Stay tuned for Part Two: Organising Anarchy 🙌🏽

@RD-oj4jw

2 ай бұрын

Really excited! Keep up with what you are doing! You are making really important videos.

@Propagandhizer_07

2 ай бұрын

Hell yeah! This was one of my favorite videos of yours. Can’t wait

@knowledge3754

2 ай бұрын

I can't wait!

@qkranarchist3015

Ай бұрын

Sending you so much care, Andrew. This is a wonderful installment to the body of work you present to the community. As a Quaker anarchist and a multigen one, I have no knowledge of philosophical, academic or written anarchism. I just am and know when it aligns or doesn't align. These breakdowns are so interesting.

@8lec_R

Ай бұрын

Looking forward to it

Remember kids, the only Hobbes you should respect is a cartoon tiger.

@Andrewism

2 ай бұрын

Real

@emilyrln

2 ай бұрын

Truer words were never spoken!

@Summalogicae

2 ай бұрын

I don’t know, Hobbe’s critiques of Descartes are pretty good.

@dodec8449

2 ай бұрын

Name one contempary (relevant) politician that is defending their actions with Hobbes. You guys are creating a strawman.

@trhll5635

2 ай бұрын

​@@dodec8449This isn't a "strawman", after all, talking about how the only Hobbes we should respect is the cartoon tiger, wasn't actually an argument about politicians, so if anything, YOU were misrepresenting a point being made about how the only Hobbes we should respect is the cartoon tiger, and so YOU were strawmanning by making the point that was made, into something that it isn't.

States rights? what about States wrongs?

@hailghidorah2536

2 ай бұрын

States' rights? What about States' lefts?

@B2M2948

Ай бұрын

What about State-"ments?"​@@hailghidorah2536huh

@watermelonprom7197

Ай бұрын

You may take our Rights... But can you take our Lefts?

@bingusenjoyer197

Ай бұрын

we support trans rights and trans wrongs here

@nordic_frost9752

26 күн бұрын

​@bingusenjoyer197 no such thing as trans wrongs

A system cannot fail those it was never meant to protect. -F. Douglas

People have been told that leadership is the answer for so long it's nearly impossible to convince them otherwise. But I've seen firsthand, how the powerful use leaders as a handle for control. If a movement has no leaders, you see rich people pleading with them to pick a leader. The big-man leader isn't the power. He's the leash. This is why solutions will never come from leadership.

@jtcornpone

2 ай бұрын

I fear that if an anarchist alternative started taking off, it would be labeled a terrible danger and the drones and f35s would zero in

@ernststravoblofeld

2 ай бұрын

@jtcornpone Pretty much. That's probably why many groups don't want the name "Anarchist".

@lubu2960

2 ай бұрын

There are no solutions without leadership. Your ideas have never been really relevant.

@ernststravoblofeld

2 ай бұрын

@@lubu2960 There are no solutions with leadership.

@ricos1497

2 ай бұрын

​@@lubu2960I suspect most people seem evidence that tells them otherwise almost every single day. What I would say is that our existing system does require leaders. As a symbol, mainly. I'm not literally led by the UK prime minister, for example. You could replace him with a stick tomorrow and tell me that the stick was our greatest leader, and I'd see no difference in my life.

If we keep doing what we've done, we'll never see what we COULD do.

@CafeLu

Ай бұрын

Love this !

"The major problem-one of the major problems, for there are several-one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them. To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job." -Douglas Adams

@TheLastOutlaw289

13 күн бұрын

Plato already said this...don't give power to those who desire it.

@yeboxxxchannel2505

8 күн бұрын

​@@TheLastOutlaw289Then you could try Demarchy, electing a random individual. If you think there is a bias in that, there is but can be easily removed. For example: we have 360° internal angles in a circle. A dice has 6 sides, therefore each side represents 60°. Using 2 dices, you have 6 sides on each, making it 12, which can determine 360° : 12 = 30° angle per combo of sides from each dice. And this can go oon and oon. It doesn't need to count on sides, whether forward, behind, to right, to left or mixed. But it could work with distances. Imagine doing this somewhere in the crowd and the randomity determines the individual to have, power, OR, alternatively, be an Inspector for people to see how the elected by luck person uses their Power as a leader. Corruption is hard to remove but chances of it will be smaller than the regular Demarchy.

“Power not only corrupts, it addicts.”-Ursula K le Guin

@enntheelementale7461

2 ай бұрын

Unpopular take on power: it doesn’t corrupt as much as it reveals what was already under the surface. Folks who were already going to fold at the first opportunity to exploit others will do just that.

@otherperson

Ай бұрын

@@enntheelementale7461 this doesn't explain why those who come from solidly revolutionary backgrounds seeking to solve problems caused by the system end up upholding the system and becoming counterrevolutionary after they've gained power. Such is the case with many marxist labor parties in Europe, including the UK's labor party.

@enntheelementale7461

Ай бұрын

@@otherperson worth noting those revolutionaries got power with a very big asterisk attached to it. They were going to fold on arrival. During the Cold War, the USSR granted munitions and other forms of support to communist revolutions across the global south and Central America on the condition that they all install a ruling class (like what the USSR had) to manage the new dictatorships that worked as proxy war pawns against US imperialism. The working class people of a lot of those countries were often left worse off after the revolution and why? Because the ruling class of the global superpowers were seizing all the resources and power they could through proxy wars fought in those already disadvantaged countries. It’s literally what happens when rich people get state apparatuses and try to do socialism… their way.

@KarlSnarks

Ай бұрын

@@enntheelementale7461 While it definitely reveals the already corrupted, it also corrupts well-meaning and wise people. Part of it is the information funnel described in Seeing Like a State, a ruler can only see the schematic, simplified version of the top-down perspective, and cannot operate from the nuance and complexities of the localized view. Another issue is the tool of authority shape the way you approach problems, if you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Another one is that even someone in a place of authority, has to abide by the system that legitimizes that authority. Fail to keep the support of the powerful classes or military, or fail to reinforce the foundational narrative giving the state legitimacy, and you're couped (which breeds paranoia). I'm sure there are more ways power corrupts even good people to some extent, but these are a few I could think of in the moment.

@jamescovan8853

Ай бұрын

"Power not only corrupts, it draws the corruptible."- Frank Herbert

I find it funny how a species known for its quick adaptability submits itself to a system that adapts to environmental challenges at a snail’s pace. War and domination seem to be the only things that can wake the state from its sleep.

@hcxpl1

2 ай бұрын

Or maybe war and domination ARE the State in its true (and only) form and it is us, the populate, that is kept asleep

1:50 we see that the world is structured in hammers and nails and they defame us for recognizing and rejecting the nature of that relationship. Honestly the best analogy i’ve found and fits very well with Seeing Like a State and the sections in hierarchy of An Anarchist FAQ, very straightforward and covers many bases of why hierarchical systems are fundamentally flawed

I see Andrewism video, and i click

@tentiapoe

2 ай бұрын

Same, although I think I'm getting too susceptible to content like this, hard to stay skeptical

@deathlytree434

2 ай бұрын

My hands draw me to the video my mind keeps me here and puts it on repeat

@Music34897

2 ай бұрын

Simple as

@aprilk141

2 ай бұрын

I clicked so fast!

@gking407

2 ай бұрын

🏃🏻with the quickness🏃🏽‍➡️

This was one of your best videos yet. Phenomenal analysis and a wonderful overview of the topics at hand. Especially enjoyed your analysis of Malm

Andrew is determined to articulate all the shit I was reading and saying at age 18 better than I can say it now at 26

@jimmyjohnson1870

Ай бұрын

He's 18?!? Are you kidding me; I'm 17. I feel so inadequate.

