I blame the voters for not being more individualistic and resistant to the fascist, controlling polyarchy we have.
Voting is "your vote" is one of the few things to TRULY own as an American. It is sad that people will not use discretion when voting.. Buying at a used car dealership - would you purchase a flawed vehicle simply because it has less flaws than the majority?
No! You wouldn't purchase any vehicle.
people will purchase a flawed, less evil PRESIDENT?
The reasons an anarchy descends into chaos, violence and repression are simple: people want control. One way to have control is to impose yourself as a leader of a group. This is how factions emerge. Factions want total control, they do not want to share it non-violently, so they impose themselves on others as they become larger. They also become militant because that is the most effective way to have obedience. So an anarchy descends into a violence-based dictatorship by a self-imposed ruler.
you're right about me being wrong with a lot of stuff here.
Government is not a monopoly on force.
It's a group of individuals within a geographical area who retain the monopolistic moral and legal right to initiate force.
And since government pretty much runs on taxes, and taxes are stealing since the people that they collect taxes from has no voluntary choice, if they refuse to give them violence will be eventually used.
That's why I think it's based on violence, in practice.
It's like an apartment, sort of. You can choose a lease by having citizenship and an income past a certain point, or by not participating in certain tax-deductibles. If you don't like it, you are free to move to another nation where the tax practices are different. Governments which do not tax basically do not exist, and are bad places to live.
Also, in this country, violence always came from men who choose to oppose taxes with guns. That is when the state had to respond.
I think that if you think that (lol) violence/theft is not bad, maybe even think it's necessary then there's no reason to convince you otherwise, because you're living in an ideal society.
The point is to practice the non-agression principle in society as a whole.
There is nowhere to move, but that doesn't mean that it would never work.
I think it's the same thing as direct slavery in the past.
>>I think that if you think that (lol) violence/theft is not bad, maybe even think it's necessary
Have you ever read "The Prince?" You never answered that question.
>>practice the non-agression principle in society as a whole.
The non-aggression principle is defined in such a way as to encourage exploitative behavior and remove the ability of the exploited to seek remuneration. It is a sign of malignant ideology that words must be carefully redefined in the minds of followers.
>>I think that if you think that (lol) violence/theft is not bad, maybe even think it's necessary
Have you ever read "The Prince?" You never answered that question.
>>practice the non-agression principle in society as a whole.
The non-aggression principle is defined in such a way as to encourage exploitative behavior and remove the ability of the exploited to seek remuneration. It is a sign of malignant ideology that words must be carefully redefined in the minds of followers.
There is a whole world, or are you telling me that because there is no nation founded on gumdrops, rainbows and tax cuts that you'd rather live here... a nation you despise, and just complain every day about it? You have a choice. You can be a citizen of the United States, and play by its rules, or you can move elsewhere. There is a reason that peaceful, prosperous anarchies do not exist around the world: they do not work long-term.
It's a moral arguement when you're an anarchist, I don't think that those who were for equality between men and women tried to figure out every detail, the sexism there doesn't exist anymore because it was morally wrong and people chose to abonden it.
You're right about there being no nation where there's total free market.
It's being against violence and theft and respecting the right to ownership.
One can say that, but in practice it is an excuse to be a delinquent who wants a free ride in his or her society. I neglected to check your profile page, which says you are from Finland. The northern European states have some of the best living standards on Earth, and that didn't come from it being free to live there, or there being no state to keep businesses and powerful men under the provisions of law.
>>It's being against violence and theft and respecting the right to ownership.
Property rights are one of the roots of violence. The sense that you own something, and have the entitlement to exclude others from it requires force, and usually violence, to maintain. Anarcho-capitalism takes property rights to their logically absolute, which means that in practice you would have a society of wealthy landowners using violence to keep the poor, the property-less in their place.
once pseudo-transparent and separate law-makers - corporate elite are ying and yang now. The media, TV, internet, radio, advertising etc is all a product of government and corporate entities fighting for fiscal explotation of the lower to working class Americans.
America will become a place where there are two distinct classes - lower poor (80%) to wealth (20%) and very little in between.
The reason that dictionaries define anarchy as violent and chaotic is because that is what you get when you have no authority maintaining order in a society, or when you have competing authorities in the same society trying to take control of the entire society.
It does not matter how many intellectuals or pacifists you can claim support anarchy. The facts are that an anarchy is unstable, repressive, and most certainly not a desirable place to live.
anarchism will just couse tribism and violences ist stupid to and belive do ahve to be governed becouse the human race is evil and evius and will do bad things to other people
@emilio124567 the fact that you used "evil" to describe humanity leads me to believe you are religious therefore a creationist, the most ignorant and hard headed people on this planet, so don't try to enforce you idea of right and wrong or "good and evil". you clearly cannot grasp the concept so just recoil into your pathetic naive sheep skin and maybe swing by abercrombie I hear they have a sale this weekend.
@ErehEmanRuoy lol im VERY VERY VERY anti religous i beleive in msot rules by anton lavey but i acociete myself more with freidrich niecht god is dead and the super human idea
and the human race is evil and most people are let only by their will to get more money follow fashions and not really think ;) theyd kill people just to get more
@ErehEmanRuoy and how the hell does evil make me a creationist?? O.o lol thats like saying hi and cuz person says hi u can already find their life and how they live it makes no sense?? LOL!!!! seriusly LOL!!!
@DanteMcSparda "Anarcho"-capitalism is an oxymoron. It's as absurd as "anarcho-statism" or "anarcho-fascism". Anarchism is by definition anti-capitalist. To deny that is to deny the entire history of the anarchist movement.
ur anarchy and chaos argument is a little lame... I believe anarchy will rather bring peace instead of chaos indeed, but dont tell the world who are anarchists aswell to convince them... status doesnt matter in an anarchist society, so who gives a fuck who's an anarchist and who's not
All self-styled "anarchists" should read George Orwell's "Animal Farm" to see where their actions will ultimately lead them! Orwell was a socialist who went to Spain for the Civil War where he was disillusioned by what he saw. See his "Homage to Catalonia". Anarchy leads to disorder, disorder to chaos, chaos to a mass desire for a return to order and control-which ultimately ends in fascism!!
I'm probably missing the point, but it seems to be that in any society of human beings who intend to live together that some form of structure must evolve. The structure must be for the greatest good of the greatest number & all who wish for an orderly society will, by mutual consent evolve rules. Otherwise buses and trains would only travel if & when the driver felt like it! There would be no need for police because there would be no criminals! Really?
@ha6ni6el6 U're missing the point, human's psychology = made by the genes mixed with environment. so what's relivant has to do with the environment u're in. This society is based on individualism instead of solidarity. If media changes (when the bigmen have dissapeared obvious), and people start to think, it will lead to change and cooperation. busses and trains would still go on cos work doesnt mean work as we know it now. we wouldnt need police cos the essense of our society's just not violent
I'm probably missing the point, but it seems to be that in any society of human beings who intend to live together that some form of structure must evolve. The structure must be for the greatest good of the greatest number and all who wish for an orderly society will, by mutual consent evolve rules. Otherwise buses and trains would only travel if & when the driver felt like it! There would be no need for police because there would be no criminals! That society develops rules for behaviour
Though I understand how the anarchist would have moral objections to anarcho-capitalism, I see no reason why the anarcho-capitalist should be morally opposed to anarchism. In order for a society to be truly anarchistic, most people living in that society will have to be anarchists by choice. That is to say, they must actually want to transform their society and abolish hierarchy without initiating force.
I have a friend who is an anarchist and i agree with alot of the views like everyone should be equal and there shouldnt be a hierachy (no idea on the spelling) but can this work? with out a government how would things be run and control be kept? If i agree with most of the things but not about the government what does that make me?
Im just looking to be educated on the facts, any replys would be appreciated thanks.
