as shallow and skin deep as skin color. Humans are driven by their biology to behave in certain ways - to greater or lesser degrees. Just as biology drives all animals to continue their own existence and procreate - So do humans posses certain genetic behaviors to seek out and compete for mates and resources to survive. We are not tabula rasa, robots without programming. We have primal evolutionary drives, that is human nature - And part of that nature when indulged to extremes is to murder, steal, and destroy. Human nature is real, and denying it exists in attempts to engineer societys has lead to some of the greatest atteocities in mankind's history.

@@ozzie_theotter Yeah, that's no doubt true. And it seems like this chick has picked up on art of being an intellectual grifter, in this culture we are immersed in. Like I would ever look up to someone like this for fifteen seconds if I were going to form some new society. But it's true though, I would say people are totally malleable, and are vastly more defined by nurture rather than nature. We haven't had a chance to live in a different, better society, without being under constant duress to stick with the status quo. Maybe humanity would take to it.

That's very sad.

@@Dennis-xj8nh why?

@@TheGinglymus I can't answer for @Dennis-xj8nh, but it sounds like you have unhealthy relationships.

@@gabe20244 I just prefer doing my own thing like lots of people do. I also don't like discussing boring minutiae. For instance, I used to have a partner who wanted to book every detail of a holiday together - discuss all the travel options, accommodation options, what clothes, what food. To me that is just annoying. I like to just relax and go with the flow, not discuss and debate with other people constantly about everything in life.

It in fact is not.

Especially in prison. 🤪

Until you’re thrown in prison for acting on your perceived freedom.

She did quote Rousseau saying essentially the same thing 250 years ago. Anarchism can work as small pockets within a nation state, though, and in aspects of our everyday lives. It already does, as she points out. It also works on the fringes of nation states many places in the world, as it tends to emerge in a power vacuum, at least where people aren't already heavily armed.

What's to deal with? There are more property owners under property assignment norms that include contracts for sale, then under ownership by declaration, so we should continue to support the norms that create more private property owners. We certainly wouldn't want to outlaw being able to rent to others.

this is what drove me away from political science as a interest

The elites are those who order around the average Joe and as long as he isn't even slightly interested or curious about the possibility of a different arrangement, you're right. But as a start he could form actually democratic bottom up organizations to take care of functions which we normally would expect government or private interests to take care of, but you have to be independent minded enough to even think about that. I would say that most people are used to being slaves to bosses and "leaders" so as a first step we need to at least discuss it, as a preparation for acting on the ideas, so that's why I disagree

I'm three minutes in. So far, it seems like she really wants a full democracy, which works fine in small groups ~20 people.

I'm not sure what you mean by Elites. So the business class isn't an elite? If you look at Elon Musk and how he abuses and Lords it over his subjects that's all okay if that's the way you want to look at it. But he is definitely an elite to me. Why do you look at academics as Elites? They don't have any power over you they can't order you around and you can just ignore their opinion if you want. But that's not the case with these other people I just described. I think you've fallen for this anti-intellectualism the Practical man isn't allowed to think outside the box he supposed to be a drone and not have any imagination or curiosity about a different way a different possible setup otherwise he's not practical he lives in the stratosphere according to you well you're entitled to your opinion. I think this website here probably is based on that you're not going to actually do anything you're just going to discuss this issue that's what all they want you to do but not actually act on it because this site is financed by business class. So they don't really believe you're actually going to do anything otherwise they wouldn't allow this discussion that goes against their interests which is what you are reinforcing because you're "practical" and "realistic".

I can think of several folks that are anarchists that live under repressive regimes; for example I have a buddy living in Myanmar protesting against the military junta. While I'll agree that "peaceful" isn't viable, this idea that all anarchists live under representative republics is both demonstrably false, and also does a disservice to anarchists fighting against oppressive regimes

L

Well said.

Lol wut?

It seems like that was about anarcho capitalists. They are a whole different bag of worms

​@@liam6250 The difference ?

They all justify it. Think of all the emergencies and crises that keep happening.

Liberalism and anarchism are opposing ideas

Fundamentally, "liberal anarchist" cannot exist, as anarchism came out of a critique of liberalism (capitalism). They run counter to each other. Liberal implies the continuation of capitalism, which would entail the continuation of unjust hierarchies via that mode. Anarchism would deconstruct capitalism and the hierarchies that it naturally forms, while replacing it with a more horizontal structure. Being an anarchist inherently means not being liberal by definition. To say you are a "Liberal Anarchist" would make as much sense as saying you are a "Progressive Conservative". The ideas are fundamentally opposed to each other. Anarchism also doesn't imply violence upon physical structures like parliament. You are carrying this misunderstanding that anarchism is the destruction of physical establishments because you disagree with the governing body. This is a lighter version of a "mad max" style of anarchism often portrayed in much of the media, but is actually not what anarchism is necessarily about. Anarchism is about the dissolution of unjust hierarchies when possible. Anarchism is not about senseless violence and destruction just because you disagree.

I mean the idea of anarchy and"national" are mutually exclusive concepts. In any form of anarchist society there are no nations, and certainly no mass societies of hundreds of millions. If you believe in democracy the larger the society the less choice any single person has. I disavow democratic decision making because i find 2 wolves and sheep deciding on dinner to antithetical to human freedom and flourishing. But many who call themselves anarchists are still stuck on this idea. For which i blame growing up in modern societies which view voting as sacrosanct

“We are an anarcho-Syndicalist commune! “

Wouldn't be the first, there are many anarchist societies around the world. It's trying to scale it up that's problematic.

@@ximono scaling up isn't a problem

History doesn't say that

@@j.j.dragon9482 Feel free to tell me how anarchism can scale up :) I mean to the size equivalent of a large state.

@@ximono what is a large state? The US? About 8 million people managed their affairs during The Spanish Civil War by anarchist principles. That's more people than my country in eastern Europe and at least two fairly large urban centers (Barcelona and Valencia). I think that's enough of a size sample to suggest that scale isn't a problem.

That's not anarchy. Not even close. First of all the Army has a standing SOP and protocals. If they had disbanded and left the battlefield then maybe that would be "anarchy". Letting a group that has been already organized around principles and missions to do as they need to do is not anarchy. Anarchy doesn't exist and cannot exist as a human social interaction.

@@billyscenic5610 I think that is not the definition of Anarchy the author gives in the interview. She specifically says anarchy is not what is typically portrayed in pop culture.

@@AdamCiernicki That's the thing. Anarchy cannot live outside of pop culture.

It means without rulers, not without leaders. You can do what a leader says because you respect their competence. You do what a ruler says because you will be punished if you don't.

Anarchy means "no rulers", not "no cooperation with other people.

Someone's already told us what's better and repeated it like a mantra. Anarchism is about discovering what is better without that one voice.

@@BeornnMcCarthy And forgetting about all the intricate externalities that are connected to it, and often do more damage than the innovation itself

And intelligent as well?

@@ximono Not really.

This wasn't a debate so I don't see your point. This is a 20 minute video and they had limited time.

​@@j.j.dragon9482right, you can't do a lot in twenty minutes. But anyway, there was a mixing of terms that wasn't helpful for giving an understanding of what she's talking about.

@@Thomas-gk42 Focus on what you can understand, and build from there.