@Kindlywaterbear

Ай бұрын

@@jimmyjohnson1870I think they were saying that they started reading and saying it at 18 but now even 8 years later they can’t articulate it as well as Andrew

@jimmyjohnson1870

Ай бұрын

@@Kindlywaterbear oh yeah, I misread it, lol

@Kindlywaterbear

Ай бұрын

@@jimmyjohnson1870 yeah I can get how it could be easy to misread. English is funky sometimes

@lordbalthosadinferni4384

Ай бұрын

@Rednines some unsolicited advice that I only recently internalized myself: Write things down. When you have a thought, write it down. Think about it from multiple perspectives and angles- write that down too. Then do research, and review your thoughts and thinking, and refine them. Expression and thinking are both articulation of thought. Writing *is* formalized thought, and having those thoughts formalized outside of your brain frees up thinking power that can be used to further think, thought, and write. Which is not to assume that you don't do any of this already- I only hope to be helpful.

That Proudhon quote was intense, long, insightful, verbose, and you presented a nice visual in this essay. Hearing the words following "at the slightest resistance" made me remember especially when younger wondering why the world and so many suffer despite all the "progress."

It took me til 38:55 but i finally understand why anarchism has made sense on a fundamental level to me and its what you said about the revolution not appearing as a singular moment of comeuppance. We are too complex for anything to be solved in one single sweep. Anarchism at its base level is the active ongoing process by which we recognize and appreciate the complexity of other humans/ourselves. Thats beautiful. Thank you for the video 💜

@albiewitz2686

Ай бұрын

Anarchism is completely nonsensical and illogical as an approach to revolution

I’ve watched some of your videos before, but for whatever reason things didn’t click until now that I am definitively, 100%, through and through, an anarchist. I’ve been thinking a lot about how the inability for people to just talk to each other and hear each other’s experiences, as well as seeing and honoring their humanity, is such a huge source of the world’s problems. But hierarchy and in-group/out-group thinking are so foundational in those problems. And so many leftists want to have this big revolution to overpower and overthrow the capitalist class. Do we not see the endless cycle of reactionary violence from the formerly oppressed group? Do we not recognize that tools of domination can’t create liberation? Change has to be cultural and ideological first. Anyone who thinks otherwise can look at U.S. politics; rights, freedoms, and protections are being rolled back, because we tried to impose them from the top down, and the reactionary right are using the same avenues and levels of power and hierarchy used to secure those rights to take them away. People need to believe that a better world is possible, and that hierarchy and state power won’t get us there. Only us, the people, working together and looking out for each other, will get us there.

@otherperson

Ай бұрын

I would say that a lot of anarchists actually disagree with the contention that change has to be cultural and ideological first. Most would say that change begins materially, through the creation of labor unions and tenant unions and other bodies of reaistance, and these material bodies, wherein ordinary people are able to build their class consciousness and practice self determination is the driver of cultural and ideological change. This is the basic anarchist theory of practice. We are shaped by our material actions, and transformative ideas develop out of practice. That is why prefiguration is important. After all, anarchism was not developed as the independent ideas of great individuals (nor was Marxism btw). It was developed as a consequence of existing working class struggle, developing these ideas and skillsets out of necessity.

@vaporeonice3146

Ай бұрын

@@otherperson thanks for the clarification! I think I broadly agree with this lens as well; in a lot of ways I was conceptualizing “cultural shift” as a consequence of a persistent pattern of focusing on and bettering the material needs of people. My big clash with certain socialist thought is the idea that an effective mechanism of change is the establishment of a socialist state via the overthrow of the capitalist class, that we can somehow reprogram people into collaboration and communism through a state-run process. So it would be more accurate to say that I believe cultural change is essential to actual social change, and that I think it can only happen in a long-term way through that grassroots organizing and meeting people’s material needs (bottom-up), rather than top-down. I’m not SUPER concerned with fitting under any particular ideological label (I think such labels have a tendency to encourage in-group/out-group thinking), but it is nice that anarchist thought seems to share the same values, priorities, and beliefs about how change happens that I do. I look forward to learning more!

@MrCrunch808

Ай бұрын

As long as there exists an organized group that wants control other and extract value, anarchism can't be done. I believe anarchism/communism will be the main struggle that occurs once socialism is achieved over the majority of the globe. We can already see the issue of bureaucracy becoming a problem for China and was the reason the USSR collapsed. What will likely need to occur, in my opinion, is a quick switch up from socialism to communism through a slow leveling out of power over time. But this is something that will be seen when it occurs.

@markigirl2757

Ай бұрын

Everyone here made so many valid points I can’t even think of anything clever to add to the conversation but I will say that society has been built I. The does pain if part of life and we subconsciously take it too far as a whole tbh

@albiewitz2686

Ай бұрын

Go read and study how we may actually revolt and the answer CANNOT be anarchism. Period. Point blank.

You do a good job making these videos nice to stare at honestly.

@Andrewism

2 ай бұрын

I try

I'm still working towards understanding what the alternative to state control would look like. I'm not quite sure I'm an anarchist, but I'm certainly glad to have the help of yourself and persons like yours to help me to realize that other options need to be more deeply studied if humanity is to ever survive to socially evolve in a meaningful way. All Power to all the people.

@Sky-Of-Amethyst

Ай бұрын

An alternative is pretty simple theoretically. Fundamentally a state is trying to solve problems between people. So all we need to ask is "How can we better solve problems between people?" Census democracy is compelling, where people can get together in however big of groups the situation requires and talk out the problem till a genuine consensus is found. And this is infinitely scalable. From tiny two person decisions to bigger regional discussions of broad land use.

@cottagehardcoreultrasw3998

Ай бұрын

anarchy and democracy are opposed in many way as consensus and veto power are also a tool of hierarchy. this is more complex than you think. i can tell you that consensus based politics works very good with small groups with similar interests but at some point it doesnt work anymore, you get into deadlock discussions or people make a fixed "consensus" (aka laws) and the consensus democracy defeated itself.

@Sky-Of-Amethyst

Ай бұрын

@@cottagehardcoreultrasw3998 Then the question becomes "How do we avoid deadlock" and there are a lot of possible answers to this that we can try out. There's also a necessary change in mindset that will allow this to function better too. People need to be educated and willingly to act on beliefs such as; Understanding that they can't always get what they want. That other people are living lives differently from them. That sometimes you're wrong, that that's okay, and that it's also okay to change your mind to something better. To not identify so much with an idea that you feel personally attacked when someone tries to change it or deny it. Etc. In theory, it's still very simple. And I understand in practice it's a lot more time consuming and there's a lot more to consider, but that only serves to muddy the water. And besides nothing is set in stone. We can observe problems and fix them as they arise. Such is living at all, nothing is perfect, and everything is changing.

@JohnSmith-mc2zz

Ай бұрын

You're still working your way towards an alternative because you haven't been presented with one and I suspect you might have to either move on or die waiting.

@jimbology7617

Ай бұрын

@@cottagehardcoreultrasw3998 Not really. the difference between consensus and laws is that there is a legitimate choice to not partake in whatever decision is reached. The one scientist that doesn't want to agree with what the rest of the scientific community has come to consensus on, for whatever reason, is either free to go publish bad papers and make an ass of themselves, or accept it and go with the group until they have better evidence otherwise. Likewise in a normal community, there's no compulsion as there is under law. You don't "codify" the consensus, there are no anarcho-police.

The title rests of course on the premise that States were ever meant to benefit the people at large. As well all know, they were not

I think we're gonna fail to address the climate crisis, but I hope the survivor's will live better, happier, and simpler lives.

@Kakashi75

2 ай бұрын

That's a defeatist attitude

@noahark1822

Ай бұрын

This is defeatist, but I get where you're coming from, and honestly it's a good thing to sometimes indulge the inner pessimist. But it's important to keep fighting and remember that there is ALWAYS a chance to make the world a better place than it was before you did anything. Even if there was zero chance to completely stop climate change (which isn't true) we'd all still want to do everything we can because every little bit helps to reduce the severity of the destruction. Instead of thinking "we cannot solve this problem, so what's the point" try instead to think "I can't solve this problem, but I will talk with others and together we will do everything possible to solve it"

@markigirl2757

Ай бұрын

Yep but definitely think all we can do is lessen the effects but it’s true we are too late since we allowed the state and those with money and status to decide things for us for far too long

@Kakashi75

Ай бұрын

@markigirl2757 that's a defeatist attitude about 9 years and some dedication is all it would take to reverse climate change.