Even though Marxism is about the state and a political party for the middle class and Anarchism is about Egalitarianism, I would argue that both ideologies would lead our race to the best of all possible worlds. As a social-anarchist, I think that it only makes sense to not enforce either ideology, but educate people on how consumerism and the free market are not only ruining our planet, but the main causes of poverty, which, will end up in violent revolution against the first world.
@Justsomeguy18x Ummm what? If you can handle this authoritarian rule that you currently live under, then an anarchistic society will be a quite pleasurable cakewalk for you and many others.
@DannyOKC Redistribution or resources, abolition of the state, syndicalisation, no propriety right, power to the people, abolition of the wage system... May be you can explain me how this is not Marxism? Also, how will you enforce all these on people without the use of violence?
@MrMaxBoivin No maybe you should open a fucking book and learn for your self what Marxism is and how anarchism is not Marxism why are you so fucking lazy. You need some one to explain shit to you all the time, little baby? You are wrong, go get the facts then come and criticizes with something that makes sense.
@MrMaxBoivin that makes no sense, you forgot the main important point: WE don't want to replace the power by another bunch of keen-on-power-people, who are for sure getting corrupted by this power and then stick to their position instead of leading the project to a free society- as we all can see in former "projects" like russia at al. and i think, this series is rather wellmdone for the "beginning thinker", just to get some arses kicked upon taking a book and start reading and thinking...
Auf dieses Video antworten... very well made, mr. danyOKC- i can`'t describe, how much i'm pleased with the nice way, you combine that with my most favourite music- ska, rocksteady, reggae... so keep on keepin' on, mate- up the social revolution!
@MrMaxBoivin Marxism is an economic and sociopolitical worldview and method of socioeconomic inquiry that centers upon a materialist interpretation of history, a dialectical view of social change, and an analysis and critique of the development of capitalism.
Anarchism wasn't invented by some philosopher, not even Proudhon invented it he merely discovered thoughts and tendencies among the people themselves, specified them and gave it a name. These thoughts and tendencies have existed possibly since the dawn of Man. Anarchism is not merely anti-statism but anti-authority.
The word Anarchy comes from the greek word "Αναρχία",which means without authority. It has nothing to do with chaos and disorder, when something can be done about the people that only take what they want without wanting to give something, or some service in return
@Notis59 True, very Nice. It'd be gd if those in positions of power ie:able to declare war, human test, destroy whole eco-systems due a spill or leak, etc..
were able to clearly see(beyond immediate agenda's/authoritative nudging ) the chaos & disorder of their anarchic? actions.
@meuandthelot Exactly! the ones with the power are the ones without someone to control them & question their actions. But who can do that? U? or I? NOT! we are few, far apart & with no power other than writing messages to each other.
Dr. Chomsky recently told Iranian TV that at the time the USA attacked Afghanistan they had no evidence that al Qaeda did 9/11. See my video "Chomsky on Faith-based Wars and 9/11"
The way i look at it, if an anarchist society was made it would not last because other country would conquer it. Or a group of comunist would rise up there and evoke fear Also I'm sure people would visit there just to do bad things without consequences. These are just my thoughts I call my self a Libertarian. (Only govermeant for protection) but can anyone educated me on this?
@NickSkate7 I am also a libertarian. Well, once I'm old enough to register that is. There has long been a dispute among the party regarding anarchism vs. minarchism. A minarchistic society would provide a government strictly for the purposes of protecting individual rights and maintaining order. As this video, anarchism seeks order. This, in my mind, exists in a minarchist form. Power structures will always naturally form, even if there is no true source of authority. It is a basic necessity.
@NickSkate7 However, this is nothing to worry about. The anarchism that most sane and intellectual anarchists propose(like the creator of this video) is really minarchism in theory. There would be some degree of organization with a basic law system run solely by the people that was enforced by the people. People would be given the same rights as in an anarchist society: the freedom from heavy taxation and government intrusion, and the freedom to do as they please if it doesn't harm others.
@musicallycorrect94 Thanks for explaining that. It sounds a lot like the libertarian philosophy of "do what you as long as it doesn't harm and or negatively effect others." Although it seems like this anarchist society could only exist with a group of intellectuals. I'm definitely going to look deeper into this though. I'll be sure to read that book once i finish up Ron Pauls " A Revolution A Manifesto" which I would also recommend.
@musicallycorrect94 Thanks for taking the time to explain that. It sounds a lot like the the Libertarian philosophy of "Do what you want as long as it doesn't harm and or negatively effect another individual." I'm starting to understand this more, although it seems it would take a group of intellectuals to make an anarchist society work. I'm definitely going to look into this though, and I'll definitely try to read that book you're talking about. Right after I finish up Ron Pauls book.
@NickSkate7 It is good isn't it? I bought it a few weeks ago with a borders gift card I got for christmas. I've only had time to read half because of school but I plan to finish it with my next long break. Ron Paul is the man.
@musicallycorrect94 Absolutely I wish I could vote for him 2012. He's one of the very few politicians I actually respect. He inspired to pursue possibly a career in political science. I got his old book though A Revolution A Manifesto, it's still relevant today though. I too got a gift card for a book store and I'll probably get that book your talking about unless I go with a philosopher William Lane Craig.
@NickSkate7 You are probably the most similar person to me that I've seen on youtube. I also plan to major in political science along with journalism. Ron Paul is the first politician to really speak to me. I feel you dude. Fight on!
@DannyOKC "An anarchic society is a society without government, a stateless society, or a voluntary society. If this socialist society you described is achieved and maintained by initiating force, then it is not anarchy; it is a government."
I agree this guy is a socialist, and should be pretty happy in the current US system.
Proper government is 100% laissez-faire capitalist and/or 100% volunteerist libertarian. It has zero regulation of economic, social, and personal behavior. I have NEVER heard of a coherent argument for anarchism. How can people live in cooperation and harmony if their institutions of force, and anti-criminality, and protection of life, liberty, and property, disagree?
when u take responsibility away from the individual,you create less capable people.while a somewhat socialist system may exist within a family or community of anarchists it exists because of the cyclical nature of opposites.for example an isolationist can also be viewed as a collectivist.if some1 is sustainable and self managed,he doesnt burden those around him adding to the greater good.not that anarchists are isolationists.
This is SOCIALISM. ANARCHISM simply means NO GOVERNMENT it doesn't mean providing people with all their basic needs and wants equally. THAT IS SOCIALISM. Why are Anarchism and Socialism confused as the same thing. I'm an Anarchist. I don't have a desire to make everyone rich. I don't like private property and I don't like people who don't work for themselves and want help. I don't believe in helping the world. am I a "bad" Anarchist or a "bad" Socialist. You make the call.
@eatadicc If you had ever read any of the major documents of anarchism, i.e. those books and pamphlets written by those men and women whose very ideas and actions comprise what we know as anarchism, you'd know that almost all of them were socialists, and that anarchism has always been primarily a socialist movement.
@DannyOKC You assume that I haven't read anything about anarchism because I interpret it differently. Your world view isn't the only that is correct. You should read about post-left anarchy you might gain a better understanding of what I am suggesting.
@DannyOKC An anarchic society is a society without government, a stateless society, or a voluntary society. If this socialist society you described is achieved and maintained by initiating force, then it is not anarchy; it is a government.
@DannyOKC Not all of them, just this one. I just get the idea that you are against anarcho-capitalism. Would you support the initiate force to prevent anarcho-capitalism? I'm OK if you want to have your voluntary commune as long as you respect my property rights and right to trade freely.
@fnuzzoiv Let me guess, you read a couple of books by that pseudo-intellectual cunt Rothbard and now you think that you are an authority on political philosophy? There is more to morality than the "non-aggression principle" and anarchy is by definition socialistic in nature. A capitalist society could never be anarchic.
@DannyOKC Well, that is a matter of some debate. Anarchism might be more accurately depicted as mutualist in its original form.
Note that merely being original doesn't grant any value added when it comes to value assessments. Furthermore in modern times it most certainly is not primarily a socialist movement. Perhaps in Europe it still is.
However the links and contributions of socialism to anarchism shouldnt be dismissed out of hand. Hopefully we agree there.