@subcitizen2012

Ай бұрын

Personally I think we will socially regress whilst we simultaneously progress in statecraft and technology. Life will become very cheap when rivers permanently dry, swathes of regions become desert, the loft productive lands are eaten up by sea level rise, and less food production is guaranteed. Less water and food and less reason to get along and less tolerance towards migrants as migrants increase. The people of the future will live morally simpler lives. Killing others to stay on top and keep what you have will become more necessary than today in our relative abundance from a gentler earth. The world and civilization won't end, but at some point we are going to shift into a new era characterized by the material changes. I think it'll be in full swing in another 200-300 years. I'm doing a fictional writing project on it. If life has taught me anything, it's that humanity will let you down and will always fail, and the way that things get better are seldom, unexpected, and few and far between. There is very little room in reality for optimism. We are bald apes with a propensity towards violence, and it's going to take a very long time before we evolve whatever is beyond that, which doesn't necessarily denote any sort of progress. It's practically a miracle we have enough sense to live in what we regard as civilization at all, mich less contemplate it. All the plans of life and men...

The fundamental division of society into rulers and ruled like ours and then to be told we’re free is laughable. It reminds me of a line from one of my favourite socialist artists: “If you’re so good at fucking learning, When you learn about your past, Find we ain’t quite escaped the immortality of the ruling class” Immortality is sung sarcastically.

Even under a liberal democracy those in power can vote to keep those marginalized underneath them, divided and into seperate groups for group punishment. Race is a social construct the truth is it has always been about class struggle. Those in power want to keep that power by any means necessary.

@ThatOneDreadHead

Ай бұрын

Racism still exists outside of class struggle. My slave ancestors, we're beaten by poor white people after all. Those poor white people viewed my ancestors as dumb and incapable of individual thought. Which is why the rich white ones enslaved them and the poor white ones beat them.

@JohnSmith-mc2zz

Ай бұрын

In liberal democries historically we're usually not able to vote on the majority of issues. In the US we vote on our representatives except for the President who is chosen by an electoral college and appoints Supreme Court Justices basically unopposed. Everything is constructed, not just race. The idea you just mentioned that people are voting to oppress others is also a construct. Whether something is a construct or not doesn't determine its truthfulness or validity.

@54032Zepol

Ай бұрын

@@JohnSmith-mc2zz thanks for agreeing

@Very_Okay

7 күн бұрын

imagine commenting this, and a month later commenting some bullshit about Hamas lmao.

This video did a great job of helping me better understand the real meaning of a "State". And how, if we don't have a clear understanding of what it is, and how it works, we'll never be able to reckon with it correctly.

@albiewitz2686

Ай бұрын

Read Lenin

Also I love to replace “Free Association” with “Voluntary Community” because it sounds more loving and intentional to me. The idea of anarchy as a constant practice in voluntary community is awesome to me. I think a lot about precolonial Igboland, and the collective culture of “free association” that existed in many of our African communities before we were grouped into more homogenous identities, often either by force or under duress.

Violence is implicit in every edict of our society. A lack of compliance to anything in law creates a chain which ends in compliance, or violence. If you are arrested for riding your bike the wrong way in the bike lane, and you choose not to go to jail over it, you resist arrest, you are physically attacked. If you defend yourself, you are killed. You were killed over riding your bike the "wrong" way in a bike lane

@robynliteracy7057

Ай бұрын

Hierarchies.

First off I love the criticisms you've made and whole heartedly agree. My issue is with the ending and your alternate proposal. I believe you also ignore a very important reality. We have come to this state because it is natural to do so. When two men struggled the mightier won, when families, fought the mightier won. Likewise when they gre large enough that the became intermarried groups as clans or villages they fought and struggled because others did the same. So on until the resources were gathered to create those city walls etc. Also, you ignore that this is nature. When the wolf meets the bear in the forest it flees for the bear is mightier unless the wolf shows up with a couple dozen others. Etc. if we take this mentality up to how humans in pre history interacted. You think neanderthals just chose to go extinct? No, we killed them off because the alternative choice was allowing them to kill us off. Your belief in this anti hierarchical model of social construction died in our prehistory and that's where it belongs, because the future will always know the power inherent in the State. And therefore always will have those willing to collectivize and bequeath to the state their freedoms in exchange for a taste of power. The anarchist inherently will lack the collective might and will die off. All you have to do to realize this is look around at the current 'state' of things. Pun intended

@BeornnMcCarthy

5 күн бұрын

Nature isn't right, true, or good, just because it has long been around. The natural fallacy was prevalent in feudalism as well, when what mattered was not states but the tyranny of an aristocrat. Nature is nonetheless also full of acts of mutual aid and collective resistance. We've been trained by a narrow form of Social Darwinism (fully expressed in the Fascism of might is right) to believe otherwise, but different readings of Darwin and nature are more than possible. This is what makes the anarchist Kropotikin's Mutual Aid an important text.

I am a Sociology PhD student and "Seeing Like A State" was assigned in an Environment and Development course I am taking. I loved it (despite him not being an anarchist) and I am so happy to see it featured here!!

This is one of my favorite channels on the platform. Your videos give me hope and determination.

This was one of my favourites of yours, thanks. I came to anarchism through questioning our existing systems, it was refreshing to know that I wasn't going mad and that many better and more intelligent people before me had reached similar conclusions about the way we are governed. Thank you for your excellent breakdown of it.

All authoritarianism has egalitarian emancipation as the main enemy. We will win, we know our enemies better than ever before! 🏴🏴🏴

I’m making a video essay on the game “papers please”, about the inherent authoritarianism of bureaucracy, for a college project about morality in video games. You said a lot of great rhetoric in this piece better than I’d ever be able to repeat. I want to know your feelings on the potential use of some of your audio in that project. I’d make sure to provide credit in the video and a link back to this video in the description if it ever makes it out of the my unlisted school projects graveyard.

@Andrewism

2 ай бұрын

With credit, sure, sounds like a great project

@celiacresswell6909

Ай бұрын

Sounds like an excellent project: like the honourable system in rdr2 or conversely the murder system in ghost recon where you can kill people as long as they aren’t civilians!

@Teethmafia

16 күн бұрын

@@Andrewism Due to feedback from my college ethics board I probably am not allowed to use your audio directly but I will be citing this video a lot. It’s probably going to suffer a little bit from school project syndrome anyways so it will probably be worth remaking later on.

Many people in these comments are hung up on some kind of perfection. If anarchism can't instantly account for every single scenario one could think of, then it's without value. But we all know that the perfect is the enemy of the good, and that the systems we currently deal with are neither perfect nor good.

@novinceinhosic3531

Ай бұрын

The same line of reasoning can be used against anarchists' pretences.

@FujinKeima

Ай бұрын

It's pretty crazy that those people expect perfect solutions for anarchism for problems that not only have never been solved, but also are actively exacerbated by our current systems

@emisformaker

Ай бұрын

@@FujinKeima Precisely! This is what I'm saying. They also demand proof that a system will work when the current system didn't have to provide that proof to become established AND is demonstrably bad for a numeric majority of people. It's bizarre!

@AA-ve9gp

Ай бұрын

This is very much a mischaracterization of people's concerns and does nothing to further your ideological cause. It just makes you sound silly. Anarchism seems to break down at the most basic road blocks. I have yet to see an anarchist give a concrete answer to even the simplest hypotheticals. How to deal with bad actors? How to deal with the differing levels of skill and ability? How to deal with differing levels of competence? How to effectively scale-up to millions of people? How to manage non-renewable resources OR critical infrastructure (nuclear reactors?)? Very simple question: It's an anarchist utopia but a group of people want to intentionally cause a nuclear meltdown in your nuclear reactor. How do you effectively prevent this without hierarchy? Or Cletus the town idiot wants to operate the nuclear reactor, how do you effectively prevent this without hierarchy? 5 scientists say their is an issue and want to shut down the reactor, 95 lay people don't understand the issue and want to keep the reactor running, how do you effectively answer this without hierarchy? 5 scientists say the reactor is fine, 2 scientists say the reactor is going to implode in 30 seconds. What do you do? Okay, now here's the last one - HOW DO YOU STOP THE ABOVE SCENARIOS FROM RECURRING WITHOUT HIERARCHY? You solved the situation once, it happens again, are you going to just solve it from scratch every time? That sounds silly. If only there was a way to codify solutions to problems... and if only there was a way to enforce those solutions on people too dumb to understand the problem in the first place. Hmmmmm....

@FujinKeima

Ай бұрын

@@AA-ve9gp Its not really a mischaracterization if you immediately ask your questions,valid as they are, in bad faith. Anarchists and other libertarians never figured how to handle that kind of conflict? No mention of consensus-based decision making? No mention of what to do if consensus fails? Of how if a random guy wants to nuke everyone (for fun or something) in a stateless society, people can just get together and stop them? That libertarian societies actually exist right now and are solving problems? Im not usually that type, but youre on Anarchist KZread and lots of anarchist literature is free online. Anarchists talk about conflict resolution in depth all the time. Also, you claim hierarchy fixes that fictional problem you brought up, but...If, instead of a "city idiot", it was a President or monarch wanting to randomly nuke places and people, how would a hierarchical system fix this? Just saying.

The problem really begins where we start to serve the state instead of the state serving us.

@something1600

Ай бұрын

Truth is that the State never really served the people

@suruxstrawde8322

Ай бұрын

It should ideally be a symbiosis, the minute the state has more power in any way it goes downhill.

@hedgehog3180

Ай бұрын

States are not abstract entities somehow divorced from the world itself. They are just as much actors in the world as everyone else and like every single actor in this world their primary purpose is to maintain their own power.

I see no failure in the history of statehood, because for our rulers our wellbeing was never a goal

This is geniunely the only time i've actually been described what anarchism is.. all the other time it was in jokes.. And it sounds legit to me😅

@sarveshmunde9846

Ай бұрын

Thats how thry get ya.. Just conditioning a society into believing that an idea they've never heard about is laughable and not worth considering.. Thats how they get ya..

@Kindlywaterbear

Ай бұрын

@@sarveshmunde9846I think it’s also more about how we learn to conflate government with society. Like most people only know that anarchy = no government, so no laws. And then they will think “What, so we can just go around killing and robbing people like survival of the fittest?” because we are taught that laws keep order and often don’t question that most people already agree that these things are wrong. Most people wouldn’t go around killing and robbing regardless of laws (which anarchy doesn’t just mean no laws, you can still have laws), but it is just assumed that the kind of governments we have now are the only way to have laws and that laws are responsible for this order of things and not that this was already agreed on by society at large.

@mayhemamigos4766

Ай бұрын

An anarchist society would still have laws. The difference is that these laws are decided through direct democratic general assemblies, and enforced collectively.

Thanks for introducing us to the Anark channel. I was doing my stuff with a lot of short anarchy explanation video in my head. Boom, a new Andrewism video. Gonna watch it ( It's 2 am in here actually )

self interest produces incoherence; selfishness produces corruption

"Anarchism is a product of despair, the psychology of the unsettled individual, or of the vagabond and NOT the proletariat." Lenin , Anarchism and socialism

Great work! You've got me thinking some 3 things I'd like to ask you/the community: 1. How to address generationally ingrained hierarchical values that run counter to the idea of free association/voluntary community? 2. Wouldn't the issues of generationally ingrained values lead to resistance? 3. Would generations of state coerced re-education (in addition to many other simultanious programs) be necessary for addressing reactionary tendencies? (I''m heavily generalizing ofc - this is a huge topic. We're up against thousands of years of programming, and these values differ from culture to culture)

@ourmobilehomemakeover662

2 ай бұрын

Ok, it sounds a bit like you assume that people will resist anarchism and therefore may need to be coerced? How about we just start doing it? You could implement sociocracy in your local gardening club or whatever. As people gain personal experience they are more likely to become allies. Most people want their interactions with others to be egalitarian, fair, and trustworthy. They just don’t believe it’s possible because they’ve never seen it.

@FunkyLittlePoptart

Ай бұрын

It didn't escape my notice that every single thinker with the long fancy sentences he quoted was a dude. Methinks they're anarchists in the streets and patriarchs at home. Who's doing the dishes while they're busy writing these over-complicated books? There's no free association when someone has to stay home and do the chores.

@jimmyjohnson1870

Ай бұрын

​@@ourmobilehomemakeover662Still, it's fair to assume people would resist for any number of rational or irrational reasons. They might simply think their ideas are better, or perhaps their quality of life may have worsened after the redistribution of capital.

@ourmobilehomemakeover662

Ай бұрын

@@jimmyjohnson1870 ok maybe. But it goes against the principle of egalitarianism and cooperation to make coercion the first solution to hypothetical resistance. Instead of trying to figure out how to make people do things they don’t want to do, maybe focus on finding and appreciating those who already want to help out. Social pressure is incredibly powerful.

@jimmyjohnson1870

Ай бұрын

@@ourmobilehomemakeover662 True!

The thing about centralized power that Infind most intolerable is the corruptibility of it. Its like collecting all of one's most precious things in a single pile. One thief ruins everything. When all the power is concentrated it draws and enables corruption. Democracy becomes theatre and chatity becomes performance as the citizensare left to their own devices in a society so structured that those devices are few and far between.

@Kindlywaterbear

Ай бұрын

This is exactly my problem too. With centralized power you basically just have to hope that the person who gets into power is good and will use it well. If one bad egg is enough to absolutely wreak havoc once they get into power, that power shouldn’t be able to just be taken by one person.

It frustrates me that most leftists do not understand this and are so hyperfocused on electoralism.

to discuss this is so necesary, even urgent nowadays, thanks for taking the time

this video pushed me over the edge. for years I've been trying to grapple with whether or not I truly believe in anarchy, but now I'm properly radicalized lol. thanks, great vid

This gave me food for thought as always. One thing about states is they are expensive in relation to anarchist societies. The example I kept thinking of is how the USA spends billions to sail fleets to the Strait of Hormuz to fire expensive guided missiles to stop the Houthi, and all they have are cheap rockets that cause nothing but grief for commercial ships in the area. Over time this strategy can't be maintained by states. States fail because they can't match the energy per time costs that amorphous, small guerrilla anarchist groups put out with constant irritation tactics.

"What is politics" is a great anarchist anthropologist channel that changed my entire worldview on how power "naturally" occurs, especially as hunter/gatherers diversified creating more power imbalanced systems of living.

@otherperson

Ай бұрын

I actually think he's a libertarian socialist but not an anarchist.

@anubis2814

Ай бұрын

@@otherperson According to himself in one of his videos, he's an anarchist. What is the difference?

@otherperson

Ай бұрын

@@anubis2814 got it. In a comment I remember him saying he was not, but he pb changed his mind since that's a long time ago. There are some libertarian socialists who come from the marxist tradition rather than the anarchist tradition. They sometimes tend to be anti-state but arent always against all forms of hierarchical power structures.

Dude I'm on chapter 2 of Seeing Like a State rn!! Crazy timing Andrew, always a blessing

@Andrewism

2 ай бұрын

It's a fantastic read! Hope this video helps you digest it.

@neodlehoko404

Ай бұрын

I’m at around chapter 2 as well haha. I considered waiting to finish reading before watching this video, but alas here I am. No ragrets 😉

A tour de force! Thank you, Andrew. Especially salient is the observation that states are incapable of arresting the biodiversity emergency. The best hope for humankind is ordinary people taking control of their lives and sharing power locally.