I know that there is a theory but it is not technically anarchy. Anarchy is defined as "rule by no one" this would mean there could not be laws in effect or there would not be true anarchy. Communism requires the regulation of various items.
Although some Communist "dictators" have had some good ideas before (IE giving back to the poor) they were generally not pure-Communists.
I'm with you on pretty much every point except the beginning where you conflate anarchy with egalitarianism. I see a difference between the equal right to pursue something (liberty) and the equal right to have something (unethical wealth redistribution). Nice video though!
and what if their are elites? eventually the "ideal anarchist " society would just riot due to a group of pioneering pseudo-megalomaniacs who are anarchist and want control therefore becoming no better than the government powers that they once opposed. the contradictory paradox is that chaos means disorder not malice but to say that a society would have order without any form of order is ridiculous.
A lot of these Anarchists latey I talk to seen to have twisted the whole theory into an Anarch-commie scenerio, and these people are usually the ones living off the gov't via food stamps and housing etc. This is Anarchism? Has anyone else noticed this phenom? Somehow being pro gov't regulated healthcare is a step toward anarchy via communist ideals? Sounds more to me like Anarcho-commies want their cake and to eat it too.
@TheHippy9009 Anarch-commie's? Whats wrong with that? As far as i can make out from what I've read, historicaly, Anarchists and Communists (of the anti state variety) share a lot of common ground. Anarchist Communism or Anarcho-Communism seems to me to be a far more legit ideology than say Capitalist Anarchism. However I'm aware I'm comming from a european perspective. America does have a greater sense of individualism.
"The Elite are able to study, travel, and enjoy a great degree of entertainment"
You could too if you fucking worked for it! I was an anarchist for maybe 2 years, an it wasn't until I realized how fucking stupid the rest of them were that I switched over to direct democracy. You live in the US or another first world country, you are ABLE to enjoy more than millions of others. Stop being a whiny bitch and work for it.
If people can't work then they can be supported by the state. That is not communism, it is socialism.
If people choose not to work then they deserve poverty. If we lived in an anarchaic world, there would be no government to take care of the disabled or those otherwise unable to work. It would be whoever works the hardest or steals the most lives the most comfortably.
Do not confuse Anarchy with Communism. They are two very different, but equally stupid, ideas.
@Plozen ". It would be whoever works the hardest or steals the most lives the most comfortably." wait isnt this called capitalism, anyway you dont even know how anarchist society would work.
Because, I hate to be "This guy" but anarchy would be chaos. Communications would shut down. Then people would start organizing to help each other. After a while, society would just reform and there would be corrupt people again anyways, and how would you stop them if they started making laws? The amount that would organize outnumber those that would not.
I recognize that you claim to not want crimes like violence, robbery and the sort but, in an anarchist "state", what is keeping people from doing these things, besides a moral opposition held by society.
in my opinion, anarchy can only work in small units where behavior can be controlled through communal restrictions which, ultimately, creates a system of laws that limit a person's freedom.
What's the difference between anarchy and a minimalist government?
@MrAmericaPie Anarchism does not believe in "freedoms" like killing. There are limits in anarchism. What there is not is "state" (government). That's the difference.
basiclly i prefer the term of social violence towards goverment buildings, banks and the so called brutal police force(dont know how they call that outside in greece they call it mat)
I can't really understand how there can be something-anarchism or anarcho-something-ism, it's like saying I am a Buddhist atheist?? Am I misunderstanding something?
Yes, you're misunderstanding. There are a number of different trains of thought in anarchism - just in the same way that there are in capitalism. Capitalists might describe themselves as "free-market capitalists", "liberal capitalists", so on so forth. You get the picture.
Anarchists are agreed roughly where we want to go. The -communist/-syndicalist/-etc. bit describes where exactly and/or how.
PS. I hear some people do identify as atheist Buddhists btw!
True anarchy is a society in which people are completely free to do what they want without the fear of retribution form a governmental entity. As soon as one organized group of people start using force and coercion over the totality of a population you no longer have a state of anarchy and now have some form of government. You are not an anarchist. You are a socialist idealist. And Noam Chomsky as a philosophy that is a complete contradiction so stop thinking he's a great intellectual.
"And Noam Chomsky as a philosophy that is a complete contradiction so stop thinking he's a great intellectual."
Are you going to try and substantiate this by putting forward any counter-arguments, or are you just gonna throw this out there and expect everyone to swallow it unquestioningly?
This is called democratic socialism. This type of society can only be considered anarchy if everyone (and I mean everyone) agrees to voluntarily work for the greater good of the community over themselves. If you have one dissenter then you must use force and coercion in order to properly provide for the majority. This is no longer anarchy. You have now installed a socialist form of government which will, as history has shown us, eventually lead to totalitarian control.
Anarchy is defined as "a state of society without government or law"
Government is defined as "the form or system of rule by which a state, community, etc., is governed"
What you call "anarchy" is not anarchy. You wish to live under a completely democratic society where the majority rules the minority. You believe people have a "right" to housing, food, clothing, health care, etc. so you would say that your democratic society will provide those necessities.
'Anarchy is defined as "a state of society without government or law"'
No. Anarchy is societal organisation without hierarchies. Look at the word construction. "An-", Ancient Greek for "without" (as in apolitical - not political) and "archy", Ancient Greek for "leader/chief" (as in monarchy - one ruler).
OED defines it: "A theoretical social state in which there is no governing person or body of persons, but each individual has absolute liberty (without implication of disorder)."
An anarchist community would be made of anarchists, just as a rock band is made of people who want to play rock music. Why would people go to the trouble of forming a group only to let someone in who didn't fit and didn't want to be there anyway? Would you let a bad person or assassin or bully move in with you? If not, why would a group of anarchists do as such? Those people you mention most likely don't even know what anarchism is. To think they'd join an anarchist community makes no sense.
Ever noticed how the anarchist solution for everything is to dress up in black and bash shit up when they're unhappy? You would not be living in a perfect society.
@TheManimal87: It appears you don't have an understanding of anarchism....It's about freedom from government and then separation into hundreds or thousands of small communities....the people would naturally do what's best for their respective communities. Their could, in theory still be rules to allow the community to succeed...if somebody commits a murder, he or she is dealt with by people in whatever way they think benefits the community....there would be no "judges"
@TheManimal87 The guys who solve this matter are scientests and physicians, they would keep doing their job organizing themselves (they are very smart), . The judgement would be formed by a people's committee but without earning more money, food or whatever, and if "bad boys" refuse the veredict we can send the kung fu or karate practitioners. Have you ever organize with your friends to do something? it's just the same way
At which point you would see the rise and fall of yet another "civilization"...
How can people have their rights respected if there is no monetary gain in order to ensure that no one is cheated out of their fair share...
People still have to work to get to a foreign country...Its only more paliable an idea now because people can simply use MONEY as a means of displaying their works bennifits which in turn allows them the means with which to travel...
It isn't money that carries you round the world. It is the labour of many.
Would people stop working when there is no money to restrict what they can or can't eat, drink, read, watch, listen to, or indeed where they travel?
Do people stop baking bread when hyperinflation makes it unprofitable to do so?
Do people build homeless shelters because they can make a buck out of it? What makes others not build more of those shelters? Economic restrictions and monetarily-lubricated greed.
How I do support the anarchist theory, you have to take into account that people who counter our movement like to criticize us for not explaining how all people's would achieve their heart's desire simply by all laws being broken down...
In an Anarchist "society", there would be no laws preventing people from grouping up and supressing other peoples (this is what happened at the beggining of time). These groups would eventually become larger and more influential until they were challanged...
Kill no one who does not mess with you. Help no one you do not think deserves it. Just leave people alone. People should take care of thier own children or not have sex. Handicapped, if you cannot support yourself in a nonphisical way tough luck.
i have to agree with you. yeah it sucks that handicapped people have to die. but hey tough titty said the kitty. people die all the time from totally random events
you sound really capitalist, hope you understand that it doesnt matter if your black or white, fascist or even crapitalist, you are a human and because you are a human a have the obligation of helping you when you need it just for the fact that you are a human.