The more I study the Food-Energy-Water nexus, and Systems Thinking, the more I realize that people will need a story that goes beyond our wonky anarchist terms like free association. They don't care what the theory is, they care about what story you can tell about their life, their quality of life, and how it will be affected. It's the same with degrowth. I'm talking about urban planners, policy analysts, workers, actually explaining the systems and relationships in a case study. BUT the top two or three news networks all have terrifying Media Bias / Fact Check pages so I think we're SOL in general for a while here

@Andrewism

2 ай бұрын

I don't think free association is that "wonky." I think I do a good job explaining and contextualising it in the next video, but yeah a story is needed, also work in progress.

Anarchists must organise!

Andrew is such a treasure for us anarchists. This episode is wonderful. And know that everyone who walks, rolls, or drives on sidewalks and roads exist under anarchism: we agree to do what we need to do within safety parameters without any use of police or structure. We just do what our community needs us to do to all use the roads & sidewalks effectively.

The accompanying transcript is so helpful. I read along while listening, and the content of this video sticks more. It’s nice to be able to pause and reread to make sure I understand!Thank you Andrew for the time and effort you put into your content🙏🏽

We need people like you to speak to the world. You see with both eyes

Absolutely fabulous video! I usually have a hard time with keeping my full attention for this amount of time, but I was completely hooked all the way. Great explanations and example. I’ll share it with all my friends!🙌💜

Another timely and communicative video Andrew, always love that you go above and beyond with these topics. 🙏🏾🙏🏾

I guess, for me, the big problem is that there's very few surviving anarchist places, because most of them got stomped out of existence. Hierarchies can muster so much power.

I love how you use artwork in all of your videos. As an anarchist and an artist, its refreshing to see someone respect art and implement it in such a way as you do. Keep going, i love your work.

It's just so hard to organise because so many people have hierarchy so internalised. Whenever there is a group organising it usually ends up with a white guy leading and all poc, disabled and most women getting silenced, I really feel like most men (and a lot of women) cannot be trusted to not act upon their patriarchal conditioning same goes for race. This is the main issue I've observed, how could we solve this?

@krunkle5136

2 ай бұрын

Because WASPs and most Europeans at least have a history of cultivating leadership and complex organizations on a mass scale, so it's on some level ingrained however deteriorated. The Asians took and learned all they could of what's been forged in Europe, mixed it with their own developed philosophies of organizing society, and prospered as well. Why attack a people when you can learn from them and become awesome yourself?

@markigirl2757

Ай бұрын

I mean this happened bc unfortunately those that won all the wars colonized and stole everything were white men from Europe-specifically white men who have a ton of capital and instigated the wars those many years back. I bet it’s their offsprings and other associates that enabled them in the past that keep it going.

@hedgehog3180

Ай бұрын

I don't think there's a single solution but I'd advise looking to unions, they're probably the single most successful example of voluntary horizontal organisation, and have always been a favourite of Anarchists. There are probably many lessons you can learn from them and adapt to other projects.

"They beat me but they love me" is what an abused victim would say.

Okay but … the issue you’re not seeing Andrew is that everything Anarchy represents eventually circles back to other forms of government. You can’t provide self determination, it’s a philosophy one must discover themselves. How do you empower a citizen without a state to distinguish its members? In reality, anarchy is its own state and is situational rather than collectively driven. It’s a temporary state which always changes into something more structured. As states become successful, it becomes clear that Anarchy cannot provide the same protection & resources as say capitalism. Technology as we now it today depends upon the polity we take for granted.

@Grundrisse

Ай бұрын

>"everything Anarchy represents eventually circles back to other forms of government" Nonsense. What do you think is anarchy? The only way one could have this line of thinking is, say, by being a RW conservative/liberal and entangling themself in propaganda and strawmans. >"A philosophy one must discover themselves" Awesome, there's this concept in anarchism called "self-realization." The anarchist insurrection is the manifestation of individual self-realization. >"How do you empower a citizen" Anarchists don't, and have no reason to do so. >"anarchy is its own state" On the surface, this sounds like total nonsense to even democrats...but there was a period in Bakunin's era, stretching into the 1870s, during which "statism" - and by deduction "anti-statism," were not yet recognized ideas to anarchists, simply because they weren't terms in common use. Prior to that period, Proudhon proposed a sort of non-governmental "state," which would simply consist of persistent institutions with no governmentalist authority. (For an elaboration, see Shawn Wilbur's piece _Pierre-Joseph Proudhon: Self-Government and the Citizen-State.)_ Anti-statism really only became a concept from Bakunin onward; but even with Bakunin, the state was never even close to being the only target/focus of anarchist analysis and critique. So the idea of creating a non-governmental "citizen-state" was on the bucket list for Proudhon, then vocabularies shifted, and anarchism and anarchists took a primarily anti-statist stance with Bakunin. Though it's worth noting that Proudhon's proposal of a "citizen-state" is not a pathetic concession to democratic statism. While his use of "state" is something quite different from what latter anarchists like Bakunin meant by the state, it is not a synonym for any hierarchical state, including democratic state.

@jesseadams828

Ай бұрын

@@Grundrisse I think the point was missed. When communities that don’t have hierarchy structures come into contact with communities that DO have a hierarchy, it’s just common sense that overtime the “lawful state” outcompetes the state of anarchy. We talk about anarchy without discussing the origins through which anarchy comes about- for this very reason Andrew dives into the ancient civilizations that populated the earth. Communities that had formed into “states” were far more successful than their neighbors. This is what I mean by a temporary state: anarchy will naturally become that which it seeks to rid itself of. It is a transitory state of government in which communities strip themselves of hierarchical authority in favor of new ones that favor them. If you would disagree with this, you give too much credit to mankind and likely assume that majority of people think the way you do. Conflict is inherent in our nature which is why lawlessness breeds law. It is a natural response to our own evil and twisted practices.

@jesseadams828

Ай бұрын

@@Grundrisse the only way I can envision a successful state of anarchy would be in a world where human society managed to overcome its basic animal instincts and its resource constraints. In a perfect world, people don’t want to fight eachother but live in harmony. But this anarchic utopia is not something I would talk highly of. Id rather strive towards a world that is actually attainable.

@Grundrisse

Ай бұрын

@@jesseadams828 No point is missed, what I said stands still: The only way one could have this line of thinking is, say, by being a RW conservative/liberal and entangling themself in propaganda and strawmans. You're appealing to common sense and the capitalist logic of competition. That said, I'll admit one thing: The state outcompetes anarchy when it comes to fomenting and enacting mass violence & senseless cruelty (genocides, imperialism, eco-cides, etc.). The latter doesn't do any of that, so it's a "W" for the state. >"It is a transitory state of government in which communities strip themselves of hierarchical authority in favor of new ones that favor them" You're describing direct democracy, which has nothing to do with anarchy. >"If you would disagree with this, you give too much credit to mankind and likely assume that majority of people think the way you do. Conflict is inherent in our nature which is why lawlessness breeds law" I don't give any credit to a fabricated homogeneous "humanity," nor do I care to make an appeal to the democratic fallacy (also called argumentum ad populum): An approach responding to the simple and crude arithmetical presumption that the majority is right and the minority is wrong. The majority could think settler colonialism is justified by whatever nonsense they make up, and they'd be wrong. Then you go on to present the cliche notions of "our nature," "le human nature," "we are what we are." This is just the cherry on top. It is tautological, circular - it doesn't further the analysis one bit, or even explain anything, but simply takes an assumption for granted, assumes the very thing that it is trying to prove as true. Let's take this question for an example: Why is there capitalist war? Because people are "war-like." It is our nature. The explanans is the explanandum. This isn't an explanation, but a moral justification which abdicates itself from having to do any actual investigation into any particular conflicts: one already knows ahead of time with their ready-made moral-psychological explanation that war "just happens to break out" because "people are something something irrational, selfish, and evil." One doesn't have to explain competition, scarcity, nor why people constantly make wrong judgements about the world - but starts out taking these for granted, and then the usual move is just to pick which "side" one wants to "defend." Yes, conflicts and antagonisms flourish in this world, there's no doubting that: You can just look around and see all kinds of examples. However, all of the examples pointed to as the proof that nothing "can be done about it," that this is the result of the "human as such" are pulled right from the very historically particular reality the anarchists criticize. The necessity of capitalist war, its "source" or ground, is re-located: now it has nothing to do with the state or the world-system of competition between nation-states, nor its form of economy, nor the goals and interests pursued by statesmen, but comes from the phantom-subject called "the human." To put it differently: it relocates the reason for the conflicts brought into being by the capitalistic state-reality so that it exists outside this reality - and instead inside the "human," which becomes some kind of eternal-static thing. Here you ascribe any conflict of interest - regardless of its content or context - to the irrational nature of human psychology. So instead of attempting to investigate the real reasons for capitalist war, the assumptions and strategic considerations of the political leaders who oversee and decide on war, and the national and interests involved, this is all pinned on the incredibly easy and cheap, yet totally unilluminating answer: our nature, the human nature. It's no good at all for an explanation to take attention away - with this incontestable, but also scarcely illuminating fact - from what humans do in order to direct it to the fact that it is humans who do "it." Contrary to the concept "human," humans are not all homogeneous, all the same, they differ socially and in a million different ways.