I have no obligation to anybody just becuase they are human. If i choose to help someone that is a choice. Nobody has the obligation to helpp bums and losers just becuase they have similar DNA
Alright I can't watch anymore. Socialism would get all of those things you mention to everyone, not anarchy. Crimes occur everywhere, everyday, in a democratic society. Luckily for us, these criminals are kept in check by the police service that keeps us all safe. Get rid of them, and Bad people are free to do what they want. Unless of course the rest of society can kill them. A gang would easily take over the city.
As for "chaos" and "violence", just take a look at the world today. Social and financial chaos, criminal and military violence. Not anarchy, in fact more use of invasive power than ever... and more chaotic and violent than ever.
c this is the part all anarchists dont understand like u said like if one country US for exaple became an anarchists country there will still be the tyrants and dictatorsi n other countrys who will just c us then as a new place to corupt and take controll of so yes i may be an anarchists but i know its guna be very hard to get things the way we want them but still u dont need to be so down about it if people start to all belive it is not a posibility only then will it not be posible....
No, that is chaos. Anarchism can be organized and structured. Anarchism is removal of non-voluntary authority. Removing all forms of hierarchy is impossible.
a thing about anarchy is that it isnt dogmatic, it can evolve and adapt for everyone
MrCamafas 2 weeks ago
isn't it ''kinda'' like communism ?
MW2Coolwiller 2 months ago
The dictionary is a capitalist plot!
tph2010 2 months ago
wow even truck drivers r anarchists... this must be a good idea
LIfisherman1 2 months ago
Anarchism is real freedom. It is possible to have social order without a government and rulers.
connerjd 3 months ago
I blame the voters for not being more individualistic and resistant to the fascist, controlling polyarchy we have.
Voting is "your vote" is one of the few things to TRULY own as an American. It is sad that people will not use discretion when voting.. Buying at a used car dealership - would you purchase a flawed vehicle simply because it has less flaws than the majority?
No! You wouldn't purchase any vehicle.
people will purchase a flawed, less evil PRESIDENT?
PositivelyBored 5 months ago
The reasons an anarchy descends into chaos, violence and repression are simple: people want control. One way to have control is to impose yourself as a leader of a group. This is how factions emerge. Factions want total control, they do not want to share it non-violently, so they impose themselves on others as they become larger. They also become militant because that is the most effective way to have obedience. So an anarchy descends into a violence-based dictatorship by a self-imposed ruler.
kDest 5 months ago
@kDest Wait a minute.
We need a monopoly on force, and we need to have a system based on violence and stealing..
to prevent that.
In other words, you think that violence can be oppressed with violence.
SlipAllCityToy 5 months ago
@SlipAllCityToy
>>We need a monopoly on force
A monopoly ensures no competition, which means no civil wars or fighting like somalia.
>>we need to have a system based on violence and stealing
Ours is not. We have a government based upon enlightenment principles. That is why it isn't a kleptocracy, autocracy, etc.
>>you think that violence can be oppressed with violence
That is the history of our species. Have you ever read "The Prince?"
kDest 5 months ago
@kDest
you're right about me being wrong with a lot of stuff here.
Government is not a monopoly on force.
It's a group of individuals within a geographical area who retain the monopolistic moral and legal right to initiate force.
And since government pretty much runs on taxes, and taxes are stealing since the people that they collect taxes from has no voluntary choice, if they refuse to give them violence will be eventually used.
That's why I think it's based on violence, in practice.
SlipAllCityToy 5 months ago
@SlipAllCityToy
>>you're right about me being wrong with a lot of stuff here.
Thank you. Most people on here are not humble enough or honest enough to admit when they make a mistake. That means a lot.
>>It's a group of individuals within a geographical area who retain the monopolistic moral and legal right to initiate force.
That's basically the gist of it, yes.
>>taxes are stealing since the people that they collect taxes from has no voluntary choice
The choice comes from citizenship.
kDest 5 months ago
@SlipAllCityToy
It's like an apartment, sort of. You can choose a lease by having citizenship and an income past a certain point, or by not participating in certain tax-deductibles. If you don't like it, you are free to move to another nation where the tax practices are different. Governments which do not tax basically do not exist, and are bad places to live.
Also, in this country, violence always came from men who choose to oppose taxes with guns. That is when the state had to respond.
kDest 5 months ago
@kDest
I think that if you think that (lol) violence/theft is not bad, maybe even think it's necessary then there's no reason to convince you otherwise, because you're living in an ideal society.
The point is to practice the non-agression principle in society as a whole.
There is nowhere to move, but that doesn't mean that it would never work.
I think it's the same thing as direct slavery in the past.
Once you get rid of it there's no coming back.
SlipAllCityToy 5 months ago
@SlipAllCityToy
>>I think that if you think that (lol) violence/theft is not bad, maybe even think it's necessary
Have you ever read "The Prince?" You never answered that question.
>>practice the non-agression principle in society as a whole.
The non-aggression principle is defined in such a way as to encourage exploitative behavior and remove the ability of the exploited to seek remuneration. It is a sign of malignant ideology that words must be carefully redefined in the minds of followers.
kDest 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SlipAllCityToy
>>I think that if you think that (lol) violence/theft is not bad, maybe even think it's necessary
Have you ever read "The Prince?" You never answered that question.
>>practice the non-agression principle in society as a whole.
The non-aggression principle is defined in such a way as to encourage exploitative behavior and remove the ability of the exploited to seek remuneration. It is a sign of malignant ideology that words must be carefully redefined in the minds of followers.
kDest 5 months ago
@SlipAllCityToy
>>There is nowhere to move
There is a whole world, or are you telling me that because there is no nation founded on gumdrops, rainbows and tax cuts that you'd rather live here... a nation you despise, and just complain every day about it? You have a choice. You can be a citizen of the United States, and play by its rules, or you can move elsewhere. There is a reason that peaceful, prosperous anarchies do not exist around the world: they do not work long-term.
kDest 5 months ago
@kDest
It's a moral arguement when you're an anarchist, I don't think that those who were for equality between men and women tried to figure out every detail, the sexism there doesn't exist anymore because it was morally wrong and people chose to abonden it.
You're right about there being no nation where there's total free market.
It's being against violence and theft and respecting the right to ownership.
You say this, I say that.
And I'm not from USA and would never live there.
SlipAllCityToy 5 months ago
@SlipAllCityToy
>>It's a moral arguement when you're an anarchist
One can say that, but in practice it is an excuse to be a delinquent who wants a free ride in his or her society. I neglected to check your profile page, which says you are from Finland. The northern European states have some of the best living standards on Earth, and that didn't come from it being free to live there, or there being no state to keep businesses and powerful men under the provisions of law.
kDest 5 months ago
@SlipAllCityToy
>>It's being against violence and theft and respecting the right to ownership.
Property rights are one of the roots of violence. The sense that you own something, and have the entitlement to exclude others from it requires force, and usually violence, to maintain. Anarcho-capitalism takes property rights to their logically absolute, which means that in practice you would have a society of wealthy landowners using violence to keep the poor, the property-less in their place.
kDest 5 months ago
@SlipAllCityToy
once pseudo-transparent and separate law-makers - corporate elite are ying and yang now. The media, TV, internet, radio, advertising etc is all a product of government and corporate entities fighting for fiscal explotation of the lower to working class Americans.
America will become a place where there are two distinct classes - lower poor (80%) to wealth (20%) and very little in between.
PositivelyBored 5 months ago
The reason that dictionaries define anarchy as violent and chaotic is because that is what you get when you have no authority maintaining order in a society, or when you have competing authorities in the same society trying to take control of the entire society.
It does not matter how many intellectuals or pacifists you can claim support anarchy. The facts are that an anarchy is unstable, repressive, and most certainly not a desirable place to live.
Try learning basic politics or power.
kDest 5 months ago
wow that is the most real definition of anarchy ive ever heard >.< well done!!
Metal8Lover 6 months ago
anarchism will just couse tribism and violences ist stupid to and belive do ahve to be governed becouse the human race is evil and evius and will do bad things to other people
emilio124567 8 months ago
@emilio124567 the fact that you used "evil" to describe humanity leads me to believe you are religious therefore a creationist, the most ignorant and hard headed people on this planet, so don't try to enforce you idea of right and wrong or "good and evil". you clearly cannot grasp the concept so just recoil into your pathetic naive sheep skin and maybe swing by abercrombie I hear they have a sale this weekend.
ErehEmanRuoy 8 months ago
@ErehEmanRuoy lol im VERY VERY VERY anti religous i beleive in msot rules by anton lavey but i acociete myself more with freidrich niecht god is dead and the super human idea
and the human race is evil and most people are let only by their will to get more money follow fashions and not really think ;) theyd kill people just to get more
emilio124567 8 months ago
@ErehEmanRuoy and how the hell does evil make me a creationist?? O.o lol thats like saying hi and cuz person says hi u can already find their life and how they live it makes no sense?? LOL!!!! seriusly LOL!!!
emilio124567 8 months ago
@ErehEmanRuoy and u could deduct im a religus person just cuz i said evil when the human race is evil veiolent prejudice and just mainly violent
even tho i have a dimmu borgir pik?
emilio124567 8 months ago
@ErehEmanRuoy and anarchy will never work people are way to uneducated itl just be battle for the fitsest like the animals we all are
emilio124567 8 months ago
I think the first thing you need to do is find a new name for this political moment. because the word Anarchy is as tainted as the word Natzi
JoCatofCatLand 8 months ago
@DanteMcSparda "Anarcho"-capitalism is an oxymoron. It's as absurd as "anarcho-statism" or "anarcho-fascism". Anarchism is by definition anti-capitalist. To deny that is to deny the entire history of the anarchist movement.
VanDoodah 8 months ago
ur anarchy and chaos argument is a little lame... I believe anarchy will rather bring peace instead of chaos indeed, but dont tell the world who are anarchists aswell to convince them... status doesnt matter in an anarchist society, so who gives a fuck who's an anarchist and who's not
punkunite123 8 months ago
Great series, great music! The music makes it :)
bjarczyk 9 months ago
For more info, Google: An Anarchist FAQ
Against Capitalism. Against the State.
For Freedom, Equality, and Solidarity!
VictusMortuum 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
All self-styled "anarchists" should read George Orwell's "Animal Farm" to see where their actions will ultimately lead them! Orwell was a socialist who went to Spain for the Civil War where he was disillusioned by what he saw. See his "Homage to Catalonia". Anarchy leads to disorder, disorder to chaos, chaos to a mass desire for a return to order and control-which ultimately ends in fascism!!
ha6ni6el6 1 minute ago
ha6ni6el6 9 months ago
I'm probably missing the point, but it seems to be that in any society of human beings who intend to live together that some form of structure must evolve. The structure must be for the greatest good of the greatest number & all who wish for an orderly society will, by mutual consent evolve rules. Otherwise buses and trains would only travel if & when the driver felt like it! There would be no need for police because there would be no criminals! Really?
ha6ni6el6 9 months ago
@ha6ni6el6 U're missing the point, human's psychology = made by the genes mixed with environment. so what's relivant has to do with the environment u're in. This society is based on individualism instead of solidarity. If media changes (when the bigmen have dissapeared obvious), and people start to think, it will lead to change and cooperation. busses and trains would still go on cos work doesnt mean work as we know it now. we wouldnt need police cos the essense of our society's just not violent
punkunite123 8 months ago
@punkunite123 the human race is very violent
emilio124567 8 months ago
@emilio124567 In most societies jep...
punkunite123 7 months ago
I'm probably missing the point, but it seems to be that in any society of human beings who intend to live together that some form of structure must evolve. The structure must be for the greatest good of the greatest number and all who wish for an orderly society will, by mutual consent evolve rules. Otherwise buses and trains would only travel if & when the driver felt like it! There would be no need for police because there would be no criminals! That society develops rules for behaviour
ha6ni6el6 9 months ago
I like the last part., educate ourselves, not the government nor the public school systems. Fuck em both.
connerjd 10 months ago
Though I understand how the anarchist would have moral objections to anarcho-capitalism, I see no reason why the anarcho-capitalist should be morally opposed to anarchism. In order for a society to be truly anarchistic, most people living in that society will have to be anarchists by choice. That is to say, they must actually want to transform their society and abolish hierarchy without initiating force.
Huesos138 10 months ago
I have a friend who is an anarchist and i agree with alot of the views like everyone should be equal and there shouldnt be a hierachy (no idea on the spelling) but can this work? with out a government how would things be run and control be kept? If i agree with most of the things but not about the government what does that make me?
Im just looking to be educated on the facts, any replys would be appreciated thanks.
kebbs56 10 months ago
Even though Marxism is about the state and a political party for the middle class and Anarchism is about Egalitarianism, I would argue that both ideologies would lead our race to the best of all possible worlds. As a social-anarchist, I think that it only makes sense to not enforce either ideology, but educate people on how consumerism and the free market are not only ruining our planet, but the main causes of poverty, which, will end up in violent revolution against the first world.
minmisaloser 10 months ago
I think that the theory of Anarchism sounds nice and all. But we as humans wouldn't be able to handle it. It just wouldn't work.
Justsomeguy18x 11 months ago
@Justsomeguy18x Ummm what? If you can handle this authoritarian rule that you currently live under, then an anarchistic society will be a quite pleasurable cakewalk for you and many others.
SpiderShane1 10 months ago
@SpiderShane1 But how am i supposed to know if the other guy that wants anarchism will be able to handle it. It would turn into lord of the flies.
Justsomeguy18x 10 months ago
@Justsomeguy18x Be able to handle what?
SpiderShane1 10 months ago
@SpiderShane1 Be able to handle the total freedom of no authority
Justsomeguy18x 10 months ago
Replace every mention of the word anarchism in this video by marxism. This video serie is marxism 101.
MrMaxBoivin 1 year ago
@MrMaxBoivin Wow, that's probably the most ignorant comment so far!
DannyOKC 1 year ago 16
@DannyOKC Redistribution or resources, abolition of the state, syndicalisation, no propriety right, power to the people, abolition of the wage system... May be you can explain me how this is not Marxism? Also, how will you enforce all these on people without the use of violence?
MrMaxBoivin 1 year ago
@MrMaxBoivin No maybe you should open a fucking book and learn for your self what Marxism is and how anarchism is not Marxism why are you so fucking lazy. You need some one to explain shit to you all the time, little baby? You are wrong, go get the facts then come and criticizes with something that makes sense.
N0g0dzN0masterz 11 months ago
@DannyOKC The lack of a response is telling, coming from a fellow anarchist, this is very much the rhetoric of the marxists so far.
Spalg 1 year ago
@MrMaxBoivin that makes no sense, you forgot the main important point: WE don't want to replace the power by another bunch of keen-on-power-people, who are for sure getting corrupted by this power and then stick to their position instead of leading the project to a free society- as we all can see in former "projects" like russia at al. and i think, this series is rather wellmdone for the "beginning thinker", just to get some arses kicked upon taking a book and start reading and thinking...
anarchoskindikalist 6 months ago
Auf dieses Video antworten... very well made, mr. danyOKC- i can`'t describe, how much i'm pleased with the nice way, you combine that with my most favourite music- ska, rocksteady, reggae... so keep on keepin' on, mate- up the social revolution!
anarchoskindikalist 6 months ago
@MrMaxBoivin Marxism is an economic and sociopolitical worldview and method of socioeconomic inquiry that centers upon a materialist interpretation of history, a dialectical view of social change, and an analysis and critique of the development of capitalism.
tph2010 2 months ago
If you haven't read any books on the subject, your comments are worthless.