@Grundrisse

Ай бұрын

@@jesseadams828 Anarchy is nowhere near "a perfect utopia," it is also not "people living in harmony" or whatever nonsense you're thinking of. >Anarchism is not and has never been a proclamation that if we overthrow a given state - wherever the extent of that state is to be drawn - utopia will immediately result. Anarchism is not a claim about “human nature” or a simplistic reflex of negation. Anarchism is daring to see beyond the suffocating language of power. > >Anarchism is the lifting of our eyes beyond our immediate preoccupations and connecting with one another. Seeing the same spark, the same churning hurricane, same explosion of consciousness, within them that resides within us. Anarchism is the recognition that liberty is not kingdoms at war, but a network interwoven and ultimately unbroken - a single expanse of possibility growing every day. Anarchism is the realization that freedom has no owners. It has only fountainheads. --Your Freedom Is My Freedom: The Premise Of Anarchism The funny thing is, it is the statists who are indulging in their utopian ideals. They think the states could somehow solve the present problems in the world, but this falls apart at the first example of reality. Now, putting anarchism aside a bit, I could kindly ask you to strive towards a kind of democratic socialist system, which involves the use of the state, and is certainly possible to attain. Would you do it? Or would you prefer to just stick to the neoliberal approach, because of "le human nature"?

Humans need some form of hierarchy. The problem is that the states we establish are initially designed to respect pur rights and keep themselves in check, but people are too lazy, ignorant, or intentionally distracted to keep vigilance to keep that state in check. If we can keep the people vigilant of what the state is doing, the state will be less likely to swell up and become authoritarian

Perfect timing for this message.

(sorry for bad english) 11:49 "while states needed settled populations to get their start" I think this one sentence is weong, because for example recent historical research has shown that nomads from eurasia (mongols, turks, etc) had already since antiquity states institutions, with only the difference of not being centralized all the time in 1 ruler and 1 capital city I have a question too: wich is your source when you says that the institutionnalisation of surnames was a cause of the english peasant rebellion in 1381 ?

@ValenteConsello

2 ай бұрын

Thank you for pointing this out! It is also true of the majority of the First Nations people in America (e.g. Haudenosaunee Confederacy)

@Andrewism

2 ай бұрын

I'll have to look further into the presence of state institutions within nomadic populations. Do you have a source? The main point of that argument was simply a counter to the belief held by some that settlement necessarily resulted in states. Regarding the claim about 1381, this comes directly from Seeing Like A State: State naming practices, like state mapping practices, were inevitably associated with taxes (labor, military service, grain, revenue,) and hence aroused popular resistance. The great English peasant riing of 1381 (often called the Wat Tyler Rebellion) is attributed to an unprecedented decade of registrations and assessments of poll taxes.(52) For English as well as for Tuscan peasants, a census of all adult males could not but appear ominous, if not ruinous. That footnote (52) says: See the classic study by Rodney Hilton, Bond Men Made Free: Medieval Peasant Movements and the English Rising of 1381 (New York: Viking Press, 1977), pp. 160-64.

@Generic_Noob

Ай бұрын

⁠@@AndrewismThe mongols had a clear state, the Mongolian Khanates. These khanates had: permanent territorial claims, centralized leaders, diplomatic relations with other Khanates and laws.

Beautiful! Contemplating, sharing and enacting.

Loved this. Thank you.

Love your videos!! You are re educating a lot of people.

can we talk about how nice andrew’s voice is tho? i ordered the books from the andrewism reading list video and now im on the ecology of freedom wishing i were reading it as an audiobook with his voice 🥲

another great video, thank you. as someone who is really getting into anarchism, and making my way through the classics, it is really good to be able get some supplemental knowledge from your channel :)

I'm glad to add to the reading list. I also appreciate how revolution does not happen over night. My hesistancy to support without much deeper thought is based around how issues of reparations and Inidgenous liberation are currently within a discourse of relationship to states.

We live in capitalism. Its power seems inescapable. So did the divine right of kings. Any human power can be resisted and changed by human beings. Resistance and change often begin in art, and very often in our art, the art of words. Ursula K. Le Guin

Incredible work on this video. Thank you for your labour!

my school had a solarpunk talk you could sign up and go to and i half expected you to be doing the presentation lmao

Seeing like a state was an eye opening book, to me. I easily still recommend it to anyone interested in politics (particularly people on the Left, to which I would say I readily belong). It greatly clarified my own ideas about politics, organizations, etc. And since coming into a career/jobs, I've seen things play out (the impossibilities of abstractly predicting all the problems that will inevitably crop up), exactly as described in book - both personally and in organizations. Coupled with the most fundamental aspect of Conservativism ('wisdom of ages' - the impossibility of human minds creating sufficiently complex models of reality to redesign it 'in whole'), I consider this to be the most useful and wise lesson to learn for anyone on the Left (I disqualify the Right cause I usually don't like the changes to society they hope to accomplish).

Congratulations on an amazing video! You did a great job of presenting complex information in a digestible manner without watering it down too much. Also, sick artwork throughout the video!

@Andrewism

2 ай бұрын

Glad you enjoyed it!

In my opinion, the most effective way to replace capitalism is to refuse to participate in exploitation of others whenever practical and possible. Others should include both the poor in our own states, the poor in other states, those over whom we might already hold power, and especially the animals we currently use for food and resources. If we stop exploiting others in large enough numbers, they pyramid scheme of capitalism with collapse and we will all be on a level(ish) playing field and can start cooperating instead of competing.

@markigirl2757

Ай бұрын

I think so too this could start for a gradual change it’s gonna take many generations for healing but that’s expected since we are carrying trauma of our ancestors for the last thousands of years

Probably my favorite video of yours yet! (Followed by the library economy one)

WOW! This is what I had always hoped to get from your anarchy orientation. Great stuff!!

The people united will never be defeated!

This is the first time that I’ve come across a video like this narrated by someone with a Caribbean accent. I think it’s great! We need more of this!🙌🏾

watching this before school i love your videos!

Oh holy crap I wanted an anti-state anarcho-communist essayist, and got recommended this by both F.D. Signifier and Foreign Man in a Foreign Land, and I am very happy for said recommendations! Time to obsessively hyper-fixate binge watch every single piece of content this channel has ever released.

@otherperson

Ай бұрын

If you dont already watch Zoe Baker, Lucky Black Cat, and Anark you should do that as well. Those alongside Andrewism are the best on KZread in my opinion. Andrewism is definitely the most poetic.