DannyOKC 1 year ago 5
Anarchism wasn't invented by some philosopher, not even Proudhon invented it he merely discovered thoughts and tendencies among the people themselves, specified them and gave it a name. These thoughts and tendencies have existed possibly since the dawn of Man. Anarchism is not merely anti-statism but anti-authority.
neoptolemus 1 year ago
The word Anarchy comes from the greek word "Αναρχία",which means without authority. It has nothing to do with chaos and disorder, when something can be done about the people that only take what they want without wanting to give something, or some service in return
Notis59 1 year ago
@Notis59 True, very Nice. It'd be gd if those in positions of power ie:able to declare war, human test, destroy whole eco-systems due a spill or leak, etc..
were able to clearly see(beyond immediate agenda's/authoritative nudging ) the chaos & disorder of their anarchic? actions.
meuandthelot 1 year ago
@meuandthelot Exactly! the ones with the power are the ones without someone to control them & question their actions. But who can do that? U? or I? NOT! we are few, far apart & with no power other than writing messages to each other.
Notis59 1 year ago
Thanks Marcus. It's nice to know you've been taught to repeat the ideas of others without actually thinking about them for yourself.
DannyOKC 1 year ago 7
Intellectuals could could hold an anarchist society, but anarchy is an ideal, which like communism will never work due to human nature.
marcuskoncar 1 year ago
@marcuskoncar poor human nature what horrible crimes have been committed in thy name - Emma Goldman
N0g0dzN0masterz 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dr. Chomsky recently told Iranian TV that at the time the USA attacked Afghanistan they had no evidence that al Qaeda did 9/11. See my video "Chomsky on Faith-based Wars and 9/11"
punxsutawneybarney 1 year ago
The way i look at it, if an anarchist society was made it would not last because other country would conquer it. Or a group of comunist would rise up there and evoke fear Also I'm sure people would visit there just to do bad things without consequences. These are just my thoughts I call my self a Libertarian. (Only govermeant for protection) but can anyone educated me on this?
NickSkate7 1 year ago
@NickSkate7 I am also a libertarian. Well, once I'm old enough to register that is. There has long been a dispute among the party regarding anarchism vs. minarchism. A minarchistic society would provide a government strictly for the purposes of protecting individual rights and maintaining order. As this video, anarchism seeks order. This, in my mind, exists in a minarchist form. Power structures will always naturally form, even if there is no true source of authority. It is a basic necessity.
musicallycorrect94 1 year ago
@NickSkate7 However, this is nothing to worry about. The anarchism that most sane and intellectual anarchists propose(like the creator of this video) is really minarchism in theory. There would be some degree of organization with a basic law system run solely by the people that was enforced by the people. People would be given the same rights as in an anarchist society: the freedom from heavy taxation and government intrusion, and the freedom to do as they please if it doesn't harm others.
musicallycorrect94 1 year ago
@NickSkate7 Actually, if you're still confused just read Robert Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia. It's a good read.
musicallycorrect94 1 year ago
@musicallycorrect94 Thanks for explaining that. It sounds a lot like the libertarian philosophy of "do what you as long as it doesn't harm and or negatively effect others." Although it seems like this anarchist society could only exist with a group of intellectuals. I'm definitely going to look deeper into this though. I'll be sure to read that book once i finish up Ron Pauls " A Revolution A Manifesto" which I would also recommend.
NickSkate7 1 year ago
@musicallycorrect94 Thanks for taking the time to explain that. It sounds a lot like the the Libertarian philosophy of "Do what you want as long as it doesn't harm and or negatively effect another individual." I'm starting to understand this more, although it seems it would take a group of intellectuals to make an anarchist society work. I'm definitely going to look into this though, and I'll definitely try to read that book you're talking about. Right after I finish up Ron Pauls book.
NickSkate7 1 year ago
@NickSkate7 It is good isn't it? I bought it a few weeks ago with a borders gift card I got for christmas. I've only had time to read half because of school but I plan to finish it with my next long break. Ron Paul is the man.
musicallycorrect94 1 year ago
@musicallycorrect94 Absolutely I wish I could vote for him 2012. He's one of the very few politicians I actually respect. He inspired to pursue possibly a career in political science. I got his old book though A Revolution A Manifesto, it's still relevant today though. I too got a gift card for a book store and I'll probably get that book your talking about unless I go with a philosopher William Lane Craig.
NickSkate7 1 year ago
@NickSkate7 You are probably the most similar person to me that I've seen on youtube. I also plan to major in political science along with journalism. Ron Paul is the first politician to really speak to me. I feel you dude. Fight on!
musicallycorrect94 1 year ago
@musicallycorrect94 Awesome right back at you, I'm just surprised your not a troll or idiot like everyone else on youtube lol
NickSkate7 1 year ago
anarchism, communism, Fascism, etc.. political extremes never work
JuanofArk 1 year ago
@JuanofArk Snap judgments are stupid.
vaguelyhumanoid 1 year ago
@DannyOKC "An anarchic society is a society without government, a stateless society, or a voluntary society. If this socialist society you described is achieved and maintained by initiating force, then it is not anarchy; it is a government."
I agree this guy is a socialist, and should be pretty happy in the current US system.
Dawgtha 1 year ago
I can not find an exact definition of Anarchism. What is Anarchism?
qwertypoiu4321 1 year ago
I would much rather have anarchy, than socialism, or communism. BTW Anarchy is totally different from socialism. What you describe is not anarchy.
Tigerpunch134 1 year ago
@Tigerpunch134 Totally different? Anarchy is simply stateless socialism.
hesteaeble 1 year ago
Proper government is 100% laissez-faire capitalist and/or 100% volunteerist libertarian. It has zero regulation of economic, social, and personal behavior. I have NEVER heard of a coherent argument for anarchism. How can people live in cooperation and harmony if their institutions of force, and anti-criminality, and protection of life, liberty, and property, disagree?
PureLiberalFire 1 year ago
in the old days communities would take care of each other instead of the government taking care of the whole country. I believe in this.
SkankinRobots 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
These people are MASSIVE supporters of the State. They are Socialists!
Everything should be Voluntary, the EXACT opposite of Communism/Fascism.
qwertypoiu4321 1 year ago
Ha.
watermel0n5 1 year ago
when u take responsibility away from the individual,you create less capable people.while a somewhat socialist system may exist within a family or community of anarchists it exists because of the cyclical nature of opposites.for example an isolationist can also be viewed as a collectivist.if some1 is sustainable and self managed,he doesnt burden those around him adding to the greater good.not that anarchists are isolationists.
miserkocho 1 year ago
This is SOCIALISM. ANARCHISM simply means NO GOVERNMENT it doesn't mean providing people with all their basic needs and wants equally. THAT IS SOCIALISM. Why are Anarchism and Socialism confused as the same thing. I'm an Anarchist. I don't have a desire to make everyone rich. I don't like private property and I don't like people who don't work for themselves and want help. I don't believe in helping the world. am I a "bad" Anarchist or a "bad" Socialist. You make the call.
eatadicc 1 year ago
@eatadicc If you had ever read any of the major documents of anarchism, i.e. those books and pamphlets written by those men and women whose very ideas and actions comprise what we know as anarchism, you'd know that almost all of them were socialists, and that anarchism has always been primarily a socialist movement.
DannyOKC 1 year ago 3
@DannyOKC You assume that I haven't read anything about anarchism because I interpret it differently. Your world view isn't the only that is correct. You should read about post-left anarchy you might gain a better understanding of what I am suggesting.
eatadicc 1 year ago
@DannyOKC An anarchic society is a society without government, a stateless society, or a voluntary society. If this socialist society you described is achieved and maintained by initiating force, then it is not anarchy; it is a government.
fnuzzoiv 1 year ago 8
@fnuzzoiv No shit. Have you seen the videos?