@Dave102693

Ай бұрын

I wonder how they feel about Luna Oi, Hasan, Yugopik, Hakim and Second Thought. I’m not sure that they would agree with this video.

Thanks for the video and it's important to note that there were Sedentary, Stratified Hunter-Gatherer societies in history like the Fort-building hunter-gatherers of Neolithic/Copper Age Siberia (see the Amnya Complex) which is something I find interesting since I always thought until recently that all hunter-gatherers lived in hyper-egalitarian nomadic societies.

@Andrewism

2 ай бұрын

Indeed. Hunter gatherers were just as capable of hierarchy.

@hedgehog3180

Ай бұрын

Hunter gatherer societies were just as if not more diverse than modern socities due to slow communication leading to more cultural isolation.

Thanks Andrew. Excellent analysis.

Beautifully spoken. Thank you for making this public piece of information

I think there's value to hierarchies when they don't last long enough to be corruptible. For example, my friends and I make films together, and for each project, we organize a hierarchal structure for the sake of efficiency then dissolve it when the project is done. I could see a way of living in a community like this: build a moat, or a community building, or a collaborative art piece? Somebody is in charge of that particular project while still answering to the non-hierarchal community as a whole. If the leader turns out to not be skilled and empathetic, no one will want them to lead again. Leadership can be a useful skill like any other, and many people prefer to operate under a skilled leader. Some of that is social conditioning, but some of it is in our nature, and I don't think we'll ever get rid of that aspect of our nature; we'll simply refine it to be a thing that exists in specific isolated contexts rather than being a thing that creates a protected and therefore corruptible position.

@hedgehog3180

Ай бұрын

When anarchists talk about hierarchy they aren't simply talking about having someone in charge because such temporary structures aren't really embeded and formalized in a way where they can exert power. Like with the example of making a movie, if everyone agrees to make one person the director then that isn't much of a hierarchy because the director has no real power, people simply follow his lead because they agreed to but if he told them to do something they don't want to do they'd tell him to fuck off and leave. Thus this is only a hierachy in the loosest sense in that technically someone is in charge but that isn't really what's happening, what's actually going on is that a bunch of friends agreed to do something together and delegated tasks so this is a horizontal form of organization. Another example might be something like firefighting, when firefighters move out they technically listen to a dispatcher and on site follow orders from a captain or some other coordinator. However this also isn't a hierarchy because the firefighters aren't following these orders under threat of punishment, they're following them because each individual firefighter agrees that this is the most effective way to respond to an emergency and that is their shared goal. In a capitalist society firefighters obviously cannot simply leave however I think it's safe to say that firefighters aren't motivated by the threat of being fired, they're motivated by a desire to help people so they'd function much the same in an anarchist society. Basically the common denominator here is free association, and consensus. People only listen to the “leader” because everyone agreed to and said “leader” doesn't actually hold power over anyone because you can simply choose to not listen to them. It also makes a lot more sense to use a term like “coordinator” in these situations since that's really what this person is doing. It's similar to how higher education works, which is how all education should work, no one attending a lecture listens to the lecturer because that person has control over them, they listen to the lecturer because they all individually recognized that the lecturer has useful knowledge. No one forced them to be there, they chose to sign up for the course themselves because they wanted to learn about this topic.

@MWB_FoolsParadisePictures

Ай бұрын

@@hedgehog3180 This is a really interesting point. Although it's kind of a grey area, right? Do we draw the line at volunteer work on something non-crucial for society? On something crucial? Or a teacher we did not choose at an institution we did choose? Or free market work for a boss when resources are abundant? Or when they're scarce? Or a government we choose to listen to but could choose to overthrow? Any instance of rebelling against a leader has some level of consequence, whether physical, financial, or social; whether extreme or minor. I'm not trying to be a smart alec, I appreciate the gist of what you're saying. I just mean that if we get deep enough into the philosophy of it, the level of protection a leadership position offers the leader becomes more of a scale, and due to this, I have always wondered where various anarchists draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable levels of that kind of power. When an anarchist says, "Hierarchy bad," I never know exactly what their stance is on temporary coordinators. Heck, I haven't even fully made up my own mind on how much leadership power is too much, though I do feel that more than a temporarily established coordinator role can be enough of a temptation for those interested in abusing power.

Thanks for your video. Respect from Pakistan

Carne Ross. The Accidental Anarchist. Watched the doco on his evolution from UK diplomat to anarchism a few years ago. Very illuminating. Been thinking that "nations," like cars, are not compatible with a thriving of humanity. Homo sapiens, in the past, have managed to create communities that worked for the individuals, whilst providing security and culture. The oldest, well-known, diverse groups of people lived on the Australian continent for at least 50,000 years. Two-hundred-fifty+ languages, yet they lived side by side one another in groups. Their motivations and beliefs were nothing like ours. They had: no money. No written language. No gold. No mining at all. No electricity. No cars. No landfills. Lots of beauty. Lots of management. Lots of art. Lots of music and dancing. Lots of leisure time. They venerated Country, the source of everything that kept them alive. They maintained their patch. They were undone (slaughtered) by uneducated white men with advanced technology (ships and guns) 256 years ago. What I'm saying is, we have models of successful homo sapien communities. They happened amongst people who had very different goals than we currently do. But we all want peace, contentment, and a safe and lovely world for the young. Can we change ourselves? I'm just wondering if humans will have to war to destroy what exists, in order to bring about what could be a better future life? Can we skip that part and go straight to fixing our mess?

really great analysis, looking forward to part two. thankful for this essay also introducing me to the works of pietre bruegel. phenomenal painter.

i have anarchist tendencies, but something stopping me from making the jump to anarchism is the inability to reconcile the idea that revolution can be bottom up, and that we can maintain our gains from the lower rungs of our current hierarchy. I mean, sure, if we convince people that anarchy is viable more people will be sympathetic to it, but why can't the state, which will inevitably have some level of support from it's millitary, not be able to quash any kind of counter-resistance?

@avanonyme

2 ай бұрын

When revolution happen inside people's head, it's pretty difficult to uproot it. The state, capitalism or any kind of hierarchy, cannot exist without a certain mass of people at the bottom. The more people who are able to break out of them, the less power these systems will have over anyone. Sadly, it won't happen overnight, but it will have more lasting effects.

@lemonboiyoutube

2 ай бұрын

​@@avanonyme some objections that immediately come to mind are can't capitalist forces who have much more cultural capital beat anarchism at every turn? can't, when push comes to shove, capitalism just kill the anarchists? didn't that happen before during facism and soviet communism? to be honest, i'm really quite new to anarchism. these objections that come to mind are kind of ingrained at this point which i recognise is a problem. this channel is by far the most accessible medium to access anarchist ideas for me at the moment. are there better avenues for me to access these ideas? reccomendations?

@avanonyme

2 ай бұрын

@@lemonboiyoutube You've grown up in a capitalist society, with the culture that comes with it, why are you searching for alternatives then? Reality is complex and I don't pretend to hold all the answers, but I am optimist and believe people can see capitalism for what it is and any anarchist alternative as a better way to live. It's only a matter of education, awareness spreading and passions. Classical authors that I've heard get recommended but haven't personally read, there's Kropotkin, Malatesta and Bookchin that I see getting thrown around a lot. Personally I'd recommend any work by David Graeber, there's lots of his talks on KZread. If you're willing to pay some money, Andrewism's community and Patreon is pretty cool. Anark as a youtube channel has lots of information too.

@ValenteConsello

2 ай бұрын

@@lemonboiyoutube Personally I have not found a satisfying answer from anarchists on this but I would love to be wrong. Historically though that has happened and anarchists were killed by the state esp in Europe. Friendly suggestion to look into Marxism-Leninism-Maoism since it's a communist tendency that deals with issues of capitalist restoration/counter-revolution and cultural capitalism as central issues, leading to a very principled criticism of (particularly post-Lenin) Soviet Russia and (particularly post-Mao) Communist China that aligns with Anarchism quite heavily.