DannyOKC 1 year ago 5
@DannyOKC Not all of them, just this one. I just get the idea that you are against anarcho-capitalism. Would you support the initiate force to prevent anarcho-capitalism? I'm OK if you want to have your voluntary commune as long as you respect my property rights and right to trade freely.
fnuzzoiv 1 year ago
@fnuzzoiv Let me guess, you read a couple of books by that pseudo-intellectual cunt Rothbard and now you think that you are an authority on political philosophy? There is more to morality than the "non-aggression principle" and anarchy is by definition socialistic in nature. A capitalist society could never be anarchic.
VanDoodah 8 months ago
@DannyOKC Well, that is a matter of some debate. Anarchism might be more accurately depicted as mutualist in its original form.
Note that merely being original doesn't grant any value added when it comes to value assessments. Furthermore in modern times it most certainly is not primarily a socialist movement. Perhaps in Europe it still is.
However the links and contributions of socialism to anarchism shouldnt be dismissed out of hand. Hopefully we agree there.
mongoose704 1 year ago
@eatadicc
Synonym for anarchism is... libertarian socialism.
GodOfTheInternets 1 year ago
@eatadicc "Freedom without Socialism is privilege. Socialism without freedom is tyranny." -Lenin
In other words, All Anarchists are Socialists by the common Anarchist ideology. Not all Socialists, however, are Anarchists.
codarkstarxx13 1 year ago 2
@codarkstarxx13 awesome!
jasonqlwilliams 1 year ago
Anarcho-Capitalists actually DO want a survival-of-the-fittest society.
Not that that matters to us Anarcho-Syndicalists.
soyousay18 1 year ago
Comment removed
curiositygun93 1 year ago
Anarchist Communism, the greatest idea in my book
zonezonezone123456 1 year ago
@zonezonezone123456
There is no anarcho-communism. Anarchy is based on a lack of regulation. Communism is based on regulation.
Plozen 1 year ago
There is a theory of Anarcho- Communism
Peter Kropotkin anyone??
google "Anarchist Communism" and click on 4th link, really good article
TheFragrance1992 1 year ago
@TheFragrance1992
I know that there is a theory but it is not technically anarchy. Anarchy is defined as "rule by no one" this would mean there could not be laws in effect or there would not be true anarchy. Communism requires the regulation of various items.
Although some Communist "dictators" have had some good ideas before (IE giving back to the poor) they were generally not pure-Communists.
Plozen 1 year ago
@Plozen I would love if you had said "Communist" dictators instead of communist "dictators"
hesteaeble 1 year ago
Anarchists are our comrades, our allies against the imperialist machine that controls this world and makes it miserable
DOWN WITH CAPITALISM/ IMPERIALISM.
TheFragrance1992 1 year ago
I'm with you on pretty much every point except the beginning where you conflate anarchy with egalitarianism. I see a difference between the equal right to pursue something (liberty) and the equal right to have something (unethical wealth redistribution). Nice video though!
rmcdaniel423 1 year ago
and what if their are elites? eventually the "ideal anarchist " society would just riot due to a group of pioneering pseudo-megalomaniacs who are anarchist and want control therefore becoming no better than the government powers that they once opposed. the contradictory paradox is that chaos means disorder not malice but to say that a society would have order without any form of order is ridiculous.
trueChaos23 1 year ago
A lot of these Anarchists latey I talk to seen to have twisted the whole theory into an Anarch-commie scenerio, and these people are usually the ones living off the gov't via food stamps and housing etc. This is Anarchism? Has anyone else noticed this phenom? Somehow being pro gov't regulated healthcare is a step toward anarchy via communist ideals? Sounds more to me like Anarcho-commies want their cake and to eat it too.
TheHippy9009 1 year ago
@TheHippy9009 Anarch-commie's? Whats wrong with that? As far as i can make out from what I've read, historicaly, Anarchists and Communists (of the anti state variety) share a lot of common ground. Anarchist Communism or Anarcho-Communism seems to me to be a far more legit ideology than say Capitalist Anarchism. However I'm aware I'm comming from a european perspective. America does have a greater sense of individualism.
almanacofsleep 1 year ago
Comment removed
TheHippy9009 1 year ago
"The Elite are able to study, travel, and enjoy a great degree of entertainment"
You could too if you fucking worked for it! I was an anarchist for maybe 2 years, an it wasn't until I realized how fucking stupid the rest of them were that I switched over to direct democracy. You live in the US or another first world country, you are ABLE to enjoy more than millions of others. Stop being a whiny bitch and work for it.
Plozen 1 year ago
@Plozen youre saying that everyone has equal chance to be rich? What about people who cant work even if they wanted? why am i better than them?
"You could too if you fucking worked for it! I was an anarchist for maybe 2 years"
bullshit.
Realjhad 1 year ago
@Realjhad
If people can't work then they can be supported by the state. That is not communism, it is socialism.
If people choose not to work then they deserve poverty. If we lived in an anarchaic world, there would be no government to take care of the disabled or those otherwise unable to work. It would be whoever works the hardest or steals the most lives the most comfortably.
Do not confuse Anarchy with Communism. They are two very different, but equally stupid, ideas.
Plozen 1 year ago
@Plozen ". It would be whoever works the hardest or steals the most lives the most comfortably." wait isnt this called capitalism, anyway you dont even know how anarchist society would work.
Realjhad 1 year ago
@Realjhad
Because, I hate to be "This guy" but anarchy would be chaos. Communications would shut down. Then people would start organizing to help each other. After a while, society would just reform and there would be corrupt people again anyways, and how would you stop them if they started making laws? The amount that would organize outnumber those that would not.
Capitalism is not perfect, but it does work.
Plozen 1 year ago
something like the society that venus project suggest i guess.....
andoylini 1 year ago
yet another banging tune
good stuff
natmanprime 1 year ago
so, what's the difference between this and communism
EnergizerBunny804 1 year ago
HELL YEAH!!! THE SKATALITES!!
SoulfoolVersion 1 year ago
what would an anarchist vote? on the left or right?
MargitHjukse 1 year ago
@MargitHjukse
Not at all.
rosawasright 1 year ago
I recognize that you claim to not want crimes like violence, robbery and the sort but, in an anarchist "state", what is keeping people from doing these things, besides a moral opposition held by society.
in my opinion, anarchy can only work in small units where behavior can be controlled through communal restrictions which, ultimately, creates a system of laws that limit a person's freedom.
What's the difference between anarchy and a minimalist government?
MrAmericaPie 1 year ago
@MrAmericaPie Anarchism does not believe in "freedoms" like killing. There are limits in anarchism. What there is not is "state" (government). That's the difference.
velero24 1 year ago
basiclly i prefer the term of social violence towards goverment buildings, banks and the so called brutal police force(dont know how they call that outside in greece they call it mat)
cranki3don 1 year ago
I can't really understand how there can be something-anarchism or anarcho-something-ism, it's like saying I am a Buddhist atheist?? Am I misunderstanding something?
falcon731boy 1 year ago
@falcon731boy
Yes, you're misunderstanding. There are a number of different trains of thought in anarchism - just in the same way that there are in capitalism. Capitalists might describe themselves as "free-market capitalists", "liberal capitalists", so on so forth. You get the picture.
Anarchists are agreed roughly where we want to go. The -communist/-syndicalist/-etc. bit describes where exactly and/or how.
PS. I hear some people do identify as atheist Buddhists btw!
rosawasright 1 year ago
True anarchy is a society in which people are completely free to do what they want without the fear of retribution form a governmental entity. As soon as one organized group of people start using force and coercion over the totality of a population you no longer have a state of anarchy and now have some form of government. You are not an anarchist. You are a socialist idealist. And Noam Chomsky as a philosophy that is a complete contradiction so stop thinking he's a great intellectual.
Brak2002 1 year ago
@Brak2002
"And Noam Chomsky as a philosophy that is a complete contradiction so stop thinking he's a great intellectual."
Are you going to try and substantiate this by putting forward any counter-arguments, or are you just gonna throw this out there and expect everyone to swallow it unquestioningly?
rosawasright 1 year ago
This is called democratic socialism. This type of society can only be considered anarchy if everyone (and I mean everyone) agrees to voluntarily work for the greater good of the community over themselves. If you have one dissenter then you must use force and coercion in order to properly provide for the majority. This is no longer anarchy. You have now installed a socialist form of government which will, as history has shown us, eventually lead to totalitarian control.
Brak2002 1 year ago
@Brak2002
Several points:
1) You need to read up some more on how an anarchist vision of society proposes to deal with an absence of consensus (dissent).
2) You need to read up on some history. Just generally speaking.
3) You need to understand that socialism != "totalitarianism". Housing and feeding people free of charge != GULAGs or show trials.
rosawasright 1 year ago
Anarchy is defined as "a state of society without government or law"
Government is defined as "the form or system of rule by which a state, community, etc., is governed"
What you call "anarchy" is not anarchy. You wish to live under a completely democratic society where the majority rules the minority. You believe people have a "right" to housing, food, clothing, health care, etc. so you would say that your democratic society will provide those necessities.
Brak2002 1 year ago
@Brak2002
'Anarchy is defined as "a state of society without government or law"'
No. Anarchy is societal organisation without hierarchies. Look at the word construction. "An-", Ancient Greek for "without" (as in apolitical - not political) and "archy", Ancient Greek for "leader/chief" (as in monarchy - one ruler).
OED defines it: "A theoretical social state in which there is no governing person or body of persons, but each individual has absolute liberty (without implication of disorder)."
rosawasright 1 year ago
An anarchist community would be made of anarchists, just as a rock band is made of people who want to play rock music. Why would people go to the trouble of forming a group only to let someone in who didn't fit and didn't want to be there anyway? Would you let a bad person or assassin or bully move in with you? If not, why would a group of anarchists do as such? Those people you mention most likely don't even know what anarchism is. To think they'd join an anarchist community makes no sense.
DannyOKC 1 year ago
@DannyOKC Anarchism doesn't come from "chaos" in comes from "an-archos"- "without ruler".
unclesamfatg 1 year ago
@DannyOKC
Ever noticed how the anarchist solution for everything is to dress up in black and bash shit up when they're unhappy? You would not be living in a perfect society.
Plozen 1 year ago
How do you controle bad people then? Like bully's,assassins,thiefs,... And who is going to judge if those people are bad or not?
TheManimal87 1 year ago
@TheManimal87: It appears you don't have an understanding of anarchism....It's about freedom from government and then separation into hundreds or thousands of small communities....the people would naturally do what's best for their respective communities. Their could, in theory still be rules to allow the community to succeed...if somebody commits a murder, he or she is dealt with by people in whatever way they think benefits the community....there would be no "judges"
bairhsnyva 1 year ago
@TheManimal87 The guys who solve this matter are scientests and physicians, they would keep doing their job organizing themselves (they are very smart), . The judgement would be formed by a people's committee but without earning more money, food or whatever, and if "bad boys" refuse the veredict we can send the kung fu or karate practitioners. Have you ever organize with your friends to do something? it's just the same way
velero24 1 year ago
At which point you would see the rise and fall of yet another "civilization"...
How can people have their rights respected if there is no monetary gain in order to ensure that no one is cheated out of their fair share...
People still have to work to get to a foreign country...Its only more paliable an idea now because people can simply use MONEY as a means of displaying their works bennifits which in turn allows them the means with which to travel...
AnarchistRebelIion 2 years ago
It isn't money that carries you round the world. It is the labour of many.
Would people stop working when there is no money to restrict what they can or can't eat, drink, read, watch, listen to, or indeed where they travel?
Do people stop baking bread when hyperinflation makes it unprofitable to do so?
Do people build homeless shelters because they can make a buck out of it? What makes others not build more of those shelters? Economic restrictions and monetarily-lubricated greed.
rosawasright 1 year ago
How I do support the anarchist theory, you have to take into account that people who counter our movement like to criticize us for not explaining how all people's would achieve their heart's desire simply by all laws being broken down...
In an Anarchist "society", there would be no laws preventing people from grouping up and supressing other peoples (this is what happened at the beggining of time). These groups would eventually become larger and more influential until they were challanged...
AnarchistRebelIion 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
AngryAnarchist . Com
JohnnyJamesGang 2 years ago
I don't understand. Where between 'an' and 'archos' does it say all these things? Forgive me for asking, but isn't this pure and simple Communism.
rotteklo 2 years ago
Perhaps you should read a few books written by anarchists.
DannyOKC 2 years ago
I m an anarchist and i bielieve in survival of the fittest. I am insulted.
Crazycuriosities 2 years ago
"survival of the fittest" is an extremely terrible and selfish idea. you might as well just kill all children if you really believe in that shit.
jrhcp31 2 years ago
The unfit will die if the fit do not support them. Why should we help those who do not help us. It is best to let them die before they breed.
Help only those who help themselves.
Crazycuriosities 2 years ago
well lets see...young children cannot help themselves. so we should kill children? and what about handicapped people?
jrhcp31 2 years ago
Kill no one who does not mess with you. Help no one you do not think deserves it. Just leave people alone. People should take care of thier own children or not have sex. Handicapped, if you cannot support yourself in a nonphisical way tough luck.
Crazycuriosities 2 years ago
@Crazycuriosities same way i think dude y do we keep tards and handicapable ppl alive anyway
ArmyRussianRanger 2 years ago
i have to agree with you. yeah it sucks that handicapped people have to die. but hey tough titty said the kitty. people die all the time from totally random events
loganwill7 2 years ago
you sound really capitalist, hope you understand that it doesnt matter if your black or white, fascist or even crapitalist, you are a human and because you are a human a have the obligation of helping you when you need it just for the fact that you are a human.
tumaieslaflaca 2 years ago
I have no obligation to anybody just becuase they are human. If i choose to help someone that is a choice. Nobody has the obligation to helpp bums and losers just becuase they have similar DNA
Crazycuriosities 2 years ago
@Crazycuriosities why you bringing eugenics into this? That has nothing to do with anarchism. Mabey your a bit confused?
almanacofsleep 1 year ago
natures been fucking around with the idea of survival of the fittest for awhile now.
Without survival of the fittest you wouldn't exist to talk shit on the internet you fucking moron.
samsmith09 2 years ago
Alright I can't watch anymore. Socialism would get all of those things you mention to everyone, not anarchy. Crimes occur everywhere, everyday, in a democratic society. Luckily for us, these criminals are kept in check by the police service that keeps us all safe. Get rid of them, and Bad people are free to do what they want. Unless of course the rest of society can kill them. A gang would easily take over the city.
Vintexen 2 years ago
theorically the people would form a militia asainst the gang, althugh as implied before this is theorical and could as well not happen
tumaieslaflaca 2 years ago
niceee!!!
ELIOTV10 2 years ago
As for "chaos" and "violence", just take a look at the world today. Social and financial chaos, criminal and military violence. Not anarchy, in fact more use of invasive power than ever... and more chaotic and violent than ever.
steveowen427 2 years ago
I fucking love the skatalites! cool video!
jakemanns 2 years ago
every Country in the would would have to be dismantled at the same time.
The corrupt would have to give up their thirst for power, and; the stupid would have to acknowledge that they can't have more than they are worth.
Only after all this happens can anarchism or communism ever work.
So there is no chance even though it is a beautiful idea.
redicedragon 2 years ago 2
c this is the part all anarchists dont understand like u said like if one country US for exaple became an anarchists country there will still be the tyrants and dictatorsi n other countrys who will just c us then as a new place to corupt and take controll of so yes i may be an anarchists but i know its guna be very hard to get things the way we want them but still u dont need to be so down about it if people start to all belive it is not a posibility only then will it not be posible....
that1kid12345 2 years ago
i can sum up anarchism very simply and i think it covers absolutly everything
no hierarchy!
Aeon135 2 years ago 7
No, that is chaos. Anarchism can be organized and structured. Anarchism is removal of non-voluntary authority. Removing all forms of hierarchy is impossible.
trehansen 2 years ago 5