@kaiserruhsam

2 ай бұрын

there are several examples of states run by communist parties and successful ideologically communist revolutions, i know of no such lasting examples of ideologically anarchist revolutions producing something that endures on the scale of laos, vietnam, or cuba. those countries are so much better than their capitalist equivalents, i have a very hard time with the idea that we should doing something even more gradual than the dubious "after the dictatorship of the proletariat is around for awhile the state will wither away" idea you hear from marxists.

When we talk about hierarchies of power that are embedded into the human psyche, the one I find most central is the hierarchy that puts humanity at the top of the food chain. I’ve read some scholarship on Blackness and the redefining of personhood that talks about the potential of flattening the “pyramid” of evolution that puts humanity at the top. This feels at least a bit related to statehood and the need to carve out such distinctions between each other for the sake of control.

@hedgehog3180

Ай бұрын

This idea goes back to the Christian concept of the “Great Chain of Being”.

This was a really good one, thanks for the book recs

In a sea off horrors, this message is heartening. Thanks for your work, and the encouragement you give ❤️🖤

Compassion? No that's EXTREMISM! And RADICALISM! never question your dogma. pray to money 🙏

Hey, I have sth to say about what the strategies to defend ourselves and our «revolutionary gains» are. I encourage you and everyone interested in that to reach out for the real practice of autonomy: Zapatistas experience and Cheran in MExico, or Kurdistan. BUt also look around to the real territory stuggles near you, cause the ppl defending their land (usually indiginous decendant ppl) are the ones that are building and reinforcin new forms of excercicing autonomy beyond state. Is real experience and not purely imagination what can keep us going with hope, I think. Those examples are not perfetc but they are real and in the making, let us be near them and learn from them and also contribute to these present struggles. Those are, as some would call them, «concrete utopias».

@tonyirenn2560

2 ай бұрын

also what I tried to say about strategy, is that what we find in these real examples are always an effort to put together an «comunitary polices», as some call it, or «comunitary guards», which are compose by the members of the community of course, but it also rotates (I mean, not permanent individuals in them). BUt what is thruth either way is that the construction of autonomy and autodetemination comes with a necessary concern to arm ourselves in order to defend ourselves and not let that protection falls in the hands of third parties.

@lmaolol9357

Ай бұрын

Don't all of these still have leaders and hierarchies within?

I'm looking forward to part 2! Can you please include a section on defence? That's always where lack of hierarchy seems to stumble...

@Andrewism

Ай бұрын

The video is already complete but it does include a section with such an engagement, no worries.

Absolutely brilliant video as always. This topic in particular has gotten me excited about what’s next (in the grand scheme of things) but concerned about what’s likely to occur in the interim. In this case, I’m referring to the 2024 US elections. I feel like regardless of who’s elected this term, there’s bound to be massive amounts of unrest that is widespread and violent. With this in mind, I’ve been less interested in 2024 “voters guides” and more interested in a “survival guide.” I know it’s a big ask but would you (or any of your fellow KZreadrs who you think would be most interested) mind creating a video and/or written guide that provides recommendations on how we might protect ourselves and our communities this year?

34:52 damn, I'm not the biggest Proudhon fan but homie was spittin bars

@mikeciul8599

Ай бұрын

Yeah, I think I understand what "based" means now lol

@mikeciul8599

Ай бұрын

I got so fired up by that quote but also it struck me that it's very similar to neolibreral rhetoric. It's so weird to me that neoliberals and libertarians use this kind of talk but somehow insist that the violent enforcement of private property is somehow "freedom."

Fantastic video, definitely given me lots to think about. While I've always had issues with hierarchies, I can sort of understand why so many anti-capitalists especially in the imperial periphery lean into a DoTP or a workers' state. The question of authority in such states is an issue though. I'm still new to this stuff so I'm still figuring stuff out.

@rakha8812

2 ай бұрын

This is definitely an oversimplification, but I feel anarchism as an ideology in practice is more applicable to those who are in an imperialist state (a Global North country), rather than those who live in an oppressed state (a Global South country). The reason is, I feel, that a revolution in an oppressed state is required to defend its interests from outside forces, far more than one in an imperialist state; the state is a powerful tool in defending the interest of a class, while anarchism seeks to destroy it.

@longnoseboi

2 ай бұрын

@@rakha8812usually, the thing you need to defend your revolution from the most is the state itself

@marcusnguginganga2829

2 ай бұрын

@@rakha8812 I'm not sure I understand. Did I do something wrong by "oversimplifying" as you state? I'm from the imperial periphery so I think that a successful revolution in a global majority state would need protection. The sort of protection that a proletarian state would provide

@rakha8812

2 ай бұрын

@@marcusnguginganga2829 I meant that what I'm saying is an oversimplification, not yours, sorry.

@rakha8812

2 ай бұрын

@@longnoseboi The Cuban revolution says otherwise. I don't think Cuba would still stand as it does now if the revolution was anarchist.

Great video and great work.

I was a ML when I was a teenager and I would rehabilitate cruel dictators and I really regret it looking back, I try to give myself the benefit of the doubt for being a dumb teenager but that just isn’t an excuse. Thankfully I was never too open about it offline because even back then, I knew the consequences that would entail. I became disillusioned with politics for years throughout most of COVID, and it was only recently that I became interested again. Revisiting Marxism Leninism has really made me realize that this does not stand up to scrutiny or even make any coherent sense the way I thought it did when I was younger, even casting aside all the apologism and historical revisionism. I definitely think authoritarian Socialism comes from a mindset of genuinely wanting to change the world, but still having a very cynical view of humanities potential. (No ML will ever openly admit to being against democracy, but that is what always happens when they get in power) I’ll even admit that I still really struggle with that. I’m not really proud to admit it, but I don’t like people, and I’m very paranoid, so having an entire philosophy built on trusting and cooperating with others is scary to me, and that is the biggest bar between me and Anarchism. However, I still want the world to be a better place, and I think Anarchism is the only feasible way to achieve that, so I’m conflicted. I need to research Anarchism more, but I think it’s the closest to what I want. I can’t make the same mistake I made before and adopt an ideology I don’t know enough about, that is also why I’m still hesitant

@novinceinhosic3531

Ай бұрын

This is how right-winger griefers claim to leave the left when they were never left-wing.

@iloveowls8748

Ай бұрын

I definitely understand where you're coming from. It's really great that you've built up a critical/skeptical attitude, it will get you far. If you want to get into some anarchist theory, go check out Anark on KZread and some of his video essays like 'A modern Anarchism' part 1,2 and 3. Excellent stuff

@hedgehog3180

Ай бұрын

I think it's absolutely true that Anarchism is scary because you're simply choosing to believe in the good nature of others. It's a rejection of cynicism in favor of hope in humanity and embracing hope is scary. I think the counter to this is that every single other ideology does also come down to whether or not people are good natured. Laws might seem like a nice pillar to lean against but laws ultimate have to be enforced by people and then you still just have to hope that the people enforcing those laws are nice and intelligent people. Societies are created and maintained by people so in every single society it will always just comes down to how the people act, Anarchism simply removes any pretensions that isn't the case and puts the focus back squarely on the people. Doing that has a sort of “staring into the void” quality because you actually have to personally try to contend with all aspects of the human psyche instead of abstracting it away.

Hey Andrew, I'm glad somebody finally got around to combining these works and producing a video like this so that it can be shared with people (especially our friends who don't read). I was curious if you had heard of Kojin Karatani's The Structure of World History: From Modes of Production to Modes of Exchange. While the author is not an anarchist, at least explicitly, his work is of great interest to anarchists who deal with social science and works of that nature.

@Andrewism

2 ай бұрын

Hey, thanks for the recommendation. I'm a bit cautious about grand narrartive/stageist conceptualisations of history, but this one looks interesting, I'll def check it